Environmental Agriculture Assessment ... -...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service August 2016

Environmental Assessment

Sandy Creek Project Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Habitat Improvement and Longleaf Pine Restoration Angelina/Sabine Ranger District, National Forests and Grasslands in Texas, Angelina and Jasper Counties, Texas

For Information Contact: Jason Engle 111 Walnut Ridge Road

(936) 639-8559 http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/texas

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,

age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status,

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political

beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived

from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,

etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and

TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director,

Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC

20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

i

Table of Contents

Summary ............................................................................................................................................. iii

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Document Structure .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Proposed Action ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Decision Framework .................................................................................................................................................. 8 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Issues ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Alternatives ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Alternatives’ Descriptions ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Design Criteria and Monitoring Common to All Alternatives ................................................................................. 24 Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................................................... 27

Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences................................................................. 28

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ...................................................................................................... 28 Management Indicator Species ................................................................................................................................. 46 Economics ................................................................................................................................................................ 54 Roads ..................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Visual Quality & Recreation .................................................................................................................................... 58 Heritage Resources ................................................................................................................................................... 62 Soil ..................................................................................................................................................................... 62 Vegetation & Silviculture ......................................................................................................................................... 68 Old Growth ............................................................................................................................................................... 71 Climate Change ........................................................................................................................................................ 72 Air ..................................................................................................................................................................... 72

Consultation & Coordination ............................................................................................................ 73

Liturature Cited .................................................................................................................................. 75

Appendix A: Threatened, endangared and Sensitive Species distribution and habitat. .............. 81

Appendix B. Management Indicator Species Evaluation. ............................................................... 88

ii

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1. Desired vs. Existing Conditions .................................................................................................................... 6

Table 2. Compartments total acres and treatment acres.................................................................................. 12

Table 3. Lists the compartments, stand numbers, acres, ages, forest types, existing pine and hardwood (Hwd) square feet of basal area (BA) per acre, and the proposed actions. ....... 12

Table 4. Comparison of alternatives. ........................................................................................................................ 27

Table 5. Threatened, Endangered, and Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species within the vicinity of the project area that could potentially be impacted by the proposed activities. .................. 29

Table 6. Management Indicator Species and Habitat Type selected for evaluation that have not already been addressed in other sections. ........................................................................................... 47

Table 7. Eastern wild turkey open habitat improvements compared between alternatives. These open areas would provide nesting and brooding habitat for eastern wild turkeys. ............ 49

Table 8. Comparison of Estimated Costs and Returns ...................................................................................... 55

Table 9. Soil map units and associated characteristics. .................................................................................... 66

Table 10. Management alternatives effects of acreage and percent area. ................................................ 67

Table 11. Percent acres of pine forest within treatment areas by stand type. ......................................... 69

Table 12. Current age class distribution. ............................................................................................................... 69

Figure 1. Sandy Creek Project vicinity map. .......................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. These pictures are examples of areas to be treated. The picture on the left represents a

longleaf pine stand that would be thinned. The picture on the right represents a young a loblolly pine plantation that would be cut out and regenerated to longleaf pine. ............... 12

Figure 3. Sandy Creek Project modified proposed actions (Alternative 2). ............................................. 17 Figure 4. Treatment areas for Alternatives 3 and 4. .......................................................................................... 19 Figure 5. Proposed midstory treatment areas for Alternative 3 (and Alt. 4). ......................................... 20 Figure 6. These pictures represent areas that could be considered for clumps, which would be less

than 0.1 to 5 acres patches with higher basal areas (BA) per acre. The picture on the left shows an area with steep slopes, near SMZs, and that has mixed pine-hardwood vegetation. The picture on the right shows a clump of relic longleaf pines that could be left un-thinned or lightly thinned. Areas chosen as clumps would usually retain greater than 100 pine BA per acre. ........................................................................................................................ 21

Figure 7. These pictures represent areas that could be considered for gaps because of grassy herbaceous understory and natural longleaf pine regeneration. Areas chosen as gaps would be thinned below 70 basal area (BA) per acre, between 40 to 70 BA per acre. ..... 22

Figure 8. Additional area proposed for longleaf restoration in compartment 73, stand 5. ............... 23 Figure 9. Bachman’s sparrow relative abundance by year for the Angelina National Forest. Values

represent the mean number of species observed per survey point (i.e., it accounts for the number of points surveyed in a given year which may vary). .................................................... 34

Figure 10. Combined Spring Turkey Harvest in Angelina, Houston, Jasper, Nacogdoches, Newton, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, San Jacinto, Trinity, Montgomery and Walker Counties (National Forest Counties) from 1997-2011. .................................................................................... 48

Figure 11. Yellow-breasted chat relative abundance by year for the Angelina National Forest. Values represent the mean number of species observed per survey point (i.e., it accounts for the number of points surveyed in a given year which may vary). ..................................... 51

iii

SUMMARY

The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT) proposes to improve red-cockaded woodpecker habitat (RCW) (Picoides borealis), restore longleaf pine forests, and improve eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo silvestris) habitat. The project area is located south of Sam Rayburn Reservoir within Angelina and Jasper Counties, Texas and is within the Angelina/Sabine Ranger District, National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. This action is needed for the following reasons:

Connect RCW subpopulations on the southern Angelina National Forest by providing habitat for RCW to expand into;

RCW nesting and foraging habitat is currently low quality due to overly dense stands and excessive midstory;

Much of the project area was replanted with loblolly pine in the early to mid-1900s when the native longleaf pine forested communities were cleared; and

The project area has little open habitat for eastern wild turkey, which is needed for nesting and brood rearing.

The proposed action alternatives would improve RCW habitat and provide connectivity between subpopulations, restore longleaf pine, and improve eastern wild turkey habitat.

The Forest Service evaluated the following alternatives:

Alternative 1: No action alternative.

Alternative 2: Modified proposed action.

Alternative 3: Modified midstory, variable thinning, and no wildlife openings.

Alternative 4: Variable thinning (only clumps) and wildlife openings in plantations.

Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the District Ranger will decide which alternative best meets the purpose and need for this proposed project while considering public input along with environmental, social and economic effects.

The District Ranger must also determine if the selected alternative would or would not be a major federal action, significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. If determination is made that this project would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, then a FONSI (Finding of No Significant Impact) would be prepared and the project would proceed. If the District Ranger determines that the selected alternative would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, then an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) and a ROD (Record of Decision) must be prepared and signed before the project may proceed.

Sandy Creek Project Environmental Assessment

1

INTRODUCTION

Document Structure ______________________________

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

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

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

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

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

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Angelina/Sabine Ranger District Office in Zavalla, Texas.

Background _____________________________________

The Sandy Creek Project area is located on the Angelina National Forest in compartments 73, 74, 75 and 78 (Figure 1). The project area is within the South Angelina Habitat Management Area (HMA) for red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW). The Sandy Creek Project area is located in Management Area (MA) 6 – Longleaf Ridge Special Area, MA 4 – Streamside Management Zones, and MA 9a – Developed Recreation Sites (1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas as amended (the Plan), (pgs 96-134, 153-161, 168-179 & 262-276). Monitoring on the Angelina National Forest from 2005 to 2015 indicates that


2

RCW potential breeding groups (PBGs) increased from 31 to 65 PBGs. However, the Sandy Creek Project area has only four PBGs.

One of the goals for the NFGT is to restore the longleaf pine ecosystem that existed in the Southeastern United States prior to the massive logging that went on during the early 1900s. Based on the most recent inventory of the Sandy Creek Project area, the forest is currently composed of the following broad forest type percentages:

Loblolly pine – 53%

Longleaf pine – 39%

Shortleaf pine – 8%

Oak-hickory – 0.1%

According to the Ecological Classification System (ECS), longleaf pine was the most common land-type phase forest community in the Sandy Creek Project area. Planting, natural regeneration, and suppression of fire probably accounts for the extensive loblolly presence in the area.

During 2013, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) presented a habitat suitability model to the public for the purpose of improving habitat that would lead to successful restocking of Eastern wild turkey in East Texas. The previous stocking efforts did not lead to self-sustained turkey populations and it was determined that is was in part because of suboptimal habitat.


3

Figure 1. Sandy Creek Project vicinity map.

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

A n g e l i n aA n g e l i n a

J a s p e rJ a s p e r

S a n A u g u s t i n eS a n A u g u s t i n e

T y l e rT y l e r

S a b i n eS a b i n e

N a c o g d o c h e sN a c o g d o c h e s

P o l kP o l k

Etoile

Zavalla

Bronson

Rockland

Broaddus

Huntington

Rayburn Country

Shawnee Prairie

US0069

SH0063

FM

210

9

FM

084

4

SH0147

SH0103

FM1669

FM1818

FM1270

FM0328

FM2743

FM3124 FM3123

Comp.73

Comp.75Comp.74

Comp.78

Angelina National Forest

Sandy Creek Project

Vicinity Map

.0 5 102.5Miles

Sandy Creek Project

Disclaimer:

The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available.

GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They may be: developed from sources of

differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation,

incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other

than those, for which they were created, may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The

Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace, GIS products

without notification. For more information, contact:

USDA Forest Service

National Forests and Grasslands in Texas

December 2014

Legend

State Highways

Project Area

Sam Rayburn Reservior

FS lands


4

Purpose and Need for Action _______________________

The purpose of this initiative is to improve RCW habitat, restore longleaf pine forests, and improve eastern wild turkey habitat. This action is needed, because future RCW population growth in this project area is dependent upon reducing pine stand density and midstory vegetation. The current pine density exceeds what is described in the 2003 Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan, Second Revision (USFWS 2003) and 1996 Revised Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas, as amended (the Plan) for foraging and nesting habitats. The RCW Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003) and the Plan specifies that…

These stands should contain no more than 70 square feet per acre of basal area (BA) in total,

Good quality foraging habitat has some large old pines, low densities of small and medium pines, sparse or no hardwood midstory, and a bunchgrass and forb groundcover, and

Provide each RCW group a minimum of 120 acres of good quality foraging habitat per cluster. (Forest Plan Amendment #7, MA-2-80-4.1 Foraging Habitat Management – General, pg. 1), (USFWS 2003, pgs. 188 - 189).

These areas have been prescribed burned in the past, but the midstory has surpassed the size at which they may be effectively controlled by fire. The actions are also need in order to restore longleaf pine ecosystem that existed prior to the massive logging during the early 1900’s, and to provide more open habitats for eastern wild turkey.

Improving Habitat for RCW

Management Area 6 goals are managing for a longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) community as well as for RCW habitat. Based on field data collected, the pine stands are currently overstocked resulting in lower quality RCW habitat. Pines average over 100 square feet BA per acre across the project area (excluding no treatment stands and stands less than 30 years old). According to the 2003 Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan second revision, ideal pine stand conditions for the RCW are open pine woodlands and savannahs.

The quality of RCW foraging habitat is reduced due to the presence of midstory. The RCW Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003) and the Plan specify that no hardwood midstory exists, or if a hardwood midstory is present it is sparse and less than 7 feet in height (USFWS 2003, pg. 188). Foraging and nesting habitat for RCW must be in open stands with few overstory hardwoods; less than 10% of the number of canopy trees in longleaf forests and less than 30% of the number of canopy trees in loblolly and shortleaf forests (USFWS 2003, pg. 188). Prescribed burning has been the primary management tool utilized in this project area, and has maintained moderate RCW habitat but has not effectively reduced midstory components to meet the RCW Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003) and the Plan standards. Hardwoods average over 14 square feet BA per acre across the project area (excluding no treatment stands and stands less than 30 years old). Effective midstory control is a prerequisite to the management, conservation, and recovery of RCW throughout their range (USFWS 2003, p. 38).

Monitoring on the Angelina National Forest from 2011 to 2015 indicates that RCW potential breeding groups (PBGs) increased from 60 to 65 PBGs (4.32% avg. annual increase). However, the


5

Sandy Creek Project area has only four PBGs. The project area has the potential to support several more PBGs once the habitat is improved. This would result in the expansion of the South Angelina subpopulation and would connect RCW groups in compartments 66 and 67 with the rest of the South Angelina RCW subpopulation.

Restoring Longleaf Pine Ecosystems

One of the goals of this project is to increase longleaf pine in the Sandy Creek Project area while providing mature pine trees and open habitat to increase RCW populations. Two strategies are proposed in this project. First is replacing young loblolly pine plantations with longleaf pine. The second is to maintain a longleaf pine overstory that both allows for longleaf natural regeneration and provides adequate habitat for RCW.

Improving Habitat for Eastern Wild Turkey

The Sandy Creek Project area has a low amount of open habitat which is important for eastern wild turkey habitat. The current condition would not meet the habitat suitability index (HSI) criteria established by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) due to the lack of open habitat. The open habitats would improve nesting and brood rearing. The subsequent early succession/savannah type habitat would benefit other early succession species as well as RCW and herbaceous vegetation associated with longleaf pine ecosystems.

Non Native Invasive Plant Species

The goal of the USDA Forest Service Invasive Species Program is to reduce, minimize, or eliminate the potential for introduction, establishment, spread, and impact of invasive species across all landscapes and ownerships (http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/). Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) trees and Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum) are two examples of rapidly expanding nonnative invasive plant species (NNIPS) on the forest. The Sandy Creek Project area would be monitored throughout the proposed project and any establishment of NNIPS would be eradicated following guidelines established in an existing NNIPS environmental assessment (EA).

Desired vs. Existing Conditions

The following table summarizes this chapter’s discussion and compares desired future conditions to the existing conditions of the biological and physical components of the environment in the project area. Comparing the existing to the desired conditions highlights opportunities for change that exist (Table 1).


6

Table 1. Desired vs. Existing Conditions

Desired Future Condition

Existing Condition Needs Management Opportunities

1. Quality RCW habitat characterized by open pine stands with understories dominated by prairie grasses (the Plan, p. 97, 110). Scattered overstory hardwoods present but outside a 50-ft zone around each RCW cluster.

Numerous stands within the Sandy Creek project area are overstocked pine ranging from 70 to 150 square feet of basal area (BA). Pine composition is composed of longleaf, shortleaf, slash, and loblolly. Trees in the midstory have surpassed the size and density at which they may be effectively controlled by fire.

Need to reduce pine BA and midstory to meet RCW Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003) guidelines.

Thin overstocked pine stands. Retain relic longleaf trees. Use mechanical, chemical, and/or handtools to reduce midstory in pine stands. Reduce woody understory vegetation using prescribed fire (addressed in separate EA).

2. Increases in RCW populations (USFWS 2003, pp. 206-208).

RCW natural cavities are difficult to excavate and establishing new groups in unoccupied habitat are rare (USFWS 2003, pp. 32-34).

Facilitate the expansion and growth of RCW populations.

Establishing recruitment clusters by installing artificial inserts

3. Safe road system for timber harvesting and limited administrative use. (the Plan, p. 99).

Roads associated with the stands to be thinned are deteriorating and some have severe erosion.

Restore road surfaces to the extent that safe driving conditions exist.

Recondition and reconstruct roads within the project area to the level needed for the timber sale

4. Roads with proper run-off and surfaces material so as to reduce erosion and improve water quality (the Plan, p. 61).

Several roads have rutted and eroding road surfaces, and wing/road ditches filled with sediment.

Reshape these road surfaces, apply a durable surface, clean out or replace culverts, and create or clean out wing and road ditches to divert soil movement onto the landscape away from water sources. Exposed soil along the roads banks would be seeded, fertilized, and mulched as needed.

Recondition and reconstruct roads within the project area to the level needed for the timber sales. Follow best management practices (BMP) and the Plan’s guidelines for road reconstruction and maintenance.

5. Restore native longleaf pine ecosystem (the Plan,

Off-site loblolly pines are abundant throughout the project area.

Begin replacing off-site species with native longleaf.

a). Restore young (<30yrs) loblolly plantations.


7

Desired Future Condition

Existing Condition Needs Management Opportunities

p. 169). b). Maintain regular prescribed fire intervals (addressed in seperate EA).

6. Manage for a diverse stand of hardwoods and pines in streamside areas that aid in meeting water quality standards, and maintain aesthetic/visual values (the Plan, pp. 146-147).

Mixed species composition within previous buffer strips; however, some areas were not managed for diversity and now are off-site loblolly.

Provide buffers that will promote the diversity desired within this management area.

Allow a minimum of 50 feet buffers around each side of intermittent and perennial drains. Add to buffer distances to avoid activities in areas with steep slopes (the Plan, p. 152).

7. Reduce or eliminate non-native invasive plant species (National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management (2004)).

Non-native invasive species are present in Sandy Creek Project area.

Identify and eradicate NNIPS.

Treat known species, monitor project areas for any new infestations.

8. Manage to enhance habitat to support Eastern wild turkey populations (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Habitat Suitability Index).

The area lacks enough open habitat according to Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.’s Habitat Suitability Index to support sustainable populations of eastern wild turkey.

Provide more acres of open habitat.

Maintain existing food plots, maintain permanent openings in portions of regeneration stands, reduce stand basal area to create more open savannah habitat.


8

This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Plan, and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan (the Plan, pgs 96-134, 145-161, & 168-179). Treatments described for this project are designed to be consistent with the standards and guidelines of the Plan. Treatments and environmental effects are typical of those projected for implementation in the Plan and analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (FEIS, USDA Forest Service, 1996). The proposed actions would occur in MA 2 – Red-cockaded Woodpecker Emphasis, MA 4 – Streamside Management Zones, and MA 6 – Longleaf Ridge Special Area.

Vegetation treatments are consistent with vegetation management options in the Record of Decision for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont (USDA Forest Service, 1989). A botanical report from the Forest Botanist was submitted for this analysis. This EA tiers to the Non-Native Invasive Plant Species (NNIPS) EA that has been signed and covers the treatment of invasive species on the NFGT (NNIPS EA, 2008).

Treatments in this project also reflect the direction provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Recovery Plan, Second Revision (2003). This plan details the habitat requirements necessary to maintain and increase populations of the endangered RCW.

Proposed Action _________________________________

The actions proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need are to conduct commercial pine thinning, midstory reduction, and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) restoration. Areas planned for treatment activities include compartments 73, 74, 75 and 78 on the Angelina National Forest. The proposed action would thin pine stands and reduce midstory to improve RCW habitat. To restore longleaf pine communities, existing loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) plantations would be removed and replanted with longleaf pine. This project would also focus on improving eastern wild turkey habitat by providing more open habitat for nesting and brooding.

Decision Framework ______________________________

Given the purpose and need, the District Ranger reviews the proposed action and the other alternatives in order to make the following decisions:

Which alternative best meets the purpose and need for the proposed project while considering public input along with environmental, social and economic effects?

Will the selected alternative be a major federal action, significantly affecting the quality of the human environment?

If the District Ranger determines that the selected alternative would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, then an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) and a ROD (Record of Decision) must be prepared and signed before the project may proceed.

Public Involvement _______________________________

The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions first on January 1, 2012 and last on April 1, 2015. The proposal was first provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping in October 2011 and rescoped in January 2015. In addition, as part of the public


9

involvement process, the agency upon request, two field trips and one meeting were conducted with a representative from Texas Conservation Alliance (TCA).

The Forest Service interdisciplinary (ID) team initially began analyzing and developing proposed treatment activities in January 2011. A scoping letter was distributed in October 2011, and twelve comment letters and emails were received from four different interested parties. A field trip with Texas Conservation Alliance representative and the Forest Service ID team occurred on December 12, 2011. The project was put on hold in 2013 until several other EAs on the Angelina and Sabine National Forests were completed (e.g. North Moore, Compartment 63 and Compartment 64 Projects).

A second scoping letter was mailed on January 14, 2015. The proposed action was modified in the second scoping letter based on comments submitted during the first scoping period. Seven letters and emails from six different groups were submitted to the Forest Service. A second field trip was requested and conducted with the Texas Conservation Alliance representative on March 17, 2015. Two more letters were submitted from TCA representative after the March field trip. A meeting was requested by TCA representative to discuss variable thinning and other issues related to the project, which occurred on April 8, May 7, and November 3, 2015.

Using the comments from the public and other agencies (see Issues section), the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to address.

Issues __________________________________________

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: key and non-key issues. Key issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-key issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, the Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of non-key issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-key may be found in Sandy Creek Project Environmental Analysis Issue Identification from Public Scoping Responses document in the project record.

As for key issues, the Forest Service identified three topics raised during scoping, which contained unresolved conflict that could not be resolved through project design criteria, mitigations, or existing regulations and policy. These key issues include:

Scale and intensity of midstory treatments across the landscape (Indicators used to measure: acres and locations for midstory treatment),

Scope and scale of variable density thinning (Indicators used to measure: locations for variable thinning, percent of stand/compartment to variable thin), and

Methods for creating open habitat; e.g. maintained openings, heavily thinned stands, etc. (Indicators used to measure: treatment methods, locations, opening acreage).


10

ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Sandy Creek project. It includes a description and map, if applicable, of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form (Table 4), sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the Direct Ranger. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative.

Alternatives’ Descriptions _________________________

Alternative 1

No Action

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. Neither proposed vegetation management treatments nor any other wildlife habitat improvement activities would be implemented to accomplish project’s goals. Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and eastern wild turkey habitat would be maintained primarily using prescribed fire. Some natural longleaf pine regeneration would occur in small pockets that have ample sunlight and fire. Offsite young loblolly pine plantations would persist and continue to mature.

Alternative 2

Modified Proposed Action

This modified proposed action differs from the proposed action described in the scoping letter mailed on January 14, 2015 in the following ways:

A potential RCW recruitment cluster location was added in compartment 73, stand 7. This recruitment stand location was field checked on April 21, 2015 by Forest Service wildlife biologist and ID team leader). The area has potential to be suitable for both nesting and foraging habitat if pine thinning and midstory reduction treatments are implemented.

Compartment 75, Stand 50 was changed from first thinning to handtools treatment. This stand has limited access and limited commercially valuable timber. The ID team and TCA representative visited the stand on March 17, 2015. Based on this field visit, the ID team determined that using handtools would be the best treatment method for this stand.

All other treatments are the same as what was proposed in the January 2015 scoping letter.

Approximately 4,700 acres would have vegetation treatments in compartments 73, 74, 75, and 78 on the Angelina National Forest (


11

Table 2 and Figure 1) to improve RCW habitat, restore longleaf pine forests, and improve eastern wild turkey habitat. The vegetation treatments would include pine thinning, longleaf restoration (i.e. loblolly removal, site-prep and longleaf planting), and other wildlife habitat treatments activities such as midstory reduction.

Thinning: Approximately 4,400 acres of pine forest would be commercially thinned. Older stands (greater than 40 years in age) would be thinned to an average of 70 square feet of basal area (BA) per acre (Figure 2). Younger stands (less than 40 years in age) would be thinned to an average of 60 BA, most being the first thinning. The stands being first thinned are young pine plantations that are overstocked and have very little ground vegetation because of shading. The size of stands proposed for thinning range from 15 to 583 acres. Active and inactive RCW clusters and recruitment stands would be included in thinning treatments (Table 3 and Figure 3).

Work proposed in active RCW clusters would not occur until the nesting season is over, typically April 1 through July 31, or until confirmed to have fledged young. Outside of the nesting season, all harvest activities within active clusters would only occur between one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset. An exception would be for hauling on open Forest Service and county roads for both nesting season and morning/evening restrictions.

Commercial thinning would retain longleaf pine over shortleaf, loblolly, and slash pine, in that order as determined by on-the-ground conditions. Priority for retention would also be given to relict (flat-top) longleaf pine trees and potential RCW cavity trees. Typical logging method following State of Texas approved Best Management Practices would be used to protect soil and water resources.

Payment units for the commercial timber sale would follow prescribed burn units to the greatest extent possible, in order to minimize effects on burn intervals in the project area.


12

Table 2. Compartments total acres and treatment acres.

Compartment Approx. Compartment

Acres

Approx.

Treatment Acres

73 2,074 1,670

74 1,522 1,510

75 1,407 650

78 987 864

Total 7,297 4,693

Figure 2. These pictures are examples of areas to be treated. The picture on the left represents a

longleaf pine stand that would be thinned. The picture on the right represents a young a loblolly

pine plantation that would be cut out and regenerated to longleaf pine.

Table 3. Lists the compartments, stand numbers, acres, ages, forest types, existing pine and

hardwood (Hwd) square feet of basal area (BA) per acre, and the proposed actions.

Compartment Stand Acres Age Forest Type Pine BA Hwd BA Silviculture Treatment

73 1 67 26 Loblolly 95 7 Longleaf restoration

73 3 45 81 Loblolly 95 23 Thin to residual 70 BA & mid-

story reduction



story reduction

73 6 132 42 Loblolly 133 8 1st Thinning – thin to 60 BA

Loblolly pine plantation that

would be restored to longleaf pine

Longleaf pine stand that

would be thinned


13



story reduction


story reduction


story reduction


story reduction


73 19 48 24 Shortleaf 110 10 1st Thinning – thin to 60 BA



story reduction

73 25 206 76 Shortleaf 87 27 Thin to residual 70 BA & mid-

story reduction



story reduction



story reduction


story reduction


story reduction

74 43 30 63 Shortleaf 153 25 Thin to residual 70 BA & mid-

story reduction

74 44 399 36 Longleaf 122 0 1st Thinning – thin to 60 BA

74 45 85 72 Longleaf 109 23 Thin to residual 70 BA & mid-

story reduction


story reduction

74 47 163 68 Loblolly-longleaf

112 12 Thin to residual 70 BA & mid-

story reduction


14



story reduction


story reduction


story reduction




story reduction


story reduction


story reduction


story reduction

75 32 166 61 Loblolly-shortleaf

95 19 Thin to residual 70 BA & mid-

story reduction


story reduction


story reduction


story reduction


story reduction


story reduction

75 50 19 26 Loblolly 85 3 Handtools Treatment

78 41 187 72 Longleaf 91 8 Thin to residual 70 BA





15

Steam Protection: Streamside management zones (SMZ) would be delineated around perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral drains. A minimum buffer of 50 feet would be placed on either side of perennial and intermittent drains (the Plan, pg. 152). This distance would be extended on cases where topological or vegetative changes warrant another logical SMZ boundary. Buffers around ephemeral drains would be based on slope and soil type as defined in the Plan (pg. 83).

Within SMZs, no vegetation removal would occur during the timber harvest, longleaf regeneration, or mid-story reduction activities. Designated streams may be crossed perpendicular to the stream by logging equipment at the discretion of the Timber Sale Administrator, as outlined in the Plan.

Longleaf Restoration: Restoration of longleaf pine would occur on 260 acres of young loblolly pine plantations (Table 3, Figure 2, and Figure 3). The overstory loblolly would be removed using commercial timber sale. Site preparation of these stands would include mulching or shearing with a feller buncher, chopping, and/or burning as needed. Containerized longleaf pine seedlings would be planted in early autumn to winter months. When brownspot (Scirrhia acicola) disease occurs, sites would be prescribed burned. After three years, if necessary, seedlings will be released from surrounding competition. This release would be accomplished using herbicides or hand tools (e.g. power saws or weed eaters with attached circular blades). This should help promote the successful establishment/survival of the longleaf pine seedlings.

Handtools Treatment: Compartment 75, Stand 50 has very limited access, highly erodible soils, and unmerchantable small loblolly pines. Therefore, rather than conducting a first thinning, as proposed in January 2015 scoping letter, this stand would only have handtools treatment. Chainsaws would be used to fell loblolly pines. All longleaf pines would be retained. Some of the felled loblolly pines would then be lopped and scattered to avoid accumulating fuels around retained longleaf pines.

Roads: Maintenance and reconstruction of existing roads and creation of temporary roads are proposed in this project. There are approximately 27 miles of existing roads (13 miles unpaved and 14 miles paved). No new roads are proposed. Culverts that are preventing fish passage and/or creating water quality degradation would be replaced, removed, or reset as needed.

Wildlife Habitat Improvement:

a) RCW Recruitment Clusters: Fourteen potential RCW recruitment cluster locations have been identified for future establishment to provide nesting opportunities and promote expansion of the RCW population (Figure 3). Within each recruitment cluster, artificial cavities would be installed in appropriate pine trees in accordance with standards in the Plan (pg. 111) and the RCW Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003) (pgs. 84-93). Establishment of the recruitment cluster would follow or occur concurrently with the timber harvests. The proposed recruitment cluster locations are based on a site-specific assessment of current habitat conditions. Following post-treatment habitat assessments, the number, as well as location of currently planned recruitment clusters, may change. An effort would be made to place recruitment clusters where there would be few to no hardwood over-story trees within the cluster.

b) RCW Cluster Maintenances: Maintenance within future and existing RCW clusters would include removal of all hardwoods and pine mid-story within a 50 ft. radius of cavity trees.


16

Cluster maintenance would be accomplished by mowing, chainsaws, or hand tools (Plan, pgs. 110-116, RCW Recovery, pgs. 178-180).

c) Mid-story Reduction: Removal of mid-story trees is proposed in compartment 74, stands 42, 43, 45 – 47, 49, 50, 53-55 and compartment 75, stands 32, 41, 43, 44, & 46 (approx. 2,900 acres, Table 3 & Figure 3). Manual tools (chainsaws and/or hand tools), and/or herbicides could be used. The herbicides glyphosate or triclopyr herbicides may be used depending on the species to be treated and the time of year treatment occurs. Application would be selective, using cut surface and foliar methods. A minimum of five hardwood trees per acres (TPA) would be retained. The following species would be retained according to the specified DBH (diameter breast height, 4.5 feet above ground level) described below.

a. Bluejack oaks (Quercus incana) and sand post oaks (Quercus margarettae) greater than six inches DBH would not be treated;

b. Post oaks (Quercus stellate) and blackjack oaks (Quercus marilandica) greater than 10 inches DBH would not be treated;

c. Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) could be treated up to 16 inches DBH, since this is the most pervasive hardwood species affecting RCW foraging habitat;

d. For all other hardwood species (except sweetgum), none greater than 12 inches DBH would be treated; and

e. Unmerchantable pine mid-story, that is less than five inches DBH, may also be removed.

Hardwood inclusions, i.e. groups of hardwood trees that dominate their surroundings, would be avoided. To the extent possible, flowering and mast producing trees would be protected as part of the retained five TPA. No American beech (Fagus grandifolia) or southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) would be treated. No mid-story work would occur within streamside management zones.

d) Wildlife Openings: In order to provide open habitat for eastern wild turkey, migratory birds, white-tailed deer, and other wildlife species, we are proposing to use log decks to create permanent wildlife openings. Each deck would be maintained as a wildlife opening, approximately 0.5 to 1 acre in size. We would maintain up to 25 acres as wildlife openings. These would be maintained by mowing annually or semi-annually, as needed. These would be brush hogged and planted with native and/or non-persistent non-natives favored by wildlife.

e) Non-Native Invasive Plant Species: The project area would be monitored for infestations of non-native invasive plant species during and following implementation of the proposed activities. Monitoring would conform to that which is being conducted as part of the Plan direction and 2008 Non Native Invasive Plant Species (NNIPS) Environmental Assessment (EA). Any NNIPS discovered would be removed following direction in the NNIPS EA. Inventories for new infestations, as a result of the proposed activities would be conducted during the growing season by qualified invasive species botany personnel on the NFGT.


17

Figure 3. Sandy Creek Project modified proposed actions (Alternative 2).

7

43

41

5

6

2532

47

2

41

41

4942

42

1

46

4

45

20

3

54

4251

17

44

45

46

53

50

52

19

49

44

43

43

9

18

32

2316

29

106

14

31

22

102

8

47

48

24

48

28

44

40

55

34

4645

104

105 38

47

27

50

51

105

21103

102

12

48

40

26

15

56101

40

35

30

1135

13

101

33

31

36

101

10

104

102

103

106

73

87

77

85

75

76

74

79

86

780

80

818388

92

62

30

42

62

89

0

42

90

0

42

63

42

SH 63

0 2.51.25

Miles

Sandy Creek ProjectModified Proposed Action

Potential Clusters Foraging Areas

2014_Ang_Sab_RCW_Clusters

Potential RCW Cluster Locations

Compartments

Treatments: Modified Proposed Action 2015

Proposed Treatment

Handtools

1st Thin

Midstory

Regen

Thin

Thin & Midstory

No Action

Treatment areas on the map represent

approximate locations and may vary slightly

during implementation.


18

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 varies from Alternative 2 (Modified Proposed Action) in that midstory and thinning treatments areas would be reduced, variable density thinning with both clumps and gaps would be applied in compartments 74 and 75, and no wildlife openings would be established (Figure 4). Also, additional longleaf regeneration has been added in compartment 73, stand 5. Thinning for Alternative 3 would be approximately 3,470 acres, versus 4,400 acres in Alternative 2 (Table 4). This is due to some thinning areas being adjusted to more closely match the proposed midstory treatment areas described below. All other proposed treatments would be the same between Alternatives 2 and 3.

Modified Midstory Treatments

Midstory Treatment Areas: With this action alternative, the midstory treatment areas would be reduced from 2,900 acres to 1,570 acres compared to Alternative 2 (Figure 5, Table 4), and thinning areas would also be reduced from 4,400 acres to 3,470 acres. The midstory treatment areas would be focused primarily within the half-mile foraging areas for proposed and existing RCW cluster locations, including the additional proposed recruitment cluster in compartment 73. To further guide the proposed midstory treatment areas, the Ecological Classification System maps, elevation data (LIDAR) and field verification were utilized to help identify potential midstory treatment areas.

Midstory Treatment Actions: Manuel tools (e.g. chainsaws and/or hand tools), mechanical equipment (e.g. feller buncher, mower or mulcher) and/or herbicides could be used. The herbicides glyphosate or triclopyr herbicides may be used depending on the species to be treated and the time of year treatment occurs. Application would be selective, using cut surface and foliar methods. Midstory could also be removed using timber sale contracts if material is merchantable. A minimal of 10 hardwood trees per acre (TPA), individually or in clumps, that are 5 inches or greater diameter breast height (DBH) would be retained in loblolly and shortleaf pine stands, and a minimal of 3 hardwood TPA would be retained in longleaf pine stands. Trees within areas excluded from treatment activities, such as SMZs, sand-cap bluejack oak communities and bogs, would not count toward the minimal 10 (loblolly/shortleaf stands) or 3 (longleaf stands) TPA. American beech (Fagus grandifolia), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis) or southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) would be retained and would not count toward the 10 (loblolly/shortleaf stands) or 3 (longleaf stands) TPA. Oaks and hickories could be treated, but larger oaks and hickories would be the preferred leave trees.


19

Figure 4. Treatment areas for Alternatives 3 and 4.

7

43

6

5

41

32

54

41

47

42

1

41

4

46

25

3

42

20

44

14

41

52

5

1929

49

44

31

17

22

48

47

45

40

55

18

2549

28

45

44

46

27

5053

51

41

12

41

47

42

49

25

46

49

25

87-01 77-04

87-05

87-09

79-01

92-02

85-04

78-02

77-03

78-01

77-01

85-02

77-07

77-02

80-03

87-08

77-06

80-01

76-02

77-08

92-07

87-06

87-10

79-03

85-07

80-0280-05

79-05

79-02

79-04

77-0978-04

77-05

76-01

78-03

80-0485-0579-06

87-07 80-06

CorpCl_001

73

87

77

75

76

74

78

79

0

80

8586

30

62

62

92

42

42

090

0

30

88

42

42

83

63

42

81

0 31.5

Miles

Legend

Treatments Alt. 3&4

Handtools

1st Thin

Midstory

Regen

Thin

RCW Cluster Status

Active

Inactive

Recruitment


Potential_Clusters_SAng_2015_halfmilebuffer

Variable Density Thinning

Comp. 74 and 75


20

Figure 5. Proposed midstory treatment areas for Alternative 3 (and Alt. 4).

Treatment areas on the map represent

approximate locations and may vary

slightly during implementation.


21

Variable Density Thinning (Variable Size Clumps & Gaps)

Both young stands proposed for first thinning and mature stands could be variably thinned in compartments 74 and 75. The purpose is to create greater structural diversity through establishment of clumps (areas with residual higher densities) and gaps (areas with residual lower densities) across the landscapes. These compartments were selected for this thinning method because of the preexisting diversity of landforms across these compartments consisting of varying slopes and vegetation communities. The total area in gaps and clumps should be approximately equal and a combination of both could be up to 30% of the thinning areas (approximately 500 acres). The remaining portion of stands would be thinned to the basal areas (BAs) prescribed for each stand.

Clumps: Clumps would be higher density areas that would have BAs per acres above 70. Many areas chosen as clumps would retain greater than 100 pine BAs per acre. Clumps would be un-thinned or lightly thinned areas that could range from less than 0.1 acre to 5 acres in size and spaced at varying distances across the landscape. The exact size and placement of the clumps would be determined during layout and marking. Areas that could be considered for clumps would be portions of stands that have steep slopes, close proximity to SMZs, difficult access, mixed pine/hardwood vegetation, and/or high concentrations of relic longleaf pine (Figure 6). Clumps would comprise up to 15% (approximately 250 acres) of thinning areas in compartments 74 and 75. Areas that would be excluded with all alternatives would not count toward the 15% as clumps, such as SMZs, seepage bogs, or bluejack oak sand-caps.

Figure 6. These pictures represent areas that could be considered for clumps, which would be less

than 0.1 to 5 acres patches with higher basal areas (BA) per acre. The picture on the left shows an

area with steep slopes, near SMZs, and that has mixed pine-hardwood vegetation. The picture on the

right shows a clump of relic longleaf pines that could be left un-thinned or lightly thinned. Areas

chosen as clumps would usually retain greater than 100 pine BA per acre.

Gaps: Gaps would be lower density thinned areas below 70 BA per acre, between 40 to 70 BAs per acre. Gaps can range in size from less than 0.1 acre to 5 acres in size. In general, gaps in young stands (e.g. <30 years old) may be thinned to lower BA per acre (40 to 60 BA per acre) and more mature stands (e.g. >30 years old) may be thinned to slightly higher BA per acre (60 to 70 BA per acre). The exact size and placement would be determined during layout and marking. Areas that could be considered for gaps may have preexisting grassy herbaceous understory and/or have some natural longleaf regeneration (Figure 7). In mixed pine stands, gaps could also be created by thinning loblolly

Relic Longleaf PineSteep slopes, near SMZs, &

mixed pine-hardwood vegetation


22

and shortleaf pines heavier and retaining longleaf pines. Gaps would comprise up to 15% (approximately 250 acres) of thinning areas in compartments 74 and 75. However, any open areas that fall below 40 BA per acre with other treatment activities, such as clear-cuts, log-decks, wildlife openings, would not count toward the 15% as gaps.

Figure 7. These pictures represent areas that could be considered for gaps because of grassy

herbaceous understory and natural longleaf pine regeneration. Areas chosen as gaps would be

thinned below 70 basal area (BA) per acre, between 40 to 70 BA per acre.

No Wildlife Openings

Alternative 3 would drop all managed wildlife openings. No wildlife openings would be established in log-decks or in plantations. Open habitat would be established exclusively using heavier thinned “gaps” described above.

Longleaf Restoration in Compartments 73, stand 5.

Approximately 30 acres of longleaf restoration would be completed in stand 5 in an area adjacent to stand 29 (Figure 8). This area primarily consists of mature (>80 year old) loblolly pine. Pine basal area (BA) averages 94 square feet per acre and is all loblolly except for a few shortleaf pine trees. Hardwood BA is predominately small trees (12 sq. ft. per acre), but there is 5 BA of hardwood sawtimber. Most of the hardwood BA is oaks (post oak and southern red oak primarily), but also includes blackgum, sweetgum, and red maple.

This area is classified as longleaf forest ecosystem according to the Ecological Classification System, and has sandy loam soils that would be suitable for longleaf regeneration. This area would be combined with stand 29, which is 48 acres, to total 78 acres of longleaf restoration. The methods to be used for longleaf restoration are described in the “Modified Proposed Action: Longleaf Restoration”.

Natural longleaf pine regeneration Grassy understory


23

Figure 8. Additional area proposed for longleaf restoration in compartment 73, stand 5.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 addresses key issues for variable density thinning and wildlife openings by applying recommendations provided by TCA’s representative. Variable density thinning would only include clumps, and wildlife openings would be established only within loblolly plantations. All other aspects of Alternative 4 would be the same as Alternative 3, other than the items described below.

Wildlife Openings in Plantations

With Alternative 4, there would be no wildlife openings established using log decks. Rather, three permanent wildlife openings would be established in young loblolly plantations: compartment 73, stand 4; compartment 73, stand 6; and compartment 74, stand 52. Each opening would be no larger than two acres, so the total acreage of established wildlife openings would be six acres.

Variable Density Thinning (Small Clumps)

Up to four clumps (un-thinned) could be retained per acre. Each clump could range from 20 feet to 75 feet in diameter and be spaced 50 feet to 200 feet from center to center. This variable thinning method would be done on 15% (approximately 250 acres) of thinning areas in compartments 74 and

7

6

5

25

4

5

29

19

18

1

14

17

3

25

2525

337A

337

364

3370

AN

G-B

ING

HA

M

3370

B

347A

3370C

3043

ANG-H

OPSONVILLE

0 0.50.25

Miles

Legend

Additonal Longleaf Regeneration Area

Potential Clusters 1/2-mile buffer (Foraging Areas)


Treatments Alt. 3&4

Handtools

1st Thin

Regen

Thin

No Action

Midstory Treatment

Additional Longleaf Regeneration AreaAlternatives 3 & 4

Approximately 30 acres

Treatment areas on the map

represent approximate

locations and may vary slightly during

implementation.


24

75. The remaining 85% of the proposed thinning areas within compartment 74 and 75 would be thinned to the prescribed BAs (e.g. 60 to 70 BA per acre).

Each clump could have one to several dominant pines that are “free to grow” and several sub-dominant trees that provide moderate competition to the dominants. The exact size and placement of the clumps would be determined during layout and marking. The remaining areas would be thinned to the prescribed BA per acre.

Differing stand conditions would provide various opportunities to implement this various density thinning method. In a young loblolly plantation where tree size and spacing is fairly uniform, simply retaining an un-thinned circle of 6-to-20 pines could accomplish the goal. In mixed species plantations and older stands, clumps can be created by marking loblolly and retaining longleaf and shortleaf pines. A clump could simply consist of three or four similar sized pines in an 8 foot triangle or square spacing. It could also be a group of 20 relict longleaf pines.

Areas that would be excluded with all action alternatives would not count toward the 15%, such as SMZs, seepage bogs, and bluejack oak sand-caps.

Design Criteria and Monitoring Common to All Alternatives

These design criteria and monitoring will be applied to any of the action alternatives.

Design Criteria

1. Any hardwoods within the 50-foot zone around active RCW cavity trees would be cut and felled by

authorized personnel separately from the timber sale.

2. Streamside management zones (SMZ) would be delineated around perennial, intermittent, and

ephemeral drains. A minimum buffer of 50 feet would be placed on either side of perennial and

intermittent drains (the Plan, pg. 152). This distance would be extended on cases where

topological or vegetative changes warrant another logical SMZ boundary. Buffers around

ephemeral drains would be based on slope and soil type as defined in the Plan (pg. 83).

3. Retain existing native woody cover adjacent to shoreline (of Sam Rayburn Reservoir) within 100

feet of normal pool elevation in lakes except selected felling of dead, dying, or crowded trees for

fish structures may occur (the Plan, pg. 164, MA-5-11,).

4. Skid trails would only cross streamside zones at designated points, with prior approval of the Sale

Administrator with assistance from biologists. The Plan’s standards and guidelines and Texas’

Best Management Practices (BMPs, Texas Forestry Association, January, 2000) would be followed

in all stages of sale implementation (the Plan, p. 158).

5. No mechanical operations would occur during wet ground conditions to minimize soil compaction

and rutting. Due to soils with a severe compaction hazard, areas would be harvested in a way that

would reduce repetitious trafficking over previously disturbed areas. The District Timber Sale

Administrator would monitor conditions and promptly shut down timber sales when erosion and

soil compaction were unacceptable (the Plan, pp. 82, 158).

6. No mechanical equipment would be used on sustained slopes over 35 % and no mechanical site

preparation on slopes over 20% if soils are erodible (the Plan, p. 81).


25

7. All skid trails and landings would be closed and revegetated with a non-invasive seed mixture as

required by the timber sale contract. Within one growing season, ground cover would be

established on 70 percent of the area of all log landings and skid trails (the Plan, pg. 106).

8. If previously undiscovered archaeological or historical resources are encountered during the

implementation of this project, work in that area would cease immediately until the resources can

be assessed and evaluated by a member of the Heritage Management Team, and the State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO) has been afforded the opportunity to review the findings. The site

area would be excluded from all treatments until this review can be completed. Known

archaeological and historical sites which are considered eligible for listing on the National

Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and those which have not been fully evaluated in order to

determine their eligibility for the NRHP, would be removed from the area of potential effect by

adjusting the appropriate boundaries of the proposed actions or by mitigation (the Plan pgs. 60-

61).

9. If previously undocumented red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) activity is discovered during

implementation of this project, the project activities would cease until the District Wildlife Staff

evaluated the situation and determined appropriate management actions to take that would be

consistent with US Fish & Wildlife Service guidelines.

10. Follow Visual Quality Objective Coordination Guidelines described in the Recreation and Scenery

Specialist Report. An exception would be along Bingham and Hopsonville County Roads, to which

the visible open areas would exceed 25 acres (see AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT &

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, Visual Quality and Recreation Section for justification).

11. Marking would follow the Plan’s guidelines for thinning in red-cockaded woodpecker habitat.

Thinning would retain longleaf pine over shortleaf, loblolly, and slash pine, in the order as

determined by on-the-ground conditions.

12. Herbicides will be used according to label instructions and applied at the lowest rate effective in

meeting project objectives according to guidelines for protecting human and wildlife health. They

would be applied according to Forest Service Standards (the Plan pg. 57).

13. Areas would not be prescribed burned for at least 30 days after herbicide treatment.

14. A certified pesticide applicator supervises each Forest Service application crew and trains crew

members in personal safety, proper handling and application of herbicides and proper disposal of

empty container and/or CORs will be certified pesticide applicators (the Plan, pg. 58).

15. In the event of an accidental spill, Forest Service procedures will be followed (FEIS-Vegetation

Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont, I:II 64).

16. Notice signs [Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7109.11] would be clearly posted when herbicides

are to be used.

17. Whenever possible culverts that are replaced will be installed in order to allow fish/aquatic

passage.


26

18. Work proposed in RCW clusters, except for hauling on open roads, would not occur during the

nesting season, typically April 1st to July 31st (or until one week after the young have fledged as

determined by a Forest Service wildlife biologist or wildlife technician who are on the USFWS

permit for RCW monitoring).

19. Within active RCW clusters, operations would be one hour after sunrise till one hour before sunset

year-round to avoid disturbing birds entering and leaving their cavities. An exception would be for

hauling on open roads, which would be allowed year-round anytime a day.

20. If inactive clusters within the project area go active, then gates could be installed along roads

going into the clusters to restrict access into the clusters during breeding season (April 1st to July

31st).

21. Extreme care would be taken when working around cavity trees to avoid damaging the trees or

their root systems.

22. If bald eagle nests are discovered they would be protected according to the guidelines specified by

the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007, pg. 13).

23. Contractual requirements that prohibit any forest workers from intentionally killing, harming, or

capturing any snake found within the project area.

Monitoring

Before, during, and after the implementation of the selected alternative, the project area will be

monitored to determine whether the project is carried out as designed.

1. Where thinning operations occur, the basal areas would be monitored to ensure proper residual

basal areas are achieved.

2. As part of the Angelina/Sabine National Forests’ annual RCW monitoring program, RCW clusters

and recruitment stands are surveyed for occupancy and activity status each year. The District

Biologists and/or qualified wildlife technicians, assess cluster condition and status, and identify

any new cavity trees. In addition, each known RCW group is monitored throughout the nesting

season to track nesting attempts, band nestlings (if needed), and track the number of young

fledged.

3. RCW foraging habitat would be monitored for new cavity trees throughout the project

implementation by timber markers crews, timber sale administrators, wildlife biologists and

technicians and other Forest Service personnel.

4. During tree removal operations, a Forest Service Timber Sale Administrator would inspect

operations regularly to ensure compliance with mitigation measures and contract provisions.

During periods of wet weather or marginal conditions, at the beginning of sale operations and at

other critical periods, inspections would be done on a daily basis when timber sale contractors are

working. These inspections would be documented, and violations would be promptly reported to

the Contract Administration Team and District Ranger.


27

Comparison of Alternatives ________________________

This section provides a summary of the treatment activities between alternatives. Table 4 is focused on treatment activities’ impacts to key resources (e.g. open habitat, longleaf regeneration) where different levels of outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 4. Comparison of alternatives.

Alternative 1

(No Action)

Alternative 2

(Modified Proposed Action) Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Acres of thinning 0 aces 4,400 acres 3,470 acres 3,470 acres

Acres of midstory reduction

0 acres 2,900 acres 1,570 acres 1,570 acres

Acres of open habitat to create

0 acres 25 acres

(wildlife openings, 0.5 to 1 acre each, using log decks)

250 acres of “gaps” (40 to 60 pine BA per acre)

6 acres (3 wildlife openings in plantations, 2-

acres each)

Acres of longleaf pine regeneration

0 acres 260 acres 290 acres

(260 ac. <30 yrs. old loblolly pine & 30 ac. >30 yrs. old loblolly pine)

290 acres (260 ac. <30 yrs. old loblolly pine &

30 ac. >30 yrs. old loblolly pine)

Acres of variable density thinning

0 acres 0 acres 500 acres

(250 acres of clumps & 250 acres of gaps)

250 acres of small clumps

Red-cockaded woodpecker potential recruitment clusters (RCs)

0 RC 14 RCs 14 RCs 14 RCs


28

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in the chart above.

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 species on the Region 8, Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (referred to as “sensitive species”; August 8, 2007, amended October 13, 2010). Appendix A documents all threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species currently known or expected to occur on or near Angelina National Forest, all of which were considered during the analysis of this project.

Most of the species listed tend to be habitat specialists, closely linked with specific habitat types, with an uneven distribution across the landscape. Some species were not considered further in the analysis because a) suitable habitat is not present within or adjacent to the project area or b) the species range does not extend into the project area. Habitat associations and the effects of the proposed alternative for individual species' selected for further analysis (


29

Table 5) are described in the following sections. Rationale for further consideration for each species is documented in Appendix A.


30

Table 5. Threatened, Endangered, and Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species within the vicinity of the

project area that could potentially be impacted by the proposed activities.

Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

Birds Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Birds Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Reptiles Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis ruthveni) Insects Texas emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita) Plants Incised groovebur (Agrimonia incisa) Mohlenbrock’s umbrellas-sedge (Cyperus grayioides) Slender gayfeather (Liatris tenuis) Crayfish 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 amphichaenus)

Birds – Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

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; USFWS 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; USFWS 2003). Threats to this species include conversion of mature forest to short-rotation plantations or non-forested areas, hardwood proliferation resulting from fire exclusion, lack of forest management to develop and maintain open stand conditions, and habitat fragmentation that affects population demographics.

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 (USFWS 2003).


31

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 Plan, pp 168-179). The Angelina-Sabine National Forests population currently supports 112 of the 350 potential breeding group (PBG) objective for the Angelina-Sabine population (USFWS 2003), as of January 2016. The Angelina National Forest (ANF) currently has 69 PBGs. The ANF population is comprised of two subpopulations; the Northern and Southern subpopulations. The project area is located on the ANF within the HMA designated for the Southern subpopulation, which is also designated MA 6 (the Plan, pp 168-179). The Southern HMA currently supports 48 PBGs, and of that the Sandy Creek Project Area contains four active clusters with four PBGs.

Available Inventories: Based on annual survey data over the last ten years, RCW populations have been increasing but are starting to stabilize over the past three years. The ANF Southern HMA’s subpopulation has grown by one PBG from 2013 (47 PBGs) to 2015 (48 PBGs). In 2015 and 2016, all active or potential active clusters, including the four active clusters in compartment 78, were surveyed by Forest Service wildlife technicians Kellon Harris and Thad Choate.

Suitable RCW habitat in compartment 75 was surveyed by Jason Engle, Kellon Harris, and Justin Seaborn on November 24, 2014 and on December 11, 2014. Suitable habitat in compartment 73 was surveyed by Jason Engle and Ron Hasken on March 2, 2015. Unoccupied suitable habitat in compartments 78 and 74 were surveyed March 16, 2016 by Ron Hasken, Thad Choate and Kellon Harris. Surveys methods followed guidelines in Appendix 4: Survey Protocol, of the RCW Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003). Stands meeting those guidelines, identified through GIS analysis, were surveyed in the field. In all suitable habitat within each stand, transect surveys were used to locate individuals, cavity starts, or cavities. No cavities or starts were observed beyond those already documented. Each stand will be surveyed again prior to project implementation by timber markers, wildlife technicians, and foresters during contract layout and marking. During project implementation the Forest Service the sale administrators (who are on the USFWS handling permit) will monitor treatment areas for any new cavity trees.

Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct or indirect effects from this alternative because the current conditions and future results of those conditions would remain the same. However, this alternative would prevent the improvement of current RCW habitat and the expansion of the species into currently unsuitable habitat.

Cumulative Effects: Because no actions are being proposed in this alternative, there should be no cumulative effects when combined with current prescribed burning and treatment of NNIPS within the project area and commercial timber production occurring on adjacent lands.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposed Alternative

Direct Effects: Direct effects to the RCW are not likely during treatment activities (e.g. timber thinning, midstory reduction, etc.) due to breeding season and morning/evening restrictions in active RCW clusters. However, hauling timber along open public roads (FSR 333, FSR 306, and all paved Angelina and Jasper County Roads) would not have seasonal or morning/evening restrictions. The direct effects from hauling timber on these roads would be minimal because RCW along these roads are acclimated to vehicle traffic. These roads have heavy traffic due to several communities and


32

subdivisions that accessed along these roads. We estimate that over 100 vehicles per day use these roads. Therefore, it is anticipated that direct effects to the RCW from an increased traffic volume associated with hauling on FSR 333, FSR 306, and all paved Angelina and Jasper County Roads would be discountable and insignificant due to pre-existing traffic volumes.

During felling of trees, there is a potential risk of damage to nest trees if directional felling fails and hits standing nest trees. Noise disturbance in the project area may cause unknown number of RCW to avoid certain areas during short-periods of time. However, negative impacts would be minimized by scheduling/permitting work outside the nesting period for any clusters that may be disturbed by the project. All cavity trees would be painted with wide bands at dbh (4.5 feet above ground level) within each cluster so that they are easily identified to facilitate awareness and protection during all activities. Because the location and number of cavity trees can change from year to year, cluster boundaries would not be marked until just before treatment activities begin in the area. This will ensure that activities such as longleaf restoration do not occur within any cluster boundary.

Indirect Effects: If Alternative 2 were implementation, no existing clusters would have any foraging habitat reduced, but every cluster would have improved foraging and nesting habitat. Proposed longleaf regeneration areas (i.e. clear-cuts) in compartment 73 would reduce foraging areas within ½-mile of a potential recruitment cluster. However, thinning and midstory treatment activities would improve foraging and nesting habitat near this potential recruitment cluster. We would ensure there are least 120 acres of good quality foraging habitat before adding new recruitment clusters.

This alternative would result in having beneficial indirect effects to the species. Approximately 4,400 acres would be thinned and 2,900 acres would have midstory reduction, which would promote the development of open pine stands with grassy understories. The open pine stands with herbaceous understories would provide high quality foraging habitat. Available nesting habitat would increase because thinning would encourage growth of larger diameter trees suitable for cavities, while mid-story reduction would allow easier access to and from nesting cavities.

Northern portions of stands in compartments 73, 74 and 75 near Sam Rayburn Reservoir are highly dissected by drainages and/or have soils that are not conducive for herbaceous understory. Thus thinning and midstory reduction in these areas would not be as beneficial to RCW as the areas toward the southern portions of these compartments.

The 260 acres of longleaf regeneration would remove young loblolly pine plantations that are currently 24 to 28 years old and replant with longleaf pine seedlings. All of these young loblolly pine stands are less than 30 years old, which means they are not currently considered suitable foraging habitat. However, these stands would be suitable foraging within a few years. Therefore, less foraging habitat would be available for RCW in the future. However, over the long-term restoring longleaf pine would benefit RCW. Longleaf pine is slower growing than loblolly pine, but longleaf pine has a lower ratio of sapwood to heartwood, making cavity excavation easier, and is longer lived. Along with continued burning, longleaf regeneration would also increase the amount of native bunchgrass and fire dependent herbaceous cover within the stands.

Approximately 25 acres of permanent wildlife openings would be established using use log decks. Each deck would be maintained as a wildlife opening, approximately 0.5 to 1 acre in size. Rarely would the log decks exceed 0.5 acre unless they are placed in preexisting open areas. Even with log decks converted to wildlife openings within thinned stands, the average BA per acre would still be near 60 to 70, which is desired for RCW nesting and foraging habitat. Because these wildlife openings would be relatively small and spread out across the entire project area, there should be minimal impacts to RCW foraging and nesting habitat.


33

Additionally, establishment of future clusters by installation of artificial cavities would allow for expansion of the species into areas improved by the proposed project that are currently un-occupied.

Cumulative Effects: Positive benefits are expected as treatment activities in Alternative 2 would increase the amount of open pine fire dominated communities for the next five to ten years. The long-term positive effects include improved nesting and foraging habitat through burning and thinning. Ongoing projects on the forest; prescribed burning and NNIS plant control would only increase the benefits to RCW as a result of the proposed project. In addition to thinning and mid-story reduction, prescribed fire would make “reasonable progress” toward meeting the recovery standard by increasing the amount of native bunchgrass and fire-tolerant, fire-dependent herbs and decrease the amount of midstory and hardwood encroachment. By not restricting timber hauling on the open public roads listed above the timber sales would be completed much quicker, and subsequent treatment activities to improve RCW habitat would occur sooner, as well.


Direct Effects: Direct effects would be the same as Alternative 2.

Indirect Effects: Approximatly 3,470 acres would be thinned and 1,570 acres would have midstory reduction. Thus less acres would be treated with Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2 (Table 4). The areas not being treated are the northern portions of stands in compartments 73, 74 and 75 near Sam Rayburn Reservoir, which are highly dissected by drainages and/or have soils that are not conducive for herbaceous understory. Thus thinning and midstory reduction proposed for Alternative 3 is focus on areas that would have the greatest benefit to RCW. All existing RCW clusters and proposed recruitment clusters should have at least 120 acres of good quality foraging habitat similar to conditions described in the RCW Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003, pgs. 188-189).

Alternative 3 also includes variable thinning in compartment 74 and 75, consisting of up to 250 acres of clumps and 250 acres of gaps that are patches 0.1 to 5 acres in size. Both young stands proposed for first thinning and mature stands could be variably thinned. The purpose is to create greater structural diversity. Clumps will have higher basal areas (BA) per acres (70 to over 100 BA per acre) than what is desirable for RCW nesting and foraging habitats (USFWS 2003, pgs. 179-180, 188-189). However, areas that would be considered for clumps could be portions of stands that have steep slopes, close proximity to SMZs, difficult access, mixed pine/hardwood vegetation, and/or high concentrations of relic longleaf pine (Figure 6). These areas are typically poorly suited to be managed as RCW habitat (except for relic longleaf pine patches) and would not be a critical loss to RCW habitat if not treated. Gaps would be selected in areas that have preexisting herbaceous ground cover and natural longleaf regeneration. Thinning gaps to 40 to 60 BA per acres should still provide good quality nesting and foraging habitats (USFWS 2003, pgs. 179-180, 188-189), especially since these areas are already conducive toward more open conditions consisting of grassy understories.

Additional longleaf regeneration is being proposed in Alternative 3 in compartment 73, stand 5. This would result in mature loblolly being clear-cut and replanted with longleaf pine. There is a RCW recruitment cluster proposed in compartment 73, stand 7; and the clearing of stand 5 would reduce the available foraging habitat for this recruitment cluster (Figure 8). As long as the thinning and midstory proposed for Alternative 3 are conducted in compartment 73, stand 7 there should still be over 120 acres of good quality foraging habitat for this recruitment cluster. Alternative 2 and 3 both plan to clear-cut 260 acres of young loblolly plantations that are 24 to 28 years old. All of these young loblolly pine stands are less than 30 years old, which means they are not considered suitable foraging habitat. However, these stands would provide suitable foraging within a few years. Therefore, less foraging


34

habitat would be available for RCW in the future. However, over the long-term restoring longleaf pine would benefit RCW. Longleaf pine is slower growing than loblolly pine, but longleaf pine has a lower ratio of sapwood to heartwood, making cavity excavation easier, and is longer lived. Along with continued burning, longleaf regeneration would also increase the amount of native bunchgrass and fire dependent herbaceous cover within the stands.

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


Direct Effects: Direct effects would be the same as Alternative 2 and 3.

Indirect Effects: The indirect effects would be similar to Alternative 3, except for variable thinning and wildlife openings. The thinning and midstory reduction proposed with this alternative would improve RCW nesting and foraging habitats. However, the proposed variable thinning method in compartments 74 and 75 would include small un-thinned clumps of up to 15% (250 acres) of the compartments. The clumps would be left in small patches (<0.25 acre) evenly spaced across the treatment area. Most un-thinned clumps would exceed 100 BA per acre, which means the overall average BA per acre would be higher than 70 BA per acre. Therefore, compartments 74 and 75 would most likely not meet the RCW Recovery Plan’s description of high quality nesting and foraging habitats, because of the remaining high pine densities (USFWS 2003, pgs. 179-180, 188-189). The lack of good quality nesting and foraging habitats could limit potential growth and expansion of the RCW population into compartments 74 and 75.

Alternative 4 also includes establishing six acres of wildlife openings within existing pine plantations. These areas are already considered unsuitable RCW nesting and foraging habitats, because these stands are younger than 30 years old. However, in less than five years most of these stands would be over 30 years old and considered suitable foraging habitat. Therefore, six acres would be lost as future foraging and nesting habitat, but six acres represents less than 0.2% of the treatment areas and would be a negligible loss to RCW habitat in the project area.


Bachman's Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis)

The Bachman's sparrow, 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 to an open type condition. It has been recorded numerous 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 1993). Decline of this species is attributed to the loss of pine forest containing a grassy understory from the lack of fire in a fire maintained ecosystem.

Available Inventories: Field surveys, specific to the proposed project, were conducted from November 2014 to May 2016. During surveys, no individuals were documented within the project area. However, breeding birds have been monitored annually through bird point counts on the NFGT since 1998. Figure 9 shows the relative abundance of Bachman’s sparrow from bird points located on the Angelina National Forest from 2007 to 2015 (R8 Bird database). Values represent the mean number of species observed per survey point (i.e., it accounts for the number of points surveyed in a given


35

year which may vary). All individuals detected were located within longleaf pine stands. The data indicates that this species is stable on the Angelina National Forest.

Figure 9. Bachman’s sparrow relative abundance by year for the Angelina National Forest. Values represent the mean number of species observed per survey point (i.e., it accounts for the number of points surveyed in a given year which may vary).


Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct or indirect effects from this alternative because the current conditions and future results of those conditions would remain the same. However, this alternative would prevent the improvement of current habitat for the species and the expansion of individuals into currently unsuitable habitat.


Alternatives 2: Modified Proposed Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects may involve the destruction of nests or the mortality of individuals through contact with equipment and/or vehicles associated with project implementation. Areas with nesting RCW’s often overlap with nesting Bachman’s sparrows, as their habitat requirements are similar. Therefore, the protection afforded by seasonal and timing restrictions for the RCW would also benefit the Bachman’s sparrow.

Although some mortality may occur, the overall indirect effect of implementing these management actions would benefit the species in the long run. By thinning, longleaf restoration and reducing hardwood midstory, open pine forest habitat would be increased and maintained. Early succession habitat for the species would also be increased by the proposed wildlife openings, and for a shorter period of time, longleaf regeneration areas.

Cumulative Effects: Positive benefits are expected as the proposed management of the project area

1.88

1.17

1.91

1.6

2.36

1.57

1.82 2

1.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

BACHMAN`S SPARROW Relative Abundance


36

would increase the amount of open pine, fire dominated communities for the success of the RCW whose preferred habitat is very similar to that of the Bachman’s 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 would have a cumulative potential to improve habitat for this species. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIPS (non-native invasive plant species) would occur but should not affect this species.

Alternatives 3 and 4: Modified Midstory, Variable Thinning, Wildlife Opening Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects would be similar to Alternative 2. However, fewer acres would be thinned and have midstory reduction. Also, more area would have longleaf restoration. Most of the areas being dropped have low potential for Bachman’s sparrow habitat.


Bald Eagles (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 (USWFS 2007), which recommends restrictions on activities within 660 feet of nest.

Available Inventories: Eagle nests have been found in Angelina and San Augustine Counties mainly along the Sam Rayburn Reservoir shoreline. Compartments 73, 74, 75 and 78 are along Sam Rayburn Reservoir and some of the larger mature trees within the project area are suitable for bald eagle nesting. Surveys conducted by helicopter along the Sam Rayburn Reservoir shoreline in 2008 and 2016, documented twenty-two nests, with only nine being active, on or adjacent to the Angelina National Forest. Compartment 78 had two eagle nests in it with one being active. Two other active nests are located within 1 mile of the project area in compartment 63. On the ground surveys conducted by district personnel, specific to the proposed project, did not locate any bald eagles, or bald eagle nests within the project area.


Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct or indirect effects from this alternative because the current conditions and future results of those conditions would remain the same.


37



Direct and Indirect Effects: Forest management activities would have no direct effect on the bald eagles. Field surveys in and around the treatment area were conducted where applicable, but no eagle nests or signs of activity were found. If an unknown nests are present, possible impacts to eagles may include disturbance and subsequent flushing. Eagles that may be occupying the area could be flushed from perches or foraging areas. If bald eagle nests are discovered they would be protected according to the guidelines specified by the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007, pg. 13). The guidelines for timber operations include:

Avoid clear cutting or removal of overstory trees within 330 feet of the nest at any time.

Avoid timber harvesting operations, including road construction and chain saw and yarding

operations, during the breeding season within 660 feet of the nest. The distance may be

decreased to 330 feet around alternate nests within a particular territory, including nests that

were attended during the current breeding season but not used to raise young, after eggs laid

in another nest within the territory have hatched.

Selective thinning and other silviculture management practices designed to conserve or

enhance habitat, including prescribed burning close to the nest tree, should be undertaken

outside the breeding season (October 1 to May 31st in East Texas) [within 660 feet of nests].

Avoid construction of log transfer facilities and in-water log storage areas within 330 feet of

the nest.

Implementation of this project would have indirect beneficial effects to bald eagles. This action would increase viewing distances from within the thinned stands and would potentially serve to provide a continuum of habitat between nests.

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 lands 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 Forest lands to maintain quality habitat for the future. Prescribed burning and associated fire line construction 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.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects would be similar to Alternative 2. However, fewer acres would be thinned and have midstory reduction. Also, more area would have longleaf restoration. Most of the areas being dropped in Alternatives 3 and 4 are near the lake shores, which are the most suitable areas for bald eagle nests. Therefore, the potential for direct and indirect effects area less likely compared to Alternative 2.


38


Reptiles and Insects – Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences

Louisiana Pine Snake (Pituophis ruthveni)

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 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, Rudolph et al. 2006).

An amended and revised Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) (USFWS 2013) was developed as a cooperative effort among private, state and federal agencies in order to collectively implement proactive conservation measures and habitat management guidelines throughout a significant portion of the snake’s known range. 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.

Available Inventories: The U.S. Forest Service’s Southeastern Research Station traps the Louisiana pine snake annually in the southern Angelina National Forest. The nearest trap locations are in compartments 77, but no snakes have been caught there. The closest captured snakes were located south of Highway 63 in compartment 87 about 1 mile away. Records have been keep of any other Louisiana pine snake sightings including road killed individuals. The last documented Louisiana pine snake documented in the southern portion of Angelina National Forest was a recaptured snake in 2012. No snakes have been captured within the project area; however, suitable deep dandy soils are present within the project area. Gopher mounds have been observed in project area, especially in compartment 78, which is an indicator of suitable habitat for Louisiana pine snakes.


Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct or indirect effects from this alternative because the current conditions and future results of those conditions would remain the same. However, this alternative would prevent the improvement of current Louisiana pine snake habitat and the expansion of the species into currently unsuitable habitat.



39


Direct and Indirect Effects: The increased traffic during harvesting and road improvement puts individual snakes and/or their eggs at risk for mortality through direct contact with machinery and vehicles. Disturbance during forest management activities may force individual snakes into other areas of the forest or deeper underground. Additional protective measures include contractual requirements that prohibit any forest workers from killing, harming, or capturing any snake found within the project area. In addition, areas with concentrations of pocket gophers (visible mounds) would be avoided, in order to keep equipment out of areas with a higher likelihood of encountering pine snakes. Activities planned in the project area would have beneficial indirect effects by providing a habitat preferred by the pocket gopher, a diet mainstay for the snake. An increase in pocket gophers increases the density of their burrowing systems, which provides an increase in shelter, foraging, and snake hibernation areas. Thinning in the upland pine-dominated stands would make the trees less vulnerable to attack by bark beetles (Turchin et al. 1999; Boyle et al. 2004). This would decrease the potential for the loss of large acreages of upland pine habitat to beetles and maintain the mature forest cover needed by the pine snake.

Although some direct impacts may occur, the overall indirect effect of implementing these management actions would benefit the species in the long run. By thinning and reducing midstory, an open pine overstory would be promoted and pine snake habitat would be improved.

Cumulative Effects: Ongoing projects in the area include prescribed burning and associated 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 63, but overall, there should be little adverse cumulative effect on the snake from the ongoing projects combined with Alternative 2.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects would be similar to Alternative 2. However, fewer acres would be thinned and have midstory reduction. Also, more area would have longleaf restoration. Most of the areas being dropped in Alternatives 3 and 4 are near the lake shores, which are less likely to have suitable soils for Louisiana pine snakes.


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. It has been assigned a Global conservation ranking of G2 NatureServe (2012). 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). Small second-order, cool, clear streams, deeply-cut in sand, within loblolly and long-leaf pine forest. The average width is 0.3-1m and 10-40 cm deep with edges near-vertical and covered with sphagnum moss. Nymphs are found in under-cut part of banks where sphagnum moss trails into the water. Substrate is mixed sand, silt, and mud. Forest canopy needs to be sufficiently open to allow sunlight to hit stream (Abbott 2015). Adults have been observed foraging over forest openings, such as roads.


40

Available Inventories: This dragonfly has been recorded at various locations throughout the Angelina National Forest (Price et al 1989; Abbot 2015). 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 14 miles to the northeast according to the Texas Natural Diversity Database (2010). Two S. margarita nymph were found under the bank in an area with overhanging Sphagnum moss, and adults were observed along roads and at Boykin Springs Recreation Area (Abbott 2015).





Direct and Indirect Effects: Project activity in possible foraging areas that are in mature timbered stands may force any unknown individuals to other available foraging areas and away from the project/treatment area itself. However, because they generally forage high above the forest canopy, and over open areas, direct impacts to adult dragonflies are not expected. Furthermore, opening this stand would likely benefit this species. Direct effects to larvae are unlikely drains during logging because bogs and drainages would be protected. 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.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects would be similar to Alternative 2. However, fewer acres would be thinned and have midstory reduction. Also, more area would have longleaf restoration. Most of the areas being dropped in Alternatives 3 and 4 are near the lake shores.


Plants – Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences

Incised Agrimony (Agrimonia incisa)

Environmental Baseline: This species occurs in the coastal plain from southern South Carolina south to

north-central Florida and west to Mississippi. In southeast Texas, it grows in fire-maintained dry upland

longleaf pine savannas on well-drained sandy soils and can occur with Liatris tenuis. However, Agrimonia

is much more narrowly distributed on National Forest lands in Texas, and is found only within the Longleaf

Ridge area (Management Area 6). The Global Status of the Incised Groovebur is classified as G3-Vulnerable, and S2-Imperiled for the state of Texas (NatureServe 2010).


41

Available Inventories: Surveys in 2011 by Philipps, Loos, and Elliott conducted within the project area resulted in the documentation of 1 new occurrence of this species in compartment 78 stand 44 (Elliott 2011). Existing population inventory information is adequate because surveys have identified sufficient numbers of occurrences within the National Forests.





Direct and Indirect Effects: Disturbances are needed to maintain open habitat. The activities under the proposed alternative would be beneficial for this species in the short-term, as additional suitable habitat would be created by the removal of competing vegetation. There is possible detriment direct effects with the proposed action since there is a chance for the species to be damaged or destroyed from logging equipment through soil compaction if activities occur where the species is present. However the beneficial indirect effects from the creation more suitable habitat would promote this species.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects would be beneficial as well. Prescribed burning and fuel brakes are and will be ongoing in the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non-native invasive species) would occur but should not affect this species. The combination of the proposed vegetation treatments and prescribed fire would have beneficial impacts to this species, because of the reduced woody competition by top-killing shrubs, reduce shading by mid-story reduction, and reduce overstocking thereby allowing more sunlight to reach the herbaceous layer of the forest.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects would be similar to Alternative 2. However, fewer acres would be thinned and have midstory reduction. Also, more area would have longleaf restoration. Most of the areas being dropped in Alternatives 3 and 4 are near the Sam Rayburn shorelines, which has less suitable soils for this plant species.


Mohlenbrock’s Umbrella Sedge (Cyperus grayoides)

Environmental Baseline: This sedge has been recorded in several midwestern and southern states, including Texas, where it has been found in 20 eastern counties. Cyperus grayioides occurs on dry, sandy barren openings in upland pine savannahs on xeric stream terrace Pleistocene sand ridges and on the Willis (Quaternary) and Catahoula (Miocene) Formations. The plant forms open colonies around the rims of blowdowns (wind formed depressions), on active dunes, and rarely in disturbed roadsides associated with dry sand prairies. This species is also found in open well-drained sandy soils with little or no other vegetation present. Most sites are full sun with little shade. Suitable habitat


42

includes early successional stages of sand prairies, and sandy barrens of xeric forests (upland longleaf pine, shortleaf pine, and post oak forests).

This species declines as herbs and young hardwoods invade the habitat over time. The habitat is maintained by disturbances such as grazing, wind, and fire that suppress invasion of other vegetation. Habitats may be recreated by simulating disturbances (with fire or bull-dozing small areas to disturb the seed bank and clear vegetation) where it once occurred. The lack of fire to maintain its habitat is a limiting factor for the species.

Available Inventories: MacRoberts and MacRoberts (1997) surveyed high potential habitats for Forest Service sensitive plant species in many compartments on the Angelina in the 1990’s. They found the species in compartments 74, 76, and 87 (Sherwood Creek). Plants were found in two locations in compartment 76 on deep sandy hilltops. An additional three sites are located on the Sabine National Forest. Another survey conducted in association with a land exchange in the late 1990s resulted in the documentation of two more populations, again on deep sands, within the Davy Crockett National Forest. Surveys in 2011 by Philipps and Elliott conducted within the project area resulted in the documentation of this species in compartment 74 stand 54 (Elliott 2011). Cyperus grayoides has been observed in several more locations in the project area, especially along road sides and near upland oak sand-caps. Existing population inventory information is adequate because surveys have identified sufficient numbers of occurrences within the National Forests.





Direct and Indirect Effects: There is possible detriment direct effects with the proposed action since there is a chance for the species to be damaged or destroyed from logging equipment through soil compaction if activities occur where the species is present. Standard site prep (dozing and chopping) after clearing and subsequent transition to pine plantation may cause heavy soil disturbances and destroy individual plants. However, this species is currently found more abundantly in disturbed sites than in more undisturbed habitats. This is an early successional species that requires disturbances to create open sites. Disturbances (mowing, wind, fire etc.) are needed to maintain open habitat. The activities proposed under the proposed action would have beneficial effects to this species in the short-term, since soil disturbance associated with the project would create additional suitable habitat. The removal of competing vegetation would also be beneficial, since this species is early successional and competes poorly with mid-successional species (e.g. yaupon thickets and hardwood midstory).

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects would be beneficial. Man-made and other natural disturbances will continue to create small areas of suitable habitat for this species across the forest. As these actions take place, as they do on a regular basis, available habitat for this species will be maintained in a constant state of fluctuation between early successional, which this species prefers, to mid and late successional, where this species generally declines. Prescribed burning and fuel brakes are and will be ongoing in the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non-native


43

invasive species) would occur but should not affect this species. The combination of the proposed vegetation treatments and prescribed fire would have beneficial impacts to this species, because of the reduced woody competition by top-killing shrubs, reduce shading by mid-story reduction, and reduce overstocking thereby allowing more sunlight to reach the herbaceous layer of the forest. Because this species occurs in many different locations from the Davy Crockett National Forest ranging east to the Angelina and Sabine National Forests, this species population should remain constant.




Slender gayfeather (Liatris tenuis)

Environmental Baseline: Slender gay feather is most abundant on the Angelina NF, with forty two known occurrences. 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.

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. Singhurst (1996) reported relocating the eight locations and also finding seventeen new locations of this species. Surveys conducted by MacRoberts and MacRoberts (1997) resulted in finding two new occurrences. Surveys in 1998-1999 by Rob Evans, NFGT Forest Botanist, and other botanists resulted in resulted in finding four new populations of slender gay feather and relocating another population. Mize 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 documented this species on the north end of the Angelina NF in compartment 1 and a new location in compartment 14, all within areas of sandy soils. Surveys in 2011 by Philipps and Elliott conducted within the project area resulted in the documentation of 10 occurrences of this species, mostly along road rights-of-way (Elliott 2011). Existing population inventory information is adequate because surveys have identified sufficient numbers of occurrences within the National Forests.





44


Direct and Indirect Effects: There is possible detriment direct effects with the proposed action since there is a chance for the species to be damaged or destroyed from logging equipment through soil compaction if activities occur where the species is present. Overall, use of herbicide would benefit the species by decreasing the amount of woody competition in the stands. Indirect effects to the species would be beneficial because the project would move the habitat toward more suitable conditions by reducing shading from the overstory, improving fire behavior, and reducing competition with woody vegetation.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects would be beneficial. Slender gay feather commonly occurs in frequently burned longleaf pine habitat or may be found in areas frequently mowed such as rights-of-way. Slender gay feather 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. Prescribed burning and fuel brakes are and will be ongoing in the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non-native invasive species) would occur but should not affect this species. The combination of the proposed vegetation treatments and prescribed fire would have beneficial impacts to this species, because of the reduced woody competition by top-killing shrubs, reduce shading by mid-story reduction, and reduce overstocking thereby allowing more sunlight to reach the herbaceous layer of the forest.




Fish, Crayfish, and Mollusk – Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences

Crayfish

Environmental Baseline: The blackbelted crayfish (Procambarus nigrocinctus) lives primarily in lotic environments, and the Sabine fencing crayfish (Faxonella beyeri) and Neches crayfish (Procambarus nechesae) lives primarily in lentic habitats. 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, including intermittent streams and small perennial streams with narrow floodplains. Sabine fencing crayfish and Neches crayfish live primarily in lentic habitats (still water). These crayfish occur 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 2010). Runoff will be kept to a minimum by leaving buffer zones along both streamside management zones (SMZ’s) and the Sam Rayburn Reservoir. Habitat for this species can be found within compartments 73, 74, 75 and 78. Creeks and drainages throughout the compartment


45

experience pooling during periods of low water flow. Temporary pooling of water outside creek channels occurs when rainfall is higher.

Available Inventories: Neches crayfish and blackbelted crayfish are believed to be densely distributed in San Augustine, Sabine, Shelby and Panola Counties (Johnson 2011).

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).

Sensitive mussels have been documented in the Angelina and Neches River systems (Nature Serve 2010), however none of these species have been located on the Angelina National Forest in many years, most likely due to the construction of Sam Rayburn Reservoir. Reservoirs do not usually benefit native aquatic species, except in the case of some East Texas mussels, particularly in Steinhagen Reservoir, where some of the state’s rarest mussels can be found. However, since mussels reproduce through larvae implanted in host fish, their mobility is unlimited within a watershed.

Available Inventories: In 2009, mussels were surveyed on the Sabine National Forest along tributaries going into Toledo Bend Reservoir. Some sensitive mussels may have been found, but the taxonomy of triangle pigtoe and other Fusconaia species are currently being debated.

Fish

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): This species has been documented in the Angelina River system, which includes Caney Creek (NatureServe 2010). Although, habitat for the Sabine shiner is available, numerous surveys by Forest Service personnel have failed to locate the species on Angelia National Forest. 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


46

the streams within the project. Available inventory information is adequate enough to guide project design, support determination of effects, and meet requirements for conservation of this species. Given this information, it is believed that the Sabine shiner does not have a high potential for occupancy within the project vicinity.





Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects to blackbelted crayfish, Sabine shiner, and mussels are possible as these species are stream inhabiting. Crayfish that inhabit roadside pools could be directly affected (injured or killed), upon road reconstruction activities. Crossing of streams by heavy equipment for logging purposes may cause mortality for stream inhabiting crayfish if occurring in the area.

During harvest activities, Plan measures, and project design criteria are employed for protecting stream courses (the 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 the primary zone of MA 4, associated actions 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 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.

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


47

benefit aquatic species by helping to maintain forest cover, 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.

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. High potential habitat is likely scarce on private lands, since protective measures for streams are less stringent, and are optional for landowners. Since activities associated with this project are not expected to cause any deterioration of habitat quality, no cumulative effects are anticipated.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects would be similar to Alternative 2. However, fewer acres would be thinned and have midstory reduction. Also, more area would have longleaf restoration. Most of the areas being dropped in Alternatives 3 and 4 are near the Sam Rayburn shorelines. There would be fewer direct and indirect effects, because of less impacts to road side ditches and less sedimentation into streams.


Management Indicator Species _________________

Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences

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 Management Indicator Species (MIS) 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 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. MIS 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 MIS was selected further analysis based on available habitat and potential effects (Appendix B).


48

Table 6 list MIS that have not already been addressed in other sections and will be evaluated in this section.

Table 6. Management Indicator Species and Habitat Type selected for evaluation that have not already been addressed in other sections.

Species Habitat Type

Eastern wild turkey Forest/Grassland: Mid-succession (20-50 yrs)

Yellow-breasted chat Forest/Grassland: Early-succession (0-20 yrs)

Longleaf – Bluestem series Longleaf pine woodland/savannah

Louisiana Squarehead Dry-xeric oak pine forest

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 the game species in the following sections has been acquired from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Eastern wild turkey

Environmental Baseline: 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 pouts forage heavily on insects, and need open areas with abundant herbaceous vegetation and associated insects (Healy and Nenno 1983; 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).

Opening areas 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 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).

Eastern wild turkey historically occupied 30 million acres in eastern Texas. As a result of unregulated hunting and the loss of habitat, this species was virtually eliminated by 1900. Restocking efforts of Rio Grande, Florida, and pen-raised turkeys from 1924-1978 were unsuccessful. Restocking of Eastern wild turkeys began in 1979, but most restocking efforts have occurred since 1987. Range wide this


49

species is considered secure with a Global Status of G5-Secure. In the state of Texas, the wild turkey has a rank of S5-Secure (NatureServe 2011). However, in East Texas the wild turkey have been declining based on fewer observations and declining harvest records. In 2016, hunting season was closed in all of Angelina County and on National Forests lands in Jasper County. Eastern wild turkey were superstocked (20 males, 40 females) on the South Angelina in 2016.

Available Inventories: This species has been and continues to be monitored through combinations of survey techniques, including gobbler call counts and gathering harvest levels data. Surveys are conducted by both Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and USFS personnel and are analyzed by TPWD. The turkey restocked in 2016 on the Angelina National Forests were fitted with GPS transmitters were being tracked during nesting/brooding season to study the effects of prescribed burning.

Annual surveys and harvest data (Figure 10) suggest that eastern wild turkey populations are stable and that viability is not an issue on NFGT. When evaluated by individual counties, wild turkey population numbers are declining in Angelina and Jasper Counties.

Figure 10. Combined Spring Turkey Harvest in Angelina, Houston, Jasper, Nacogdoches, Newton, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, San Jacinto, Trinity, Montgomery and Walker Counties (National Forest Counties) from 1997-2011.





Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects could occur to eastern wild turkeys in the area, mostly due to possible disturbance or destruction of nests, if timber harvests occur during nesting season. However, 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.

0

20

40

60

80

100

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Harvest


50

Indirect effects of this alternative would be beneficial to the wild turkey. The lack of open habitat for nesting and brooding is one of the greatest limiting factors for wild turkeys in this project area. Alternative 2 would create approximately 285 acres of open habitat consisting of longleaf regeneration area (260 acres) and wildlife openings (25 acres) (Table 7). The 25 acres of wildlife openings would be established using existing log decks. The openings would each be 0.5 to 1 acre in size, which is too small to be very good brooding habitat. The regeneration areas would temporarily provide open habitat, because the planted longleaf pine saplings will convert the stands to young pine plantations. This alternative would greatly increase the amount of open pine forest habitat. Maintaining and creating open pine conditions by thinning and midstory reduction would be beneficial to turkeys (Campo et al. 1989) by increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the ground and encouraging the growth of grasses and forbs.

Cumulative Effects: Prescribed fire would continue to occur in the area, reducing the occurrence of a woody understory and promoting establishment of grasses and herbaceous ground cover. When added to thinning and midstory reduction treatments proposed in these alternatives, prescribed fire would be more effective in establishing and maintaining important habitat for the species. 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.

The proposed thinning would also reduce the potential for beetle infestation of pine-dominated stands (Turchin et al. 1999) and the subsequent loss of mature forest habitat. Management practices on adjacent private lands currently do little to enhance habitat for wild turkey, although regeneration of pine stands does provide some transient early-succession habitat. Future sustainability or growth of eastern wild turkey populations will depend largely on habitat developed or maintained on National Forest lands. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIPS (non-native invasive plant species) would occur but should not affect this species.

Table 7. Eastern wild turkey open habitat improvements compared between alternatives. These open areas would provide nesting and brooding habitat for eastern wild turkeys.

Wild Turkey Habitat

Improved

Alt. 1 No Action

Alt. 2 Modified Proposed

Action

Alt. 3 Modified midstory, variable thinning,

and no wildlife openings.

Alt. 4 Variable thinning (only clumps) and

wildlife openings in plantations.

Wildlife Openings 0 ac 25 acres

(0.5 to 1 acres each) 0 acres

6 acres (3 wildlife openings in

plantations, 2-acres each)

Open Pine Stands (≤60 BA)

0 ac 0 acres 250 acres of “gaps” (40 to 60 BA/acre)

0 ac

Regeneration Areas 0 ac 260 acres 290 acres 290 acres

Total Open Habitat for Nesting &

Brooding 0 acres 285 acres 540 acres 296 acres


51


Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects would be very similar to Alternative 2, due to possible disturbance or destruction of nests, if timber harvests occur during nesting season. However, indirect effects would vary. Alternative 3 would have fewer total areas treated; 930 fewer acres of thinning and 1,330 few acres of midstory reduction. This would result in less habitat improved, especially near the Sam Rayburn Reservoir. However, the lack of open habitat for nesting and brooding is one of the greatest limiting factors for wild turkeys in this project area, and Alternative 3 would result in more acres of open habitat compared to Alternative 2 (540 acres vs. 285 acres) and 4 (540 acres vs 296 acres) (Table 7). The variable thinning technic proposed in Alternative 3 would result in approximately 250 acres of “gaps” that are less than 60 BA per acre. These gaps would provide good quality open pine forest habitat for wild turkey nesting and brooding. Also, Alternative 3 would have 30 acres more clear-cuts for longleaf regeneration than Alternative 2, which would temporarily create more open habitat as a result.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects would be the same as Alternative 2.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects would be very similar to Alternative 2 and 3, due to possible disturbance or destruction of nests, if timber harvests occur during nesting season. Alternative 4 would have the same acres of thinning and midstory reduction as Alternative 3. However, the creation of open habitat would be less compared to Alternative 3 (Table 7). Alternative 4 would have variable thinning, but with no “gaps”. Thus fewer acres would be thinned below 60 BA per acre. Alternative 4 would have 6 acres of wildlife openings at approximately 2-acres in size each, which would provide better brooding habitat compared to the 0.5 to 1-acre size openings proposed in Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects would be the same as Alternative 2 and 3.

Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens)

Environmental Baseline: The yellow-breasted chat ranges from southern Canada and British Columbia east to southern New Hampshire and south to northern Florida, the Gulf Coast and Baja, California. The species winters from southern Texas and central Mexico south through the Yucatan to western Panama. The NFGT is used by this species primarily as breeding habitat, and is seldom seen during the winter seasons. It inhabits early-succession habitats in dense thickets, shrub-scrub habitat, and blackberry tangles, including clearcuts and abandoned fields (Burhans and Thompson 1999). Nests are placed in dense foliage, generally within one meter of the ground (Ricketts and Ritchison 2000; Krementz and Christie 2000; Burhans and Thompson 1999). It feeds low to the ground, on insects in dense vegetation, and occasionally on the ground (Ricketts and Ritchison 2000). The yellow-breasted chat was selected as a management indicator for early-succession forest habitats due to its dependence upon such shrub-scrub vegetation.

Available Inventories: The NFGT conducts breeding bird point surveys annually in various forest types and age classes to monitor trends in bird populations, including yellow-breasted chats. Yellow-breasted chat’s relative abundance indicates that it is stable to slightly increasing on the Angelina National Forest (Figure 11). Values represent the mean number of species observed per survey point (i.e., it accounts for the number of points surveyed in a given year which may vary).


52

Figure 11. Yellow-breasted chat relative abundance by year for the Angelina National Forest. Values represent the mean number of species observed per survey point (i.e., it accounts for the number of points surveyed in a given year which may vary).


Direct and Indirect Effects: Because no activities would occur under this alternative, there would be no direct effects on yellow-breasted chats. However, in the absence of disturbance, any existing early-succession or brushy habitat would continue to mature, eventually becoming less suitable for the species.

Cumulative Effects: When added to current prescribed burning and treatment of NNIPS in the project area and commercial timber production in adjacent lands, this alternative would not cause additive effects to yellow-breasted chats. The short term timber harvest occurring on adjacent timber company land will continue to provide a patchwork of early-succession habitat for populations in the area.

Alternative 2: Modified Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternatives 2 has the potential for direct effects to any yellow-breasted chats in the treatment area, mostly due to destruction of nests, if timber harvests occur during nesting season, however, it is unlikely that any individuals would be nesting in forested areas, so effects would be minimal. As a result of timber harvests for longleaf regeneration these alternatives would indirectly benefit the species by creating dense early-successional habitat (i.e. pine plantations).

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects of this alternative on yellow-breasted chat populations would be largely neutral. The proposed pine thinning would leave the pine-dominated stands less vulnerable to beetle infestation (Turchin et al. 1999; Boyle et al. 2004). There would be less chance that large acreages would be infested and eventually replanted following control actions. Thus, there is less potential for future development of large areas of chat habitat from beetle infestations under

1.83 1.63

2.57

2.21 2.33 2.33

2.5

2.08

2.83

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

YELLOW-BREASTED CHAT Relative Abundance


53

these alternatives. However, longleaf regeneration and wildlife openings proposed would increase early-succession habitat in the project area, which would benefit yellow-breasted chat.

Prescribed fire would continue to occur in the area, reducing the occurrence of a woody understory and promoting establishment of grasses and herbaceous ground cover. When added to thinning and midstory reduction treatments proposed in these alternatives, prescribed fire would be more effective in establishing this habitat. In addition, short rotation timber harvest on adjacent commercial timber lands is expected to continue, also providing habitat for the species. Therefore, yellow-breasted chats would likely continue to thrive in the Pineywoods Ecological Region. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIPS (nonnative invasive plant species) would occur but should not affect this species.




Longleaf – Bluestem Series

Environmental Baseline: Longleaf pine forest lands with little bluestem herbaceous understory is common throughout the Southern Angelina National Forest, including portions of the Sandy Creek Project Area. According to the Ecological Classification System (ECS) (Van Kley et al. 2007) much more of this project area historically was longleaf-bluestem than currently exists. The southern portions of compartments 73, 74, 75, and nearly all compartment 78 are predominately long-bluestem communities.

Available Inventories: Project surveys when conducting stand exams, RCW monitoring and surveys, and plant surveys have inventoried most of the project area. Also, aerial photos, soils, ECS are valuable for determining longleaf-bluestem communities.





Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects would be beneficial. As a result of thinning and reducing midstory vegetation. The project will increase sun light to forest floor and will promote grassy herbaceous understory in areas suitable for longleaf pine.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects will be beneficial as well. Prescribed burning and fuel brakes are and will be ongoing in the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non-native


54

invasive species) would occur but should not affect this species. These actions along this alternatives would increase longleaf-bluestem communities throughout the project area.




Louisiana Squarehead (Tetragonotheca ludoviciana)

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

Available Inventories: Surveys conducted by MacRoberts in 1995 resulted in the documentation of 5 populations on the Angelina NF. Inventories and monitoring following the February 10, 1998 windstorm blowdown, found an additional population on the northern Angelina NF and one population on the Sabine NF, More surveys conducted in 2005 by Philipps resulted in the relocation of several populations on the Davy Crockett NF and two new populations on the Angelina NF. The current known populations are estimated at 20. The short-term objective in the Plan is 20 populations and the long-term objective is 25. A hillside seepage slope bog floristic survey conducted between 8/8/06-8/11/06 resulted in the inadvertent documentation of one additional population of this species in compartment 92 of the Angelina NF. In 2007, surveys conducted on the Angelina NF in the Upland Island Wilderness located one new population and Walker surveyed for this species in 2009 resulting in the documentation of two new populations, both occurring on the top of xeric bluejack oak sandhills. Philipps and Loos documented a very large population in compartment 1 in 2010. Surveys by Philipps and Elliott conducted within the project area did not result in the documentation of this species, however suitable habitat does exist.

This species is most often found in deep loose sands on xeric Blackjack, bluejack, or post oak hilltops. It is also often found on frequently maintained roadsides. This suggests that Tetragonotheca ludoviciana prefers frequent fires or other disturbances, such as mowing, that would minimize the amount of shrub encroachment on sites and thus allow for less competition.


55





Direct and Indirect Effects: Disturbances are needed to maintain open habitat. The activities under the proposed alternative would be beneficial for this species in the short-term, as additional suitable habitat would be created by the removal of competing vegetation. There is possible detriment direct effects with the proposed action since there is a chance for the species to be damaged or destroyed from logging equipment through soil compaction if activities occur where the species is present. However the beneficial indirect effects from the creation more suitable habitat would promote this species.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects would be beneficial as well. Prescribed burning and fuel brakes are and will be ongoing in the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non-native invasive species) would occur but should not affect this species. The combination of the proposed vegetation treatments and prescribed fire would have beneficial impacts to this species, because of the reduced woody competition by top-killing shrubs, reduce shading by mid-story reduction, and reduce overstocking thereby allowing more sunlight to reach the herbaceous layer of the forest.




Economics _____________________________________


Management for RCW, longleaf restoration and eastern wild turkey habitat improvements are the basis for this proposal in the Sandy Creek Project. Timber sale revenue should be able to cover the cost of the sale (Table 8). This includes preparing the timber to be sold, administering the timber sale, and the road work required to remove the timber. The remaining work proposed in this project; site preparation, prescribed burning, pine release, planting, surveys, other road needs, culverts, cavity inserts, midstory removal, and NNIPS treatments are additional projects that could be covered by the revenue generated from the timber sale. However, if funds are not available to cover these other projects, that should not prevent this project from being implemented. Funds would have to be generated from other sources.

Calculations used in this project consider the time value of costs and revenues for each alternative, and were used to determine the present net value for this project. The timber sales should be accomplished in three years, reforestation in 3 to 4 years following each sale, the cavity inserts would


56

occur over several years (as needed), and the midstory work and road closures would occur once the timber sale was completed. Treatments such as pine release and brownspot burning would be done as conditions warrant treatment (as needed).

Wildlife needs, which includes the midstory reduction, wildlife openings, and cavity inserts, are projects that could be paid for by the timber sale if enough money is available. The values used to generate revenue for the sale of timber products were based on the most recent stumpage and unit cost estimates of activities on the forest.

Table 8. Comparison of Estimated Costs and Returns

Activity Alternatives

1 2 3 4

CO

STS

Timber/Roads

Timber Sale Prep 0 $760,312 $760,312 $760,312

Timber Sale Administration 0 $160,092 $160,092 $160,092

Reconstruction 0 $158,300 $158,300 $158,300

Temp Roads 0 $19,143 $19,143 $19,143

Culverts/Closures 0 $59,364 $59,364 $59,364

Total Timber/Road Costs 0 $1,157,211 $1,157,211 $1,157,211

Other

Cavity Inserts/Wildlife Openings 0 $25,200 $25,200 $25,200

Midstory Removal 0 $348,000 $188,400 $188,400

Wildlife Openings 0 $25,000 $0 $6,000

Site Preparation 0 $153,920 $171,680 $171,680

Planting 0 $122,467 $136,598 $136,598

Pine Release 0 $25,209 $25,209 $25,209

Prescribed Burning 0 $114,400 $90,220 90,220

Regeneration Surveys 0 $10,212 $11,391 11,391

Total Other Costs 0 $824,408 $651,607 $657,607

Costs 0 $1,981,619 $1,808,818 $1,814,818

RET

UR

NS

Volume

Hundred Cubic Feet (CCF) 0 71,247 85,227 77,733

Pine Sawtimber 0 52,571 63,827 58,048

Pine Pulpwood 0 18,675 21,400 19,685

Pine Sawtimber @ $74.74/CCF 0 $4,033,247.12 $4,896,807.44 $4,453,442.56

Pine Pulp @ $9.72/CCF 0 $128,304.12 $147,018 $135,235.95

Total Return 0 $4,161,551.24 $5,043,825.44 $4,588,678.51

Present Net Value 0 $2,179,932.24 $3,235,007.44 $2,773,860.51


57


Direct Effects: No activities would occur under this alternative; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects. However, no revenue would be generated to accomplish non-timber related restoration and habitat improvements. Road reconstruction would not occur as funds would not be available and roads would deteriorate to the point of being unsafe to drive on. Monies would not be available to improve habitat for the endangered RCW, restore longleaf pine and enhance eastern wild turkey habitat.

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.

In the No Action Alternative, money would not be spent, nor returned to the federal government. There would be no employment generated in the timber industry. If timber is not harvested in this decade, future harvests would have to be larger or much of the standing timber (and potential economic returns) might be lost to mortality.


Direct Effects: Revenue would be generated for the United States Treasury. Money would be available to address wildlife and fisheries habitat improvements. In this alternative, approximately 4,400 acres would be thinned, 2,900 acres of mid-story would be treated, 260 acres of longleaf would be regenerated, and 25 acres of wildlife openings would be made.

Indirect Effects: Jobs would be generated from the sale and removal of the timber and from the contract work for reforestation and wildlife improvements; this would include jobs associated with the maintenance of equipment used on the jobs. Roads within the area and other county roads would be improved.

Cumulative Effects: The local economy is somewhat dependent on the timber industry, and the sale of timber should help this industry and the local economy. Timber is being cut and sold from private and timber company lands. Based on the land size of National Forest (NF) lands compared to private and timber company lands, timber sold off of NF lands should not have a significant impact on the timber market.

Alternative 3: Modified midstory, variable thinning, and no wildlife openings

Direct Effects: Revenue would be generated for the United States Treasury. Money would be available to address wildlife and fisheries habitat improvements. In this alternative, approximately 3,470 acres would be thinned, 1,570 acres of mid-story would be treated, 290 acres of longleaf would be regenerated, and 500 acres of openings consisting of 250 acres of “gaps” and 250 acres of “clumps” would be created.


Cumulative Effects: The local economy is somewhat dependent on the timber industry, and the sale of timber should help this industry and the local economy. Timber is being cut and sold from private and timber company lands. Based on the land size of National Forest (NF) lands compared to private


58

and timber company lands, timber sold off of NF lands should not have a significant impact on the timber market.

Alternative 4: Variable thinning (only clumps) and wildlife openings in plantations

Direct Effects: Revenue would be generated for the United States Treasury. Money would be available to address wildlife and fisheries habitat improvements. In this alternative, approximately 3,470 acres would be thinned, 1,570 acres of mid-story would be treated, 290 acres of longleaf would be regenerated, 6 acres of wildlife openings would be made, and 250 acres of small “clumps” would be created.


Cumulative Effects: The local economy is somewhat dependent on the timber industry, and the sale of timber should help this industry and the local economy. Timber is being cut and sold from private and timber company lands. Based on the land size of National Forest (NF) lands compared to private and timber company lands, timber sold off of NF lands should not have a significant impact on the timber market.

Roads _________________________________________


No new construction roads are proposed nor are any roads proposed for decommissioning or closure. Maintenance and reconstruction of existing roads and creation of temporary roads are proposed in this project. There are approximately 27 miles of existing roads (13 miles unpaved and 14 miles paved). Culverts that are preventing fish passage and/or creating water quality degradation would be replaced, removed, or reset as needed.


Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: There would be direct effect to roads as a result no action. However, currently some roads in the project area are degraded and have excessive erosion. Without road rehabilitation and maintenance many roads in the project area will continue to degrade. Therefore, the No Action alternative would have negative indirect and cumulative effects.


Direct and Indirect: Direct effects could short term be negative while roads are being used more during timber sale operations. However, during wet periods all timber sale operations would halt to prevent road damage due to hauling on wet and muddy roads. Some temporary roads would be built but would be restored and revegetated back to natural conditions once timber sales are completed. The timber sale purchaser is responsible for road reconstruction and maintenance on roads they use to remove timber. These additional costs are passed onto the Forest Service in the form of reduced purchase prices for timber. Long-term the reconstruction and maintenance of roads in the project area would be beneficial as it will repair erosion problems that currently ongoing along several roads.


59

Cumulative Effects: Improving road conditions may increase use by the public on closed Forest Service roads, which could lead to some illegal OHV use. Gates, barriers and signage could be added to discourage illegal use. These road would also continue to be used for Forest Service administrative purposes, such as monitoring the RCW population, prescribed burning, and NNIS treatments. Overall the improved road conditions and maintenance should reduce damage created by legal and illegal use of Forest Service roads in the project area.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects would be similar to Alternative 2. However, fewer acres would be thinned and have midstory reduction. Most of the areas being dropped in Alternatives 3 and 4 are near the lake shores. Therefore, fewer roads would be needed for timber operations and the effects to roads would be less.


Visual Quality & Recreation _______________________

Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences:

Proposed actions in the Sandy Creek Project would have direct effects within the compartments and indirect effects beyond the compartment boundaries when looking at Recreation and Scenery.

Most of the northern Sandy Creek Project compartment boundaries are Sam Rayburn Reservoir shoreline. Northern boundary line not directly on the reservoir, boarders private lakeside property/neighborhoods including Parker Point, Roxie Point, Plum Ridge, Concord Ridge, Concord Heights, Concord Hills, and Westwood. The Harveytown neighborhood is surrounded by Forest Service land. The majority of Harveytown abuts compartment 78, only the southeast corner, beyond National Forest System Road (NFSR) 332, is outside the project area. The far southeast tip of compartment 78 abuts the north boundary of private property which includes the O’Neil neighborhood. The western boundary of compartment 73 abuts private property. Most of this is not developed with the exception of the Hopsonville neighborhood. The southern boundary of the project compartments, except the shared boundary along compartment 78, abuts the following roadways; State Highway 63, County Roads - Angelina-Jasper County Line Road, Angelina County Road - Plum Ridge Road, Jasper County Road- 054, and NFSRs 333 and 332. Within the project compartments are Angelina County Roads - Hopsonville, Bingham, Parker Point, 21, Plum Ridge, and Jasper County Roads - 055, 056, 057, and 058. Public accessed NFSRs within the project compartments include 337, 3042, 364, 347A, 311, 333, and 306A.

The Sandy Creek Project area is located in Management Area (MA) 6 – Longleaf Ridge Special Area, MA-4 – Streamside Management Zones, MA-2 – Red-cockaded Woodpecker Emphasis, and adjacent to MA-9a – Developed Recreation Sites and MA-5 – Major Aquatic Ecosystem. The Plan describes the desired future condition of MA-6 as open longleaf pine forests with an open understory on the higher elevations. Mixed forest will be found in the bottoms, along stream sides (MA-4) and shoreline (MA-5). Areas that were planted with other varieties of pine will be restored to the native longleaf pine. The dominant character of MA-6 is open mature longleaf pine forest mixed with some hardwoods with the primary management goal of improving habitat for the RCW. To achieve this goal, timber management activities are evident throughout due to the focus on management of and restoration of longleaf pine forest with large older pine trees to provide the best opportunity of habitat for RCW (MA-2).


60

MA-4 is generally described as streamside management zones. This proposed project area includes Sam Rayburn Reservoir shoreline. The streamside and lakeshore management zones are considered bottomland hardwoods or transitions containing bottomland hardwood. MA-4 is not managed for timber, but managed to provide diverse stands of hardwoods, some pine, and a wide variety of understory vegetation.

MA-2 is managed primarily for the recovery of the RCW. The desired future condition for the proposed project area is that of MA-6. The dominant character is open mature longleaf pine, grassy understory, interspersed with mixed forest and hardwood bottoms on or adjacent to streams and lakeside. Developed Recreation Sites are within MA-9a. Sandy Creek Recreation Area occupies a peninsula of land in Sam Rayburn Reservoir and is accessed by NFSR 333. While once a much more developed recreation area than it is currently, the primary use today is lake access for fishing. This site is frequently over used by participants of large bass tournaments. The site was never developed for the current amount of boating activity. Sections of the shoreline have succumbed to wave action over the years resulting in removal of several facilities and ever increasing shoreline erosion.

Outside the recreation area, the known major recreational activities within the project compartments are hunting (hunter camp located across County Line Road from Parker Point Rd), illegal Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) riding, driving for pleasure, and bird watching. The area known as the Hidden Beaches, near the eastern end of compartment 78, is accessed from NFSR 332 and the lake. This wide sandy beach is a very popular dispersed recreation location. Another use within compartment 78 is horseback riding. Ebenezer Campground, a nearby Army Corp of Engineers recreation area, provides facilities for campers with horses. Riders often enter compartment 78 from outside the project area to ride along the Hidden Beaches shoreline.

The general forest area in MA-6 and MA-2 has the visual quality objective (VQO) of maximum modification. In maximum modification, management activities may be dominant, but appear as natural when viewed as background. Management activities may also be out of character when viewed as foreground and middleground. The more visually sensitive areas of MA-4 (streamside management zones) and the predominantly used roadways - SH 63, County Roads (County Line, Parker Point, Plum Ridge, Roxie Point, 21, 054, 055, 056, 057, and 058), and NFSR 333 (between County Line Road and Sandy Creek Recreation Area) have the VQO of partial retention. Management activities in partial retention may be visible but should remain subordinate to the character of the surrounding landscape. Angelina County Roads – Bingham and the section of Hopsonville within compartment 73, and NFSR 332 have a VQO of modification. Management activities in modification may be dominant features, but are of an appropriate scale and form so as to appear as a natural occurrence within the surrounding area.

The most visually sensitive areas are the Developed Recreation Site - Sandy Creek Recreation Area (MA 9a), and the Major Aquatic Ecosystem - Sam Rayburn Reservoir (MA 5). Sandy Creek Recreation Area and the reservoir waterbody have the VQO of retention. Management activities in retention should not be visually evident and should repeat elements found in the surrounding landscape. No treatment activities are proposed within the recreation area, and VQO for the recreation area would not be directly affected. MA 5 Major Aquatic Ecosystems “does not include lands adjacent to these waterbodies. Adjacent riparian ecosystems are included in MA 4.” (the Plan, pg. 162). The Plan states regarding MA 4 that “VQO varies depending on location and visual sensitivity of adjacent management areas…most SMZs require retention or partial retention.” (the Plan, pg. 158). The reservoir shoreline is highly visible from both onshore and the water. Several miles of shoreline would be affected by the proposed activities and the VQO of retention should be use.


61


Direct and Indirect Effects: Under the no action alternative, existing views along the roads would remain as they are for some time. Currently, treatment activities consist of prescribe fire which will continue to keep the existing views. As pine stands within the compartments age the possibility of rapid change increases with a lack of management activities due to natural events such as wildfire, straight-line winds, insects and disease. These events can have devastating effects on the quality of the scenery.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects to the quality of the visual landscape would be negligible for many years. The compartments would retain their overall forested character. Views into the compartments would remain as they are. The potential for a dramatic change could increase with fire burn, insect and disease.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4: Modified Proposed Alternatives & Modified Midstory, Variable Thinning, Wildlife Opening Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects: The proposed management activities in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 consist primarily of commercial thinning and midstory removal. Coordination guidelines for scenery management along road corridors and views into compartments from the lake would be the same for the three Alternatives. Additionally, proposed Alternative variations would create minimal differences to the overall experience of the recreating public.

Midstory treatment, proposed for compartments 73, 74, 75 is a necessary management tool for RCW, removes smaller hardwoods and shrubs. This treatment can reduce spring and fall color and change the visual texture of the forest; however, American beech (Fagus grandifolia), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis) or southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) would be retained. Thinning opens the canopy, allowing the pine to become larger. Thinning and midstory removal would open views beyond the edge and create visual depth into the forest increasing scenic quality. The vast majority of views into the proposed project area would continue to be foreground. Elevation changes within the project area creates additional visual interest in the foreground. Typically there isn’t enough elevation change to have longer middle ground and background views. Longer distance views occur only in a few locations, such as: down a road corridor, across the lake from the shoreline and from the lake to the shoreline. There are two exceptions on NFSR 332 where the reservoir can be viewed from the roadway and proposed thinning would increase the amount of visible lake.

The greatest visual change would occur in stands proposed for longleaf regeneration. Regeneration in stands 1, 5 and 29 of compartment 73 would immediately open the forest along County Roads, Hopsonville and Bingham. Regeneration in Stands 1, 4 and 18 of compartment 73 and Stands 51 and 52 in compartment 74 would create a change in the canopy shape seen from the lake. Though these proposed clear-cuts could be seen from the reservoir, the SMZ (MA 4) along the shoreline would help shield the clear-cuts from view. If the SMZ along the shoreline, which should have a VQO of retention, is protected then VQO Coordination Guidelines described in the Plan (pg. 76) would be followed.

Site preparation activities of mulching or shearing in the regeneration stands would physically open the ground surface and movement through the stands would be fairly easy for several years as planted longleaf and the surrounding vegetation begin to fill in.

Recreational activities within treated areas, other than regeneration stands, could be hampered by additional material remaining on the ground. The most likely activities affected would be hunting and


62

OHV riding. Curtailing OHV riding would be a very positive outcome. As materials decompose moving through the vegetative remains will become easier. The coordination guidelines for scenic quality provide mitigation measures for the public driving roadway corridors in and around the project. Management activities could have short-term effects on the use of the project area during hunting season. Management activities in the eastern end of compartment 78 could affect the ability of horseback riders to reach the shoreline. Management activities could create roadway conflict between vehicles at the entrance to Sandy Creek Recreation Area, particularly if a bass tournament is occurring. To reduce the impact on the public, if possible, schedule activities during periods of minimum use.

The Plan does not address scenery management along shared neighborhood boundaries. To provide visual quality for the neighborhoods it is suggested the Coordination Guidelines for modification, at a minimum, be used along the boundaries where residents can see results of the management activities.

The VQO Coordination Guidelines can be found in the Recreation and Scenery Management Specialist Report located in the project file. This report provides a detailed description of the VQOs recommended for this project.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects to the visual quality of the project area would be minimal as the overall forested character will not be changed. The immediate effects of management activities would be temporary and/or mitigated to reduce the impact on visual resources with the exception of longleaf pine restoration treatment areas. That change would be dramatic and take years to regain the forested appearance. In general, actions proposed would result in positive changes to the scenery by increasing the long distance views into the forest, improving the character of the timber, and restoring stands of longleaf pine.

Summary

The two regeneration clear-cuts in compartment 73 along Bingham and Hopsonville Roads would not meet the modification VQO guideline limiting visible open areas to 25 acres. These regeneration clear-cuts would be nearly 80 acres and 70 acres. However, the majority (80%) of proposed regeneration clearcuts are currently young loblolly stands that are very densely planted with thick understory, and look similar to pine plantations on private lands. The adjacent private property along Bingham Road is already a clearcut, which means the added opening area on Forest Service lands would not be a major change from the surrounding the landscape to the west. Over the long-term, converting these stands to longleaf pine forest should create a more appealing view consisting of open forest with grassy understory.

Though some VQO Coordination Guidelines would not be meet, the overall visual quality for the project area would improve. The desired future condition for most of the project area is open pine forests. The process of achieving this condition improves the visual quality of the pine stands by increasing visibility into the forest and improving the quality of the remaining trees. Coordination Guideline actions along roadway corridors and shoreline would reduce the impact on visual and physical changes. Sensitivity to public use of the Recreation Area and activities within the compartments can help reduce impact to recreational activities.


63

Heritage Resources ______________________________


This section is in progress. The decision for this project will not be signed until concurrence has been received from SHPO and affected federal recognized tribes.

The Forest Service is obligated, under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), to consider the effects of all undertakings on historic properties (heritage resources) that may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Consultation with federally recognized tribes with ancestral ties to the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas has been initiated by way of standard scoping for NEPA.

There should be no direct, indirect or cumulative effect of the project on heritage resources. Regardless of what activity is ongoing on Forest Service lands, all known historic and prehistoric heritage resources (sites) have been identified and are/would be protected as required. In the event that historic or prehistoric heritage resources are discovered during any of the tree removal operations, work within the immediate vicinity of the discovery would stop and the Heritage Resources staff would be notified. The heritage resource would be protected until consultation between NFGT, the SHPO, and affected federally recognized tribes is completed and a treatment plan is developed and implemented.

Soil ____________________________________________


The following are key points from a soils report that can be found in the project record. The soils report provides a more detailed description along with maps of the soil suitability in regards to harvest equipment operability, haul roads (natural surface), log landings, mechanical site preparation (drum chopping), hand planting, erosion hazards from roads or trails, soil rutting hazards, and potential damage by fire.

The primary resources used for the soils analysis were the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS 2016) Web Soil Survey, the published soil surveys of Angelina County (Raymond “Chick” Dolezel), and Jasper & Newton Counties (Conrad L. Neitsch), and the digital soils data through ArcGIS and the NRCS’s Soil Data Viewer. The area was examined in brief, and ground-truth was primarily to become familiar with the soils and landscapes of the Project Area. Soils analysis was developed by using Web Soil Survey along with the GIS soil survey layer and soil suitability ratings. The suitability ratings were developed NRCS soil scientist, utilizing various soil properties to develop the interpretations. This process was also used for cumulative effects analysis. Direct and indirect effects of proposed activities and, past, present and future activities were considered when analyzing cumulative effects.

The Sandy Creek Project Area is located within West Gulf Coastal Plain Section of the Coastal Plain Province of the Atlantic Plain Physiographic Region of the United States. It is within Land Resource Region P, the South Atlantic and Gulf Slope Cash Crops, Forest, and Livestock Region, and is subdivided into Major Land Resource Area 133B Western Coastal Plain (NRCS 2006, pgs. 427-433). In Texas, this area is often referred to as the East Texas Timberlands Ecoregion.

The Project Area consists of nearly level to steep uplands that are dissected by streams. However, most of these streams and flood plains are outside of the Project Area. Elevation ranges from the


64

normal pool elevation of Sam Rayburn Reservoir of 164.4 feet to approximately 362 feet near Texas Highway 63 and Forest Service Roads 347 and 347A (50 to 110 meters). The area drains generally from south to north within the Project Area. The southern boundary of the Project Area runs along Forest Service Roads 347, 352, 306, 54 and 53 (Angelina-Jasper County Line Road, Angelina Plum Ridge Road and Jasper County Roads 54 and 53). These roads run along the ridge top separating the local watershed drainage area. Thus, the longest stream within the Project Area is no more than 6000 feet long.

According to the Geologic Atlas of Texas, Palestine Sheet, the geology of the Project Area consists of the Catahoula formation of the late Oligocene to early Miocene age, and the Whitsett and Manning geologic formations of the Jackson group (Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas). The Catahoula formation is mudstone and sand with tuffaceous material. The Whitsett formation is primarily the sandier soils being composed of quartz sand.

Saul Aronow, Department of Geology at Lamar University, wrote in the Angelina and Jasper & Newton County Soil Surveys that the Manning formation is very fine to medium sand that formed as a delta plain deposit to the Gulf of Mexico. The parent material of soils on the Manning formation are sandy and silty for the Keltys and Raylake soils. The Whitsett formation is fluvial and the final stage of regression of the Gulf of Mexico, characterized by fine to medium grained, tuffaceous and clayey sandstone interbedded with clay. Rayburn, Corrigan, Browndell and Kisatchie soils formed within the Whitsett formation. The Catahoula formation has a fluvial origin similar to the Whitsett formation. These materials contain bentonitic clays that weathered from volcanic ash that began in the late Eocene and continued through the Oligocene into part of the Miocene. The ash was blown in from volcanoes located in northwestern Mexico, New Mexico and the Trans-Pecos area of Texas during that time. Browndell, Tehran and Letney soils formed within the Catahoula formation. The bentonitic parent material that developed from the tuffaceous volcanic ash of these geologies is highly erosive; so care must be taken to prevent erosion of the surface soil down to the parent material.

Of note, within the project boundary were several areas of water, primarily from Sam Rayburn Reservoir, and three soil mapping units that were of insignificant acreage. These soil mapping units were AaB Alazan (0.9 acres), Ko Koury (0.1 acres), both in Angelina County along the western boundary of compartment 73; and the DUB Doucette-Boykin association (1.6 acres) in Jasper County along the southern boundary of compartment 78 near Forest Service Road 306E. These soils were either well or moderately-well suited to harvest equipment operability, suitability for log landings or haul roads, and the erosion hazard along roads or trails was either slight or moderate. None of these three units were “poorly” rated for these intended uses, or had a “severe” erosion hazard.


Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no actions undertaken; therefore, there would be no direct impacts on soil resources in this area. However, several unpaved forest roads have ongoing erosion that would not be addressed, so indirect effects would be negative due to continued erosion overtime.

Cumulative Effects: On average, portions of the compartments 73, 74, 75 and 78 have been prescribed burned on a 2-3 year cycle for over a 20 years. If this alternative is selected, prescribed burning would continue on a 2-3 year cycle. Some timber salvage occurred as a result of Hurricane Rita in the area in 2006. Control NNIPS (non-native invasive plant species) is expected to occur but should have little impact on soils. No other actions are known to be ongoing in this area at this time. No on-the-ground disturbing actions are proposed in this alternative. Therefore, there should be no cumulative effects from this alternative on the soil resource.


65

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4: Modified Proposed Alternative & Modified Midstory, Variable Thinning, Wildlife Opening Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effect: The only soil map unit that is poorly suited for harvest equipment operability, haul roads, log decks, and natural surface roads is the MhB Melhomes map unit, and it comprises roughly 5 percent of the project area, regardless of which alternative is chosen (Table 9). This rating is primarily due to wetness as the soil typically has a water table within 6 inches of the surface year-round. This soil map unit occurs only in Angelina County, so it is within compartments 73, 74 and 75.

Extreme caution, primarily by avoidance, will need to be taken on these soils, since the soils are essentially wet year-round. These Melhomes soils are likely considered part of SMZs since they are “flooded” map units or bog areas. Thus these areas will likely be considered a sensitive area to be avoided. Many of the “non-treatment” areas of the project area include this soil. Harvesting during the dry season is recommended. However, these Melhomes soils are typically wet all year long; thus avoidance of these soil areas is likely the best treatment option.

The Melhomes soils along with Rayburn-Kisatche and Tehran-Letney map units in Jasper County (primarily compartment 78) are rated as poor for haul roads (natural surface) (e.g. skid trails) and log landings due primarily to the steeper slopes of these map units. Over 20 percent of the treatment areas with any action alternative would be poorly suited for haul roads and log landings (Table 10). The best solution is to avoid these map units for haul roads (natural surface) and log landings. Avoidance will likely be possible in most cases, as these map units do not comprise a large amount of acreage within the three alternatives of the project area (Rayburn-Kisatche comprises roughly 2.5 percent, and Tehran-Letney approximately 12 percent of the action alternative areas) (Table 9). Majority of poorly suited areas are in compartment 78 near steep slopes. Where haul roads (natural surface) and log landings must be included on these soils, care should be taken to design them to be perpendicular to the slope, much like terraces are used in farming, and to avoid having them run “up and down” the slope as much as possible.

In each of the alternatives, the hazard of erosion for roads and trails is less than 15 percent for severe hazard. The Kisatche, Rayburn (D slope), and Stringtown (D and F slopes) in Angelina County (compartments 73, 74 and 75); and the Rayburn-Kisatche in Jasper County are rated as severe for erosion hazard, roads and trails. This rating is primarily due to the slope and erodibility of the soils. The best solution is to avoid these map units for roads or trails. Avoidance will likely be possible in most cases. However, these map units comprise a relatively large amount of acreage within the three alternatives of the project area, avoidance will not always be possible. Where roads or trails must be included on these soils, care should be taken to design them to be more perpendicular to the slope, much like terraces are used in farming. The goal is to avoid having vehicles run “up and down” the slope as much as possible. Silt fences and grader-bladed wings can be utilized in the design to slow down running water as much as possible, in the attempt to keep the water from channelizing. Wing outlets will need to be in flat areas as much as possible. In more sloping areas, outlets could be designed similar to grade-stabilization structures, or “check dams,” in order to slow the water down.

The Corrigan, Keltys, Kisatche, Raylake and Stringtown (D and F slopes) soils in Angelina County (compartments 73, 74 and 75) are the soils that have the severe soil rutting hazard. While these soils are only within those compartments, they do make up 25 to 30 percent of the soils within the action alternatives of the project area (Table 10). Most of compartment 73 has severe rutting hazard hazards. Care must be taken to operate equipment during the dry season and stay out of seasonally-


66

wet areas. These wet areas can possibly be marked in some way to assist equipment operators to stay away from these areas. Dry-season operation will be critical.

Site preparation is expected to include drum chop or mulch (also known as a roller chopper). The disturbance to the soil using this method typically affects the upper four to eight inches. Thus the effects of mechanical site preparation to surface soil was included in the soils report. No soils within the project area are rated as unsuited to mechanical site preparation, surface soil. Roughly half of the soils are well-suited and the other half are technically “moderately” suited (Table 10). The longleaf regeneration areas in compartment 73 have moderate suitability for mechanical site preparation (drum chopping and mulching). Additionally, the soil characteristics contributing to the lower rating are found within the subsoil (stickiness and high plasticity); and as stated, the site preparation will not be deep enough to affect the subsoils. Thus, the negative effects to site preparation on surface soil should be minimal.

Corrigan, Rayburn (B and D slopes), and Raylake soils in Angelina County (compartments 73, 74 and 75), and Browndell-Rock Outcrop, Corrigan-Rayburn, and Rayburn-Kisatche in Jasper County (primarily steep slopes in compartment 78) are rated as poorly-suited for hand planting (Table 9). The longleaf regeneration areas in compartment 73 are also poorly-suited for hand planting. However, no soils within the project area are rated as unsuited to hand planting. The soil characteristics contributing to the lower ratings are found within the subsoil (stickiness and high plasticity). However, since the sites will be hand-planted and only have surface site preparation, those effects should not greatly affect planting. The stickiness and high plasticity characteristics would typically make traversing the area on foot and digging the hole for the seedlings difficult. The subsoil can be sticky and plastic when wet, and may stick to boots and the blades of the planting hoe, dibble or auger.

Cumulative Effects: Some timber salvage occurred as a result of Hurricane Rita in the area in 2006. Control NNIPS (non-native invasive plant species) is expected to occur but should have little impact on soils. No other actions are known to be ongoing in this area at this time.

On average, portions of the compartments 73, 74, 75 and 78 have been prescribed burned on a 2-3 year cycle for over a 20 years. Prescribed burning would likely continue on a 2-3 year cycle. Over 60 percent of the project area, for any action alternative, has high hazard potential for damage by fire. "High" indicates that fire damage can occur because of one or more soil properties and that overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration. Letney, Rayburn (B and D slopes), and Tehran in Angelina County (compartments 73, and most of 74 & 75), and Browndell-Rock Outcrop, Letney-Tehran, and Tehran-Letney in Jasper County (most of compartment 78) are the soils rated with high hazard potential for damage by fire. These rating are due to the soil characteristics of surface texture and rock fragments. While the report does not discriminate against a “catastrophic” wildfire versus a prescribed fire, since the project area has been managed by fire every two to four years, the likelihood of high hazard damage by fire is greatly diminished. The prescribed fire has typically been conducted during early spring when soil moisture is high.


67

Table 9. Soil map units and associated characteristics.


68

Table 10. Management alternatives effects of acreage and percent area.


69

Vegetation & Silviculture __________________________

Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences:

The Sandy Creek project area proposed harvesting and midstory treatments in the Habitat Management Area (HMA), Management Area 2 – Red-cockaded woodpecker Emphasis, MA 4 – Streamside Management Zones, MA 6 – Longleaf Ridge Special Area, MA 9a – Developed Recreation Sites (the Plan, pgs. 96, 145, 168, 262). These areas are managed for large, older trees within the longleaf pine – bluestem dominated community for enhancement of the red-cockaded woodpecker. As well as managing the role and function of aquatic, riparian and wetland ecosystems and the enhancements of recreational facilities for camping, picnicking, swimming, boating, and fishing while offering a range of compatible multiple uses.

The ecological classification system of these areas comprise of Sandy Uplands and Mayflower Landtype Associations (LTA) (Van Kley et al. 2007). These LTAs occur on gently sloping to strongly sloping uplands or gently undulating to hilly with slope ranging 3 to 35 percent. Soil characteristics ranges between deep sandy and loamy with drainage of somewhat poorly to somewhat excessively (the Plan, Appendix A, pgs. 13-15, 21)

The Sandy Uplands LTA of the Piney Woods Transition Subsection and the Mayflower LTA of the Southern Loam Hills Subsection are subregions of the Coastal Plains and Flatwoods, Western Gulf Section of the Outer Coastal Plains Province (Van Kley et al. 2007). Historically, longleaf pine dominated significant upland areas in the Piney Woods Transition subsection; however this subsection represents the transition zone where longleaf pine communities gradually decrease from south to north and east to west. The heart of the longleaf pine belt of the Western Gulf Coastal Plains lay in the Southern Loam Hills subsection; where many of the original longleaf pine succeed to loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and mixed pine-hardwoods due to human-related disturbances and lack of fire. The topography is generally rolling with some moderate slopes throughout Sandy Upland LTA then gradually steeping into the Mayflower LTA.

Proposed treatments in all the alternatives occur in longleaf, loblolly and shortleaf forest type stands basis on ground observation of the forest conditions (Table 11). These forest types represent the available stands for future RCW nesting and foraging habitat.


70

Table 11. Percent acres of pine forest within treatment areas by stand type.

Forest Type Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Longleaf 44.4%

Loblolly 42.5%

Shortleaf 6.1%

Loblolly-Longleaf 3.5%

Loblolly-Shortleaf 3.5%

Total Acres 4,693

Table 12 shows majority of the forest in this project area are between 31 and 90 years of age. There are also scattered clusters of relic pine trees and young regeneration occurring within each of these older pine stands. The relic longleaf trees were probably left when the area was cut out early in the 1900s. Pine regeneration is occurring in old bug spots, areas where fire has created conditions for regeneration, and where trees have blown over from past storm events.

Table 12. Current age class distribution.

Age Class Percent Distribution

0-10 0%

11-30 7%

31-70 46%

71-90 45%

90 + 2%

The Sandy Creek Project area has been exposed to frequent fire though prescribed burning in previous years. Portions of the project area has been prescribe burned every two to three years from 1997 to present. Once the stands are marked for treatment, prescribed burning will not occur until after the timber harvests are completed. These stands may be excluded from the burns for three-to-five years; therefore, it is beneficial that these compartments are prescribed burned before marking to keep fire intervals closer to the desired level. As a result of the prescribed burning, the shrub layer is gradually being replaced by a grassy/forb understory. However, hickory, sweetgum, oak, elm, sassafras, green brier, and other woody species are present.


71

Most of the pine stands in the project area are overstocked and need treatment to improve habitat for RCW, as well as decrease the risk of pine beetle mortality in the future. The proposed thinning would result in a total pine BA ranging between 60 and 70 for each stand with exceptional of variable size thinning in compartments 74 and 75. This would create structural diversity through establishment of clumps and gaps across the landscape. This should improve the vigor of remaining trees and improve habitat conditions for RCW. Longleaf pine would be favored over shortleaf, loblolly, and slash pine as a leave tree. No overstory hardwood trees would be removed during the thinning or midstory work (unless for safety reasons). If overstory hardwoods are within 50 feet of a RCW cavity tree, they would be removed.

The project area is within the natural range of longleaf pine and currently has off-site loblolly plantations. These plantations are at merchantable size and should support harvesting operations. These off-site plantations would be cut to remove the off-site loblolly pine and re-planted with native longleaf pine seedlings. The increase of longleaf pine in the area should greatly benefit the RCW, due to the extended life span of longleaf, and should assist in the forests goal of restoring this ecosystem to the area. The longleaf pines adaptation to short fire frequency will also benefit other species, such as the eastern wild turkey.


Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would have no direct or indirect effects, because no treatment activities would occur. However, no harvests or midstory removal would occur. Pine stands are currently overstocked. Growth would slow down and tree vigor would decrease. Over time, competition for water and nutrients may lead to the death of the less vigorous trees leading to an increase in fuels. Low vigor may also make the trees more susceptible to harmful insects and diseases. These stands are in Management Areas 2, 4 and 6. Without management, habitat for RCW would become less suitable. Any NNIPS in the area would continue to proliferate potentially outcompeting native species.

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.


Direct and Indirect Effects: Thinning pine stands would increase vigor of the remaining trees on the site as fewer trees would be competing for water and nutrients. Few overstory hardwood trees (generally those greater than 11.9 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet above ground level (DBH)) would be removed. However, sweetgums up to 16 inches in diameter could be removed. Herbicide and/or handtool use in midstory and release treatments will positively affect the longleaf regeneration, and should ensure that planted seedlings have adequate survival and are able to help increase the habitat for the RCW in the future. Midstory treatments should also create stand conditions more favorable for the RCW. Reduction of the overstory and midstory should increase sunlight to the forest floor and improve conditions for the growth of grasses and forbs. Areas receiving regeneration harvests would have the composition of the stand directly impacted; however, following harvest the area would be reforested in longleaf pine. A couple of years following longleaf regeneration the stands should be well stocked with seedlings and have an understory of grasses and forbs that would help promote productive burns in the future.


72

Thinning the pine stands may also make the area more susceptible to NNIPS especially in areas where variable thinning proposed. More sunlight to the forest floor and possible temporary exposure of mineral soil may make it easier for NNIPS to become established. All logging equipment used on the sale would be washed before entering the area to help prevent the spread of NNIPS. If these areas are prescribed burned on a two-to-three year cycle, this may help prevent the establishment and or spread of some NNIPS. The Forest Service also no longer uses NNIPS in their erosion control seed mixtures. Monitoring for NNIPS should be ongoing across the forest and would include the project area. Closing temporary roads after timber removal may reduce some of the garbage dumped in the area, which may have an indirect impact on vegetation.

Cumulative Effects: Prescribed burning is going to continue in this area. Fire coupled with the timber harvests and midstory removal work would improve habitat for RCWs, as described in the RCW Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003 pgs. 38, 51, 113-115). Herbicide and handtool use should not have a cumulative impact in the area due to direct application practices. Control of known NNIPS has been initiated since the NNIPS EA was completed. Control may include practices such as manual or mechanical cutting, pulling individual stems out by the roots, prescribed fire, and herbicides. No other actions are known to be occurring or potentially occurring in the foreseeable future in this area. Some of the surrounding private land has residences on it. Futures actions on these lands are unknown at this time.

Alternative 3 and 4: Modified Midstory, Variable Thinning, Wildlife Opening Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects would be the same as Alternative 2 except for the additional 30 acres of longleaf restoration which results in more acres for longleaf conversion and the variable density thinning promotes herbaceous growth in the understory. The 260 acres of longleaf restoration in Alternative 2 represents just 4.5% of the project area; the additional 30-acres in Alternative 3 and 4 would increase this to 5% of the project area. If only 5% of the area is regenerated every ten years, it would take 200 years to regenerate the entire area. Variable density thinning creates varying gap sizes in the crown canopy allowing additional sunlight to the ground surface. Natural regeneration and other early successional herbaceous species may or may not populate in these gaps. That said, it gives non-desirable plant species such as NNIPS the same opportunity to become established. Over time, it would result to an uneven age mosaic landscape.


Old Growth _____________________________________


To protect possible old growth in MA 2 and MA 6, the Plan requires an evaluation of all stands 100 years and older before entry. The project has four stands which meet this minimum age; however, these stands are not receiving active treatment (the Plan, Appendix I, Supplement #1. 6/99). The stands proposed for treatment currently exhibit no old-growth characteristics and would require more than another decade to acquire these characteristics. There are scattered relic longleaf trees (old pines that were left in the early 1900’s) within the stands proposed for thinning. The thinning guidelines for the project select relic longleaf trees as the priority trees to leave. Also, Alternatives 3 and 4 includes variable density thinning with clumps of untreated areas, which could include pockets of relic longleaf pine trees.


73

As none of the alternatives would affect old growth, no further analysis of old growth is required for this project. Stands to be regenerated are in the younger age classes and are off-site loblolly pine being converted to longleaf pine; therefore, these harvests should not affect old growth requirements in the project area.

Climate Change __________________________________


Ongoing research suggests that climate is already changing and impacts include increases in air temperature, sea level, and frequency of extreme weather, such as hurricanes and droughts. These conditions could eventually result in more stressful forest environments, which could in turn lead to reduced growth and productivity. Declines in vigor may make forests more susceptible to large-scale pest attacks and other disturbances (Anderson 2008). The proposed treatments would help to improve the forest’s resistance and resilience to climate changes (Anderson 2008). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, forest management can be used to mitigate climate change by maintaining stand-level carbon density through reduction of forest degradation, planting, site preparation, and other management practices (Nabuurs et al. 2007). The prescribed burning would help to reduce fuel loadings (Ryan 2008). The amount of carbon dioxide released by a low-intensity fire is small and the store of carbon on the forest floor is rapidly replaced as fine fuels re-accumulate and low shrubs re-grow (Underwood et al 2008). Restoring fire-adapted forests and managing for RCW habitat requires a reduction in carbon storage compared to unmanaged lands. (Martin et al. 2015). However, managed forest are more resilient to fire, disease and pest; and reduced carbon storage should be evaluated in the context of other forest restoration objectives (Martin et al. 2015). The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of this project on climate change, as well as the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of climate change on this project have been considered. Any resulting greenhouse gas emission would not be measurable on a global scale.

Air ____________________________________________


Under the Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets limits on how much of a pollutant is allowed in the air anywhere in the United States (www.epa.gov/ebtpages/air.html). Areas of the country where air pollution levels persistently exceed the national ambient air quality standards may be designated “nonattainment” (www.epa.gov/ebtpages/airairqualityattainment.html, accessed August 9, 2011). The Angelina National Forest is located in Angelina, Jasper, San Augustine, and Nacogdoches Counties.


Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct and indirect effects on air quality because no actions are being proposed.

Cumulative Effects: There would be no cumulative effects on air quality because no actions are proposed.


74

Alternative 2, 3 and 4: Modified Proposed Alternative & Modified Midstory, Variable Thinning, Wildlife Opening Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects: Air quality would be affected directly by the exhaust from vehicles used to perform the work. Indirectly, air quality would be affected from the dust generated from driving on dirt/gravel roads. Air quality would be impacted just in the vicinity of the road and/or vehicle and should be temporary.

Cumulative Effects: The increase in fuels on the ground from harvesting, site preparation and midstory work may increase the amount of smoke generated when this area is prescribed burned in the future. Prescribed burning on surrounding National Forest lands would continue contributing smoke that affects air quality. However, any smoke generated from prescribed burning would be temporary in nature, lasting just the day or a few days after the burns.

CONSULTATION & COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, federal, state, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

ID TEAM MEMBERS:

District Ranger (DR): Kimpton Cooper ID Team Leader (IDTL): Jason Engle ([email protected]) Biologist: Jason Engle ([email protected]) Fisheries Biologist: Dave Peterson ([email protected]) Botanist: Tom Philipps ([email protected]) Archeologist: Phyllis Wolf ([email protected]) Landscape Architect: Nancy Snoberger ([email protected]) Engineer: Tiffany (Dandy) Jones ([email protected]) / Steve Lewis ([email protected])

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES:

US Fish and Wildlife Service: Robert Allen

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department: Adam Terry, Bill Adams, Julie Hardin, Jason Hardin

TRIBES:

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana: Honorable Lovelin Poncho

Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana: Honorable Joey Barbry

United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma: Honorable George Wickliffe

mailto:[email protected]









75

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma: No Contact Identified

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma: Honorable Gary Batton, Daniel Ragle

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas: Honorable Ronnie Thomas

United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma: Lisa LaRue-Baker

OTHERS:

Texas Conservation Association: Larry Shelton

Sierra Club: Brandt Mannchen

National Wild Turkey Federation: Scotty Parsons, Dan Johnson, Kurt Dyroff

Private Citizen: John Stine

Private Citizen: Corey Byerly


76

LITURATURE CITED

Abbott, J.C. 2015. Distribution and Conservation Status for Two Rare Odonates in Southeast Texas. Wild Basin Creative Research Center & Preserve. 38 pp.

Anderson, P. 2008. Silviculture and Climate Change. (May 20, 2008). U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. Available: http://wwwJs.fedus/ccrc/topics/silviculture.shtml

Belanger, R.P. 1996. Silviculture Guidelines for Reducing Losses to the Southern Pine Beetle. Pages 165-177 in Thatcher, Searcy, Coster, Hertel, eds. The Southern Pine Beetle. USDA Forest Service Expanded Southern Pine Beetle Research and Applications Program, Science, and Education Administration Technical Bulletin 1631. Washington D. C.

Blackburn, W.H., R.W. Knight, J.W. Spillman, R.J. Caffey, H.A. Pearson, A.T. Weichert, and J.C. Wood. 1989. Assessment of water yield and quality from intensive silvicultural practices and livestock grazing in southeast forest. Annual Progress Report, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Sonora, Texas.

Boyle, M. F., R. L. Hedden, and T. A. Waldrop. 2004. Impact of prescribed 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, K. F., ed. 2004. Proceedings of the 12th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-71. Asheville, NC: U.S. Dept. of Agri., Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 594 p.

Burhans, D. E. and F. R. Thompson (1999). "Habitat patch size and nesting success of Yellow-breasted Chats." Wilson Bulletin 111(2): 210-215.

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.

Carter, A.D. 2000. Herbicide movement in soils: principles, pathways and processes. Blackwell Science LTD Weed Research 2000, pp 113-122.

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.

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.

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.


77

Dickson, J. G., C. D. Adams, and S. H. Hanley. 1978. Response of turkey populations to habitat variables in Louisiana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 6(3):163-166.

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.

Elliott, B.A. 2011. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Sandy Creek Project [Botany] Survey Report. Elliott Environmental Consulting (elliottconsultingusa.com). 15 pp.

Frumhoff, T. Karjalainen, O.Krankina,W.A.Kurz,M. Matsumoto, W. Oyhantcabal, N.H.Ravindranath, MJ. Sanz Sanchez, X.Zhang. 2007. Forestry. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of working group IIIto the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B.Metz,O.R.Davidson, P.R.Bosch, R.Dave, LA. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdomand NewYork,NY,USA.

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.

Gucinski, H., M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, M.H. Brookes. 2001. Forest Roads: A synthesis of scientific information. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 14 p.

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.

Healy, WM. 1985. Turkey poult feeding activity, invertebrate abundance, and vegetative structure. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:466-472.

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.

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. Pages 66–83 in J. G. Dickson, editor. The wild turkey: biology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

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.


78

Johnson, D. 2011. Fallicambarus (F.) wallsi (Decapoda: Cambaridae), a new burrowing crayfish from eastern Texas. Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition). Zootaxa 2939: pp.59–68.

Krementz, D. G. and J. S. Christie (2000). "Clearcut stand size and scrub-successional bird assemblages." Auk 117(4): 913-924.

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.

MacRobert, B.R. and M.H. MacRoberts. 1997. The ecology of Agrimonia incisa Torrey & A. Gray (Rosaceae) in the West Gulf Coastal Plain. Phytologia 82:114-128.

Martin, K. L., M. D. Hurteau, B. A. Hungate, G. W. Koch, and M. P. North. 2015. 'Carbon Tradeoffs of Restoration and Provision of Endangered Species Habitat in a Fire-Maintained Forest', Ecosystems, 18: 76-88.

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.

Nabuurs, GJ., O. Masera, K.Andrasko, P. Benitez-Ponce, R. Boesr, M. Dutschke, E. Eisiddig,J. Ford-Robertson, P. Frumhoff, T. Karjalainen, O.Krankina,W.A.Kurz,M. Matsumoto, W. Oyhantcabal, N.H.Ravindranath, MJ. Sanz Sanchez, X.Zhang. 2007. Forestry. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of working group IIIto the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B.Metz,O.R.Davidson, P.R.Bosch, R.Dave, LA. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdomand NewYork,NY,USA.

NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2010. Version 6.1. Arlington, Virginia. USA: NatureServe. Available: http://natureserve.org/explorer.

Neary, D. and J. L. Michael. 1996. Herbicides-Protecting Long-Term Sustainability and Water Quality in Forest Ecosystems. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 26(1/2): pp 241-264

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.

Osiecka, A. and P. J. Minogue, 2010. Considerations for Developing Effective Herbicide Prescriptions for Forest Vegetation Management. Document FOR273 of the School of Forest Resources and Conservation Department, University of Florida: Institute of Food and Agriculture Science.

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.


79

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.

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.

Ricketts, M. S. and G. Ritchison (2000). "Nesting success of Yellow-breasted Chats: Effects of nest site and territory vegetation structure." Wilson Bulletin 112(4): 510-516.

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.

Ryan, M. G. 2008. Forests and Carbon Storage. (June 4, 2008). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. Available: http://wwwJs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/carbon.shtml

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.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2005. East Texas Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan; 2005-2015. Austin, Texas. 56pp.

Turchin, P., J. Davidson, and J. L. Hayes. 1999. Effects of thinning on development of Southern pine beetle infestations in old growth stands. So. J. Appl. For.

Underwood, Roger, David Packham, and PhilCheney. 2008. Bushfires, prescribed burning and global warming. Bushfire Fron Inc Occasional Paper No. 1. Available: http://bushfirefront.com.au/opinion/occasional-papers.

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. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing the National Forest Transportation System. Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service. 222 p.


80

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1996. Final Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. Lufkin, Tx. 308 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. USDA Forest Service, 286 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003. Cumulative effects analysis for water quality and associated beneficial uses. National Forests in Texas. Internal unpublished report. Southern Region. 21 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003. Angelina National Forest. Forest-Scale Roads Analysis Report. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas internal unpublished report. Southern Region. 148 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. Forestry – Use Pesticides – Lables, Material Safety Data Sheets, and Other Supporting Information. Southern Region report. 283 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995. Southern Region. 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. 2016. Forest Service. Southern Region. R8 Bird Database. (FS Intranet site: http://fsweb.dv.r5.fs.fed.us/bird/).

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2016. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey, the published soil surveys of Angelina County (Raymond “Chick” Dolezel), and Jasper & Newton Counties (Conrad L. Neitsch), and the digital soils data through ArcGIS and the NRCS’s Soil Data Viewer. (http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov).

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, the Caribbean and the Pacific Basin. United States Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. pp. 427-433.

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. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 23pp.

http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/


81

U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Candidate Conservation Agreement for Louisiana Pine Snake. 71pp

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.

Watters, G.T. 2000. Freshwater mussels and water quality: a review of the effects of hydrologic and instream habitat alterations. Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Symposium, 1999. 2000 Ohio Biological Survey. pp 261

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).


82

APPENDIX A: THREATENED, ENDANGARED AND SENSITIVE SPECIES DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT.

Distribution, habitat, and potential for occupancy within the project area of animal and plant species

on the Angelina and Sabine National Forests that are designated as Federally Threatened or

Endangered Species.

Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered

Scientific Name Status OAR Code

Habitat Requirements For High Potential Habitat

Forest-wide Distribution

Determination of Effect

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

Red-cockaded woodpecker

Picoides borealis E 6

Open, 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; USFWS 2003).

All National Forest

Not likely to adversely affect

Least tern * Sterna antillarum E 1 No Habitat,

No Occurrences

No Effect

Blacked-capped vireo

Vireo atricapilla E 1 LBJ No effect

Amphibians

Houston toad Bufo houstonensis E 1 No Habitat,

No Occurrences

No Effect

Insects

American burying beetle

Nicrophorus americanus

E 1

The American burying beetle occurs in a variety of habitats, including sandy grassland and oak-pine woodlands.

Caddo - No effect

Mollusks

Ouachita rock pocketbook

Arkensia wheeleri E 1

Caddo - Bois D' Ark Creek Watershed

No effect

Plants

Neches River rose mallow

Hibiscus dasycalyx T 1 Open marsh, nearest population

from Harrison Co. Davy

Crockett - No Impact

Texas prairie dawn *

Hymenoxys texana E 1

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 high) mounds of sandier soil than the surrounding flat area) in open grassland in almost barren areas with Limnosciadium pumilum, peppergrass, little barley, and nostoc.

Adjacent to the Davy Crockett - Comp 116, 118, 120, and 121 (Habitat ONLY, No Occurrences)

No effect


83

Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered

Scientific Name Status OAR Code



Determination of Effect

Texas golden gladecress

Leavenworthia texana

E 2

Restricted to small, treeless glades found on rocky outcrops of the Weches Geologic Formation. Weches Formation outcrops, known only from San Augustine and Sabine Co.

No Habitat, No Occurrences

No Effect

White bladderpod Physaria pallida E 1

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 vegetation type is pine-oak-hickory woodland. Associated species include the rare Texas golden glade cress (Leavenworthia texana), as well as Drummond's onion (Allium drummondii), and little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) (NatureServe 2007).

Sabine - No effect

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

Navasota ladies’-tresses

Spiranthes parksii E 1

Grows on forb-dominated barrens, on shallow, nutrient-poor soils from the Catahoula Formation. Found under a 50% canopy of post oak and black hickory in small openings (Orzell 1990).

Angelina - Post oak woodlands and barrens over Catahoula Formation, nearest pop. in Angelina Co.

No effect

OCCURRENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS (OAR) CODES: 1 = Project located out of known species range; therefore, species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s). 2 = No habitat is present within the area affected by the project; therefore, species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s). 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 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 cumulative effects analysis area.


84

Distribution, habitat, and potential for occupancy within the project area of animal and plant

species designated as Regional Forester’s sensitive species on the Angelina and Sabine National

Forests.

Regional Forester's Sensitive Species

Scientific Name

Status OAR Code



Determination

Birds

Bachman’s Sparrow Peucaea

aestivalis S 5

Open, frequently burned pine forests with a dense bunchgrass ground cover and minimal woody understory (Oberholser 1974; Hardin and Probasco 1983; Hamel 1992).

All National Forest

May Impact, not cause trend toward Federal listing

Bald eagle Haliaeetus

leucocephalus S 5

Coastal areas, and around large bodies of water such as reservoirs, lakes, and rivers (USFWS 1995). Nests and associated pilot trees are typically located in large trees within two miles of open water.

All Forest and Grasslands. Nest commonly found along San Rayburn and Toledo Bend reservoirs.

Beneficial Impact

Migrant loggerhead shrike Lanius

ludovicianus migrans

S 3

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 trees or shrubs. Historic habitat included open pine-grasslands; however, pastures and hayfields are considered suitable (USFWS 2000).

All Forest and Grasslands.

No impact

Mammals

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus

rafinesquii S 2

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 use abandoned buildings in the southern parts of their range. Maternity colonies consist of a few dozen individuals and males are usually solitary (Davis and Schmidly 1994; Harvey et al. 1999).

All National Forest

No Impact

Southeastern Myotis Myotis

Autroriparious S 2

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 trees, but is also found in water tupelo, sweetgum, and human-made structures such as buildings and highway culverts (Mirowsky et al. 2004).

All National Forests

No Impact

Reptiles

Louisiana pine snake Pituophis

ruthveni S, C 5

Open, frequently burned pine forests with little midstory vegetation, a well-developed understory of grasses and forbs, sandy, well-drained soils, and the presence of pocket gophers (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997).

Sabine & Angelina -



85


Scientific Name

Status OAR Code



Determination

Crustaceans

Sabine fencing crayfish Faxonella

beyeri S 8

Roadside ditches that are intermittently filled (NatureServe 2007).

Sabine, Angelina, & Davy Crockett


Neches crayfish Procambarus

nechesae S 7

Simple burrows in temporary or semi-permanent pools in roadside ditches (Hobbs 1990; NatureServe 2007).

Angelina - Comp 2, SFA Exp. Forest; & Davy Crockett

No Impact

Blackbelted crayfish Procambarus

nigrocinctus S 7

Occurs among debris in streams with sandy or rocky bottoms (Hobbs 1990; NatureServe 2007).

Sabine, Angelina, & Davy Crockett

No Impact

Insects

Texas emerald dragonfly Somatochlora

margarita S 5

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 for insects at canopy level over mature forest and over gravel roads and small openings (Price et al. 1989).

All National Forest


Sarracenia spiketail * Cordulegaster

sarracenia S 2

On 16 April 2010, Terry and Troy Hibbitts photographed a male and a female at Boykin Springs Recreation area and the photos were recognized as likely representing a new species. Cordulegaster sarracenia, was described by Abbott & Hibbits 2011 from southeast Texas and western Louisiana where it has a close association with pitcher plants (Sarracenia alata), thus far only being found in seepages and bogs where the plants are present. Many bogs that were known, have dried up, apparently due to encroachment of trees and lack of fire. Ironically, one of the two known populations for this species is a gas pipeline (Boykin Springs Recreation Area in the Angelina National Forest). Because it is regularly maintained for access, the bog and thus C. sarracenia thrives.

Angelina No Impact

Mullusk

Texas pigtoe Fusconaia

askewi S 8

Streams with mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel in protected areas associated with fallen trees or other structures (Howells et al. 1996).

All National Forest


Triangle Pigtoe Fusconaia

lananensis S 7

Mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel in streams (Howells et al. 1996).

Sabine & Angelina -

No Impact

Sandbank pocketbook Lampsilis

satura S 8

Small to large rivers with moderate flows on gravel, gravel-sand, and sand bottoms (Howells et al. 1996).

All National Forest


Southern hickorynut Obovaria

jacksoniana S 7

Creeks and rivers with moderate current, often in gravel (Howells et al. 1996).

Sabine & Angelina -

No Impact


86


Scientific Name

Status OAR Code



Determination

Louisiana pigtoe Plerobema

riddellii S 7

Found in streams (Howells et al. 1996).

All National Forest

No Impact

Texas heelsplitter Potamilus

amphiachaenus S 7

Found in quiet waters in sand and mud (Howells et al. 1996).

All National Forest

No Impact

Fish

Sabine shiner Notropis

sabinae S 8

Closely restricted to a substrate of fine, silt-free sand in smaller streams and rivers having slight to moderate current (Lee et al. 1980).

All National Forest


Plants

Incised groovebur Agrimonia

incisa S 6

Fire-maintained longleaf pine savanna on well-drained but not xeric sandy soils (Orzell 1990).

Sabine & Angelina -


Panicled indigobush * Amorpha

paniculata S 2

It occurs in deep acid woodlands and bogs over Letney (Arenic Paleudults) soils within the Catahoula Formation. Amorpha paniculata is a stout shrub that grows in deep acid woodlands and bogs in East Texas (Philipps 2007).

Sabine & Angelina - comp 90 & 92

No Impact

Texas bartonia Bartonia

texana S 2

Along wooded streams, bogs, and creek bottoms in swampy tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) forests and bay-gall (Ilex coriacea) thickets. Often on elevated clumps of sphagnum moss or other organic matter (NatureServe 2007).

Sabine, Angelina, & Sam Houston

No Impact

Warner’s hawthorn Crataegus

warneri S 1

Open, deep sandy soils, where it is restricted to areas with periodic disturbance by fire, wind, and/or erosion (NatureServe 2005).

Davy Crockett -

No Impact

Mohlenbrock’s umbrellas-sedge

Cyperus grayioides

S 6

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 to encroachment by woody or weedy plant species. Sand prairie habitats have declined severely as a result of agricultural and residential development, fire suppression, and grazing (NatureServe 2007).

Sabine & Angelina -


Southern lady’s-slipper Cypripedium

kentuckiense S 2

Near wooded seepage areas, on stream floodplains, and in mesic hardwood ravines on lower mesic slopes or on stream terraces (Orzell 1990).

Sabine & Angelina -

No Impact

Commanche Peak Prairie Clover

Dalea reverchonii

S 1

Grasslands (e.g., Little bluestem-side oats grama prairie) or openings in post oak (Quercus stellata) woodlands on shallow calcareous clay to sandy clay soils over limestone. Often among sparse vegetation in barren, exposed sites (NatureServe 2007).

LBJ No Impact

Pineland bogbutton Lachnocaulon

digynum S 2

Hillside seepage bogs, wet pine savannas, wet sphagnum bogs in pine savannas (NatureServe 2005). Pitcher plant bogs and wetland pine savanna with herbaceous groundcover

Sabine & Angelina -

No Impact


87


Scientific Name

Status OAR Code



Determination

Slender gayfeather Liatris tenuis S 6

Open pine forests on sandy soil in eastern Texas (Orzell 1990). Habitat requirements include fire maintained dry, upland longleaf pine savanna.

Sabine & Angelina -


Yellow fringeless orchid Platanthera

integra S 2

Frequently burned hillside seepage bogs (Orzell 1990). Pitcher plant bogs and wet savannas w/ herbaceous understory

Sabine & Angelina -

No Impact

Barbed rattlesnake-root Prenanthes

barbata S 2

Rich, mesic hardwood forests, and near rivers and streams. Mesic hardwood or riparian forests with unique associates, nearest populations in Nacogdoches and Jasper Cos.

Sabine & Angelina -

No Impact

Large beakrush Rhynchospora

macra S 2

Bogs, wet pine savannas, and wet flatwoods. Pitcher plant bogs or open herbaceous seeps

Sabine & Angelina -

No Impact

Sabine bog coneflower Rudbeckia

scabrifolia S 2

Hillside seepage bogs and associated broadleaf semi-evergreen acid seep forests (Orzell 1990). Pitcher plant bogs or open herbaceous seeps, nearest known pop. In Sabine Co.

Sabine & Angelina -

No Impact

Texas sunnybell Schoenolirion

wrightii S 2

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 inhabits open savannas canopied by a mixture of pine and hardwoods (NatureServe 2007).

Angelina No Impact

Scarlet catchfly Silene

subciliata S 1

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 savannah and forested ravines that were historically maintained by natural low-intensity ground fires (Orzell 1990). Deep, sandy soils usually on transition zone from upland to streamside over Catahoula Formation

Sabine No Impact

Clasping (Oklahoma) twistflower

Streptanthus maculatus

S 1

In Texas, Streptanthus maculatus occurs primarily on seasonally moist barrens on the Weches Formation in Nacogdoches and San Augustine counties. However, there are recent reports from other sandy forested habitats in Anderson and Sabine Counties (NatureServe 2015).

Sabine No Impact

Texas trillium Trillium

texanum S 2

Low, boggy hardwood bottoms; seep borders of ravine streams. Often in sphagnum mats (NatureServe 2005).. Baygalls and forested seeps

Sabine & Angelina -

No Impact

Drummond’s yellow-eyed grass

Xyris drummondii

S 2

Hillside seepage bogs, in areas of exposed fine wet sand or peaty sand (Orzell 1990).. Pitcher plant bogs and open herbaceous seeps

Sabine & Angelina -

No Impact

Louisiana yellow-eyed grass *

Xyris louisianica

S 2 It occurs on the lower edges of

hillside seepage slopes and wet claypan pine savannas (Philipps 2007).

Sabine & Angelina - comp 79 (Dan Lay Bog) & comp 95 (Upland Island Wilderness)

No Impact


88


Scientific Name

Status OAR Code



Determination

Harper’s yellow-eyed grass Xyris

scabrifolia S 2

Hillside seepage bogs, in open boggy areas and in partial shade of boggy evergreen shrub thickets. Often on hummocks of sphagnum moss in bogs (Orzell 1990). Pitcher plant bogs and open herbaceous seeps

Sabine & Angelina -

No Impact

OCCURRENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS (OAR) CODES: 1 = Project located out of known species range; therefore, species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s). 2 = No habitat is present within the area affected by the project; therefore, species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s). 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 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 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.


89

APPENDIX B. MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES EVALUATION.

Management Indicator Species Evaluation

Angelina National Forest

Management Indicator Species considered and selected for, or eliminated from, further consideration.

Management Indicator Management Indicator For:

Selected for

Project Rationale

Yes No

Red-cockaded Woodpecker

Longleaf pine woodland/savanna

Dry-xeric oak pine forest

Mesic oak-pine forest X

Species is present near the proposed project location. Effects

are addressed in the T&E species section of the EA.

Slender Gayfeather Longleaf pine woodland/savannah X Effects are addressed in the sensitive species section of the EA.

Incised Groovebur Longleaf pine woodland/savannah X Effects are addressed in the sensitive species section of the EA.

Scarlet Catchfly Longleaf pine woodland/savannah X This species has not been documented on the Angelina NF, and

the project area is beyond species range.

Longleaf – Bluestem series Longleaf pine woodland/savannah X There is longleaf pine woodlands within the treatment area.

Navasota Ladies Tresses Longleaf pine barrens X No barrens have been found in the treatment area and there are

no known occurrences of Navasota ladies tresses.

Little Bluestem –Rayless

Goldenrod series Longleaf pine barrens X No barrens have been found in the treatment areas

Yellow Fringeless Orchid Herbaceous wetlands X Herbaceous wetlands (seepage bogs) do occur in the treatment

area. But species and/or habitats will not be affected.

Sphagnum – Beakrush series Herbaceous wetlands X Herbaceous wetlands (seepage bogs) do occur in the treatment

area. But species and/or habitats will not be affected.

Nodding Nixie Bay – Shrub Wetlands X Bay-shrub wetlands do occur in the treatment area. But species

and/or habitats will not be affected.

Texas Bartonia Bay – Shrub Wetlands X Bay-shrub wetlands do occur in the treatment area. But species


Sweetbay – Magnolia series Bay – Shrub Wetlands X Bay-shrub wetlands do occur in the treatment area. But species


Louisiana Squarehead Dry-xeric oak pine forest X Habitat for this species exists in the project area and species

could be affected by treatment activities.

Shortleaf – Oak forest Dry-xeric oak pine forest X There is very little of this community type in the treatment area.

Loblolly - Oak forest Mesic oak-pine forest X There is very little of this community type in the treatment area.


90


Selected for

Project Rationale

Yes No

Southern Ladyslipper Mesic hardwood forest X There is very little of mesic hardwood community type in the

treatment areas.

Beech-White Oak series Mesic hardwood forest X Acreage of this community type will not be altered by this

project.

Northern Bobwhite Tallgrass prairie X Tallgrass prairie is not present within the treatment area.

Little Bluestem –

Indiangrass Tallgrass prairie X Tallgrass prairie is not present within the treatment area.

Neotropical Migrants Bottomlands, Streamsides X The proposed alternative will not change structure of

bottomlands or streamsides.

Neches River Rose Mallow Bottomlands, Streamsides X The proposed alternative will not change structure of


Bottomland Hardwood Bottomlands, Streamsides X The proposed alternative will not change structure of


Eastern Wild Turkey

Forest/Grassland:

Early succession (0-20 yrs)

Mid-succession (20-50 yrs)

Late-succession (50-90 yrs)

Old growth (90+ years)

X Species is in demand by hunters; responds to forest management

actions. Know to occur in treatment area.

Whitetail Deer

Forest/Grassland:





X

Species is in demand by hunters. Know to occur in treatment

area. Species is common in the project area and would not be

affected by treatment activities.

Yellow-Breasted Chat

Forest/Grassland:





X

Selected as MIS for early successional habitat only (USFS

2002). Early succession habitat will be created within the project

area.

Pileated Woodpecker

Forest/Grassland:




X

Species dependent on large diameter trees/snags. Know to

occur in treatment area. Common in all Forested communities

and will not be effected by the project.

Gray Squirrel/Fox Squirrel

Forest/Grassland:




X

Squirrel populations fluctuate more in response to annual

variations in mast crops rather than forest management; they are

poor indicators of changing forest conditions that result from

management.


91


Selected for

Project Rationale

Yes No

Snags

Forest/Grassland:





X

Snags may be removed in association with this project. Snags

are a poor indicator or forest/grassland successional

communities.

Largemouth Bass Aquatic – Ponds and Reservoirs X Project will not affect ponds and reservoirs.

Sunfish – Redear and

Bluegill Aquatic – Ponds and Reservoirs X Project will not affect ponds and reservoirs.

Channel catfish Aquatic – Ponds and Reservoirs X Project will not affect ponds and reservoirs.

Paddlefish Aquatic – Rivers and Streams X Inhabits large rivers, large rivers; not in treatment area.

Sabine Shiner Aquatic – Rivers and Streams X Effects are addressed in the sensitive species section of the EA.

Dusky Darter Aquatic – Rivers and Streams X The sources of siltation that impact mussels are the same that

impact this species. See sensitive species section of the EA.

Scaly Sand Darter Aquatic – Rivers and Streams X The sources of siltation that impact mussels are the same that


Stonefly Guild Aquatic – Rivers and Streams X The sources of siltation that impact mussels are the same that



92

Date post:	05-Jan-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Environmental Agriculture Assessment ... -...

Documents