United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service September 2014

Environmental Assessment

Plan Amendment for Indiana Bat Standards

Forest Plan Amendment #4 National Forests in Alabama Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

For Information Contact: Ryan Shurette 2946 Chestnut Street

Montgomery, AL 36107 334-241-8123

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, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-

3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and

employer.

Chapter One – Proposed Action .............................................................. 4

Description of the proposed action .......................................................................... 4

Purpose and Need ................................................................................................. 5

Location ................................................................................................................ 6

Decision Framework............................................................................................... 6

Public Involvement ................................................................................................ 7

Issues ................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter Two – Alternatives Considered ................................................... 7

Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................ 7

Chapter Three – Environmental Consequences ........................................ 8

Biological Effects ................................................................................................... 8

Economic Effects ................................................................................................. 11

Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity ................................................................ 12

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ........................................ 12

Civil Rights and Environmental Justice................................................................... 12

NFMA Significance ............................................................................................... 12

Chapter Four – Interdisciplinary Team/Preparers ................................... 12

Chapter Five – Agencies and Persons Consulted .................................... 13

Chapter Six – Literature Cited and References ....................................... 13

Appendix A – Response to Comments ................................................... 13

Chapter One – Proposed Action

Description of the proposed action

The Forest Service, National Forests in Alabama is proposing to amend the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) to remove one standard (FW-106), which deals with growing season burning restrictions, and restructure three standards (FW-101, FW-102, and FW-104), which deal with snag and roost tree retention in regeneration harvest areas, and providing upland water sources, in Indiana bat management areas. Pursuant to 36 CFR 219.17(b)(2), this proposed Forest Plan Amendment #4 is being prepared in accordance with the 1982 planning rule procedures, but it will be subject to the pre-decisional objection process described in §219 Subpart B (219.50 to 219.62). Specifically, the proposed amendment will: Remove:

FW-106. To avoid injury to nonvolant young Indiana bats, prescribed burning of potential maternity roosting habitat between May 1 and July 1 is prohibited except where site-specific inventories indicate Indiana bats are not likely to be present.

Replace:

FW-101. When implementing two-aged forest regeneration methods (seedtree with reserves or shelterwood with reserves) in hardwood-dominated forest types, a minimum of 20 square feet of basal area will be retained. The overwood will not be removed. All snags and shagbark hickory over 6 inches DBH will be retained except those that are immediate hazards. All trees are retained within 20 feet of a minimum average of 5 snags per acre to provide potential Indiana bat roost trees with shade and windthrow protection. Where a minimum average of 5 snags per acre is not present, they will be created from the larger diameter classes within the stand. Snags selected for shade tree retention are those most suitable for use by Indiana bats, i.e., hardwood snags of the largest size classes with exfoliating bark.

And FW-102. When implementing clearcut two-aged forest regeneration methods in hardwood-dominated forest types, a minimum average of 15 square feet of basal area per acre is retained throughout the rotation. Residual basal area should be clumped or left in travel corridors. All snags and shagbark hickory over 6 inches DBH are retained except those that are immediate hazards. If additional trees are needed to meet the basal area requirements, priority should be given to trees that exhibit characteristics favored by roosting Indiana bats. Snags do not count toward the basal area. In

regeneration areas less than 10 acres in size, no residual basal area is required for retention. However, all snags will be retained unless they are immediate hazards. Shagbark hickory greater than 6 inches DBH is retained in regeneration areas less than 10 acres in size.

With:

New FW-101. When implementing forest regeneration methods, recruit and retain snags and live loose-bark overstory species so that sufficient bat roosting habitat is provided. All snags will be retained unless they are immediate hazards.

And replace:

FW-104. Provide upland water sources approximately every 0.5 miles, to provide an important habitat element for wildlife, including the endangered Indiana bat. Water sources are comprised of both permanent ponds and ephemeral pools and are often located in openings or near road corridors that allow access by bats.

With:

New FW-104. Provide and/or conserve upland water sources as appropriate for rare bats, where they are considered to be limiting habitat factors.

Purpose and Need

The Revised Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Alabama (NFsAL) was signed in January 2004. At that time, the endangered Indiana bat was known to occur in cave hibernacula of the Bankhead National Forest and the Forest Plan contains nineteen standards concerning the management for this species. In the spring of 2012 and the spring of 2013 the Indiana Bat was documented on the Talladega Division of the Talladega National Forest. Forest Plan monitoring has indicated that four (FW-101, FW-102 and FW-104, and FW-106) of those standards need to be revised to more effectively manage habitat for this and other endangered species. The changes to FW-101 and FW-102 are needed to allow flexibility in individual tree retention during restoration harvest treatments so that adequate Indiana bat roosting habitat (snags and loose-bark tree species) is retained without compromising the restoration of desired future conditions of the site. For example, if hardwood woodland restoration at a site was the objective, leaving too many seed-producing loblolly pines may not be desirable (due to the encroachment of that species) in certain parts of the stand, nor would girdling and creating snags from the highest quality loose bark hardwoods in some parts of the stand. The new standard (101A) would for allow flexibility in selecting roost trees depending on local restoration objectives, thus allowing effective restoration options while at the same time

providing sufficient bat roost habitats (standing snags and loose-bark live trees). This change will also streamline the direction and provide clarity of the intent of these two standards. The changes to FW-104 are needed so that efforts related to providing certain habitat parameters (water sources) can be focused in areas where they are lacking, and not in areas where they are already available and therefore unnecessary. These water resources are currently available in and around many upland areas, in roadside ditches, potholes, seasonal depressions, and in adjacent creeks and streams. The changes to FW-106 are needed so that prescribed burning can be implemented throughout the year in fire-dependent vegetation communities. Fire-suppression is one of the main factors in upland ecosystem habitat degradation across the Southeast. With ever-increasing restrictions on prescribed burning (from smoke other issues) the NFsAL is constantly challenged with providing quality fire-maintained habitats for its native wildlife species, including the federally endangered Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW), which needs fire for its continued existence. The Shoal Creek District has been using prescribed fire to enhance and manage RCW habitats during the growing season, prior to the documentation of Indiana bats there in 2012 (Roby and Gumbert, 2013). This finding indicates that Indiana bats are not extremely susceptible of low-intensity growing season fire at the population level and that they utilize this type of ecosystem. Indiana bats have been shown to readily roost in habitats managed for RCWs (Gumbert, 2001). It has also been suggested that fire-maintained habitats can improve foraging and roosting habitats for Indiana and other bat species of conservation concern (Johnson et. al., 2010; USFWS, 2007). The overall purpose of the updates is to better focus management efforts where they are needed and to ensure Districts have the abilities to meet upland ecosystem restoration objectives, while still providing adequate Indiana bat (and associated bat species) habitats. Additionally, the revision of these standards will improve coordination with the management of the endangered Red-cockaded woodpecker also found on the Talladega National Forest.

Location

The proposed amendment would apply only where Indiana Bats are known to occur which is currently the Bankhead and Talladega National Forests.

Decision Framework

The decision to be made by the Responsible Official is whether or not to amend the 2004 Revised Forest Plan as described in the proposed action by removing FW-106 and adjusting FW-101, FW-102, and FW-104.

Public Involvement

On July 14, 2014 letters were mailed (or emailed for those who had provided email addresses) to those individuals and organizations on the Bankhead and Talladega Division mailing lists for requesting input and public involvement on this project. Two individuals responded during the scoping period (one requesting more information and the other encouraging the continued use of prescribed burning). This project has been listed on the Schedule of Proposed Actions since 2012. Public responses received are a part of the analysis file and were used in further development of the proposal or alternatives to the proposal.

Issues

The interdisciplinary team reviewed the public responses to determine issues. An issue is an undesirable side-effect of the proposal or an unresolved conflict caused by the proposal. Issues may arise at any time during the analysis and originate from any source. During the scoping process, issues are clarified, refined, and classified as to their relevance to the current analysis. Per CEQ and FS guidance, the key issues that are “significant” and deserving of detailed study must be identified. The other remaining issues, which are not as pertinent to the current analysis, may be dropped from further discussion once addressed or included in the analysis serving a lesser role than the key issues. The ID team did not identify any significant issues. However several points of discussion were raised and have been further discussed in the response to comments section(Appendix A).

Chapter Two – Alternatives Considered

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 1 (No Action)

This alternative proposes no changes to current Forest Plan direction. Under current Forest Plan direction, no prescribed burning of potential Indiana bat maternity habitat between May 1 and July 1 would be allowed, except where site-specific inventories indicate Indiana bats are not likely to be present. Under current Forest Plan direction, existing standards regarding regeneration harvest in hardwoods would apply. All snags plus a minimum of 20 (seedtree) or 15 (shelterwood) basal area, plus all trees within a 20 ft. buffer surrounding a minimum of 5 snags, would be retained as roost habitat, regardless if the trees retained compromised restoration objections of the stand.

Also, under current Forest Plan direction, an effort to provide upland water sources (for Indiana bats and other wildlife) per every .5 mile would be required, even in locations where these resources are available or found not to be limiting (Forest plan p. 2-34). Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) This alternative would amend the Forest Plan to remove one standard (FW-106), which deals with growing season burning restrictions, and restructure three standards (FW-101, FW-102, and FW-104), which deal with snag and roost tree retention in regeneration harvest areas, and providing upland water sources, in Indiana bat management areas. This alternative is the Proposed Action as identified in Chapter One. Individual projects associated with timber harvest, upland water source construction, prescribed burning, or Indiana bat management would be subject to project level analysis as they occurred, and are not covered within this decision. This analysis and decision would cover only the proposed plan amendment.

Chapter Three – Environmental Consequences The geographic bounds for this analysis are the Bankhead, Talladega, and Shoal Creek Ranger Districts. The time bounds are from the present to the life of the revised forest plan for the National Forests in Alabama. This amendment does not authorize any ground disturbing activities. Site specific activities would be proposed and analyzed following the NEPA process.

Biological Effects

Federally Listed and Sensitive Species and Rare Communities Effects to Federally Listed and RF Sensitive Species are summarized here from the Biological Assessment and Evaluation conducted by the Forest Biologist. The proposed planning direction is basically consistent with the current direction for TES species and rare communities in the LRMP. However, the proposed action will introduce minor changes for management planning in a few ways. First prescribed fire will be allowed to occur on the Bankhead District during the growing season and will continue to occur on the Talladega Division. Prescribed fire is a critical habitat management tool that many rare plant and animal communities depend on for their continued existence. In fact, fire suppression is a well-documented cause of decline in Alabama’s rare upland terrestrial flora and fauna. The proposed planning level changes have some relevance to rare bats and also the red-cockaded woodpecker. Other TES species would not be affected. The continuation of growing season burning on the Talladega NF is imperative to the successful recovery of the RCW. Bats that utilize natural fire-evolved forest habitats in Alabama would have logically been fire adapted in the past (potentially more so than their northeastern counterparts), and therefore maintaining this ecosystem using low-intensity fire is not expected to adversely impact them. Snag and other potential bat roost tree retention will still occur (to maintain adequate roost habitats) but

in a way that does not force the un-natural retention of undesirable overstory tree species (loblolly pines) when their retention conflicts with overall ecosystem restoration management objectives. Changes in FW-104 will not affect on-the-ground habitat availability and therefore will not have any effects on any TES species. It should be noted that the most significant threat to the three relevant cave-hibernating bats (gray, Indiana, and northern long-eared) is currently white-nosed syndrome. The fungus responsible for this disease has been spreading throughout the eastern US, Midwest, and Canada over the past seven years and has now been documented in Bankhead National Forest caves (January, 2014). Cave closures have been implemented throughout NFsAL. While we considered expected cumulative and long-term impacts from this disease, those FS activities and monitoring efforts (in an attempt to slow the spread) are outside the scope of this project and the decision to be made. Alternative 1 (No Action) This alternative proposes no changes to current Forest Plan direction. Under current Forest Plan direction all current standards pertaining to bat conservation and associated management activities would apply. There would be no changes to the determination of effects originally described in the FEIS prepared for the2004 Revised LRMP for biological effects. There would be no change for the potential effects for any Proposed, Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive species described in the Biological Assessment (as supplemented) prepared for the 2004 Revised LRMP. Effects to biological resources would continue as described in the FEIS (pp.3-1 to 3-438). Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) The following species were analyzed to determine effects from the proposed amendment and changes to the 4 Indiana bat standards. The determinations below reflect those provided in the Biological Assessment (Proposed and Federally-listed Species) and Biological Evaluation (RF Sensitive Species). The complete BA and BE can be found in the project file. The proposed planning level changes are “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat. “No Effects” are expected for all other TES species.

Species Analyzed Status Determination

Gray bat E No Effect

Indiana bat E Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Northern long-eared bat P Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Red-cockaded woodpecker E No Effect

Flattened musk turtle T No Effect

Gulf sturgeon T No Effect

Pygmy sculpin T No Effect

Blue shiner T No Effect

Upland combshell E No Effect

Southern acornshell E No Effect

Fine-lined pocketbook T No Effect

Orange-nacre mucket T No Effect

Alabama moccasinshell T No Effect

Coosa moccasinshell E No Effect

Southern clubshell E No Effect

Warrior pigtoe E No Effect

Southern pigtoe E No Effect

Triangular kidneyshell E No Effect

Lacy Elimia T No Effect

Round rocksnail T No Effect

Painted rocksnail T No Effect

Flat pebblesnail E No Effect

Cylindrical Lioplax snail E No Effect

Tulotoma E No Effect

Designated Critical Habitats (Aquatic Species)

NA No Effect

Price’s potato bean T No Effect

Alabama leather flower E No Effect

Leafy prairie-clover E No Effect

Lyrate bladderpod T No Effect

Mohr’s Barbara’s buttons T No Effect

Harperella E No Effect

Kral’s water-plantain T No Effect

Green pitcher plant E No Effect

Alabama canebrake pitcher plant

E No Effect

Alabama streak-sorus fern T No Effect

Tennessee yellow-eyed grass E No Effect

Proposed Critical Habitat (Fleshy-fruit gladecress)

NA No Effect

The proposed removal and adjustment of Indiana bat standards do not involve direct alteration of NFsAL Sensitive Species’ habitats. The proposed action is a planning level change only. The effects from additional growing season prescribed burning (after May 1) on the Bankhead district (from the removal of FW-106) would not be enough of a change to alter determinations given in the original Forest Plan. The adjustments to the other three standards would not impact any RFSS or their habitats. Therefore “No Impacts” are expected to any Sensitive species. Site specific projects under this direction would require their own NEPA and Biological Evaluation for RFSS. Heritage/Soil/Water/Air (Other) Resources Alternative 1 (No Action) This proposed action does not authorize any ground disturbing activities and as such, would have no direct or indirect effects on other resources. Effects to other resources would continue as described in the FEIS. Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) As there are no ground disturbing activities associated with this activity, which is simply the removal and replacement of language within an amendment to the Forest Plan, no Heritage or other Resources will suffer an adverse effect. As noted above site specific actions taking place on the district are subject to individual NEPA investigations. If those actions ever take place they will then be subject to Heritage Resources investigations per the regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Cumulative Effects As there are no direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, there would be no cumulative effects.

Economic Effects

Alternative 1 (No Action) This alternative proposes no changes to the Forest Plan. Economic effects would continue as described in the FEIS (pp. 3-1 to 3-438).

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) This amendment does not alter commercial harvest, commercial products, tourism aspects, or related forest use by the public. Therefore economic effects would continue as described in the FEIS (pp. 3-1 to 3-438).

Cumulative Effects As there are no direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, there would be no cumulative effects.

Short-Term and Long-Term Productivity

The proposed action would not affect the productivity of the National Forests in Alabama from the current management direction, which incorporates the concept of sustained resource output yield while maintaining the long-term productivity of natural resources.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

This decision would cause no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources.

Civil Rights and Environmental Justice

There are no civil rights or environmental justice issues, and none of the alternatives has any related effects because management of old growth has no effect on rights protected under civil rights law or environmental justice orders.

NFMA Significance

The Forest Service is currently operating under the May 9, 2012 planning rule (see Federal Register, April 9, 2012). According to 36 CFR 219.17(b)(2) “plan amendments may be initiated under provisions of the prior planning regulations for three years after May 9 2012, and may be completed and approved under those provisions.” Pursuant to 36 CFR 219.17(b)(2), this proposed Forest Plan Amendment #4 is being prepared in accordance with the 1982 planning rule procedures, but it will be subject to the pre-decisional objection process described in §219 Subpart B (219.50 to 219.62)..

Chapter Four – Interdisciplinary Team/Preparers G. Ryan Shurette – Forest Biologist, USDA Forest Service Felicia Humphrey – Forest Planner, USDA Forest Service Seth Tiffner-Forest Timber Management Officer, USDA Forest Service Allison Cochran-Bankhead District Biologist, USDA Forest Service Jonathon Stober, Shoal Creek District Biologist, USDA Forest Service Marcus Ridley – Heritage and Section 106 Coordinator, USDA Forest Service

Chapter Five – Agencies and Persons Consulted U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service AL Department of Conservation Tribes -

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

Poarch Creek Indians

Chickasaw Nation

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town

Chapter Six – Literature Cited and References Final Environmental Impact Statement for the National Forest in Alabama Land and Resource Management Plan. 2004. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. Gumbert, M.W. 2001. Seasonal roost tree use by Indiana bats in the Somerset Ranger District of the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. Eastern Kentucky University. Master’s Thesis, 136p. Johnson, J.B., Ford, W.M, Rodrigue, J.L., et.al. 2010. Roost selection by male Indiana myotis

following forest fires in Central Appalachian hardwood forests. Journal of Fish and Wildlife

Management. 1:111-121.

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan National Forests in Alabama. 2004. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. Roby, P. and Gumbert, M.W. 2013. Final Report: Spring roosts used by female Indiana bats in the Talladega national Forest, Shoal Creek Ranger District, Cleburne County, Alabama. 18p. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) draft recovery plan: first

revision. Fort Snelling, MN: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. 25p.

Appendix A – Response to Comments The Forest Service received no as defined 36 CFR 219.62. However this office received scoping replies from two individuals. The first reply suggested that prescribed burning should continue on NFsAL lands regardless of the presence of listed bats. This concern is addressed in the proposed action. The second was a request for more information regarding the Indiana bat. This request was answered with recent Indiana bat monitoring information from the Forest.