biological evaluationa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2012. 7. 5. · this...

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Biological Evaluation

BE 04-12-11

Kelly’s Pond and FS 204

Hazard Tree Removal

Compartments 21, 28, 34, 35,

36, 37, 38, and 39

Sam Houston National Forest,

National Forests & Grasslands in Texas

Montgomery County, Texas

June 2012

SHNF Kelly’s Pond Hazard Tree Removal BE

BE 04-12-11

1

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The purpose of the proposed work is to remove dead and dying trees in the vicinity of Kelly’s Pond and

along FS, 271, 204 and 215 (eight compartments total) on the Sam Houston National Forest (SHNF). The

proposed project will help to accomplish this objective and the objectives in the 1996 Revised Land and

Resource Management Plan for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (Forest Plan; USFS 1996).

This document is a site-specific Biological Evaluation (BE) to identify and evaluate the effects of proposed

Forest Service actions on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species, and to ensure that these

actions do not adversely affect any threatened or endangered species or cause a trend to federal listing or

loss of viability for any sensitive species. This BE will provide biological information to ensure USDA

Forest Service and National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT) compliance with the National Forest

Management Act (NFMA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Forest Service Manual 2670,

Endangered Species Act (as amended), and 1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the

NFGT. This document complies with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to disclose effects

on listed species and their habitats. Additionally, this document provides a standard process to provide full

consideration of federally threatened or endangered, and sensitive species, and their habitats in the

decision-making process.

Objectives

The objectives of this biological evaluation are to:

1) Ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-

native plant or animal or contribute to trends toward federal listing of any species.

2) Comply with the requirement of the Endangered Species Act that actions of Federal Agencies not

jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed species.

3) Provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered and proposed species

receive full consideration in the decision making process (FSM 2672.41).

4) Identify the need for any additional mitigation measures to protect TES species, habitat, or potential

habitat from negative effects of the proposed management actions.

Area Description

Kelly’s Pond is a multi-use trailhead and primitive camping area at the end of FS 271 in compartments

34/35. The remaining treatment areas are strips approximately 150 feet wide on one or both sides of FS

204, 215, and 271 where trees would be removed. These roadside areas are forested with a mix of loblolly

and some shortleaf pine and a variety of hardwoods, with an understory of hardwood saplings and woody

species such as yaupon, wax myrtle, and American beautyberry. All of the affected compartments (C-21,

28, and 34-39) are in MA-2, Red-cockaded Woodpecker Emphasis. Kelly’s Pond itself is in MA-9b,

Minimally Developed Recreation Sites.

PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS


BE 04-12-11

2

The Forest Service proposes to remove hazard trees (trees that are dead, dying, or leaning over roads,

homes, or property boundaries) at Kelly’s Pond and along several miles of FS 204, 215, and 271. The total

area to be treated is approximately 140 acres. The attached map shows the locations of the proposed work.

EXPECTED LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS

The proposed work would result in removal of many of the large pines in the treatment areas, save for any

that are determined to be alive and healthy. Live hardwoods would not be cut, unless they were determined

to present a danger to visitors. The resulting condition on the treatment areas would be a mix of hardwoods

of various sizes, and woody understory species, as well as any pines that survived the drought.

SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED

The species considered in this document are categorized into the following groups: A) federally listed

species which appear on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) county list; and B) those species

listed for the SHNF as Sensitive, on the Regional Forester (R8) approved list, updated Jan. 2010. Those

species or their habitat(s) that may be affected by the proposed project are evaluated in this BE (See

Appendix I for a listing of those species that were considered, but eliminated from detailed evaluation and

the rationale therein).

A. Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has determined that these species are threatened or

endangered. Species in this category are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

B. Sensitive Species

These are species identified by the Regional Forester for which there is concern for population

viability across their range, and all occurrences contribute significantly to the conservation of the

species.

EVALUATED SPECIES SURVEY INFORMATION

The need to conduct project-level inventories of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species was

assessed using the 1989 Record of Decision for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain. See

Appendix A for a list of those species addressed in this evaluation and those that were considered but

eliminated from detailed evaluation and the rationale therein. For those species not discussed in detail, this

project will have no effect (Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened species) or no impact (Sensitive species).

Available inventory information is adequate because inventories of high potential habitat within proposed

treatment areas are current enough to guide project design, support determination of effects, and meet

requirements for conservation of these species.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS

An assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed actions on selected species is

presented in this document. The analysis area is the compartment(s) included in this project. The

treatment area is defined as land on which management actions would take place, while the cumulative

effects analysis area includes those areas where direct and indirect effects may occur, not merely those


BE 04-12-11

3

areas on which actions would take place. The cumulative effects analysis area, unless otherwise noted,

includes national forest in or near the treatment area and/or adjacent private land. Determinations of effect

in this document represent the overall expected effect of the proposed management actions on TES species.

The evaluation is based upon:

1. Review of the literature related to the ecology of TES species - see “Literature Cited” at the end of

this document.

2. Review of the following documents:

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan, second revision (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2003)

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of the Red-cockaded

Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forests in the Southern Region (USDA Forest

Service, Southern Region, 1995)

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, NFGT, 1996)

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007)

3. Review of Sam Houston National Forest TES species records.

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

5. This Biological Evaluation is based upon the best available science, including peer-reviewed

scientific literature, state and federal agency reports and management input, discussions with

scientists and other professionals, and ground-based observations.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

The area in and surrounding the treatment areas is vegetated with pine-dominated forest, containing

loblolly pine and a variety of hardwoods. The understory is a dense mix of young pines and various

hardwood species. The actual treatment areas are similarly vegetated, or in some cases contain more open

understories, being vegetated with a ground cover consisting of a variety of grasses, forbs, vines and

shrubs.

Specific information on the distribution, status, habitat associations, and limiting factors for the species

evaluated in this BE are provided in the following sections.

EVALUATION OF EFFECTS

A. Threatened & Endangered Species

Federally Listed Threatened & Endangered

Species

Birds

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

Birds - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences


BE 04-12-11

4

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

Environmental Baseline

The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has high potential to occur on drier ridgetops in open-canopy, fire-

maintained, mature pine stands with forb and/or grass dominated ground cover and a midstory relatively

devoid of hardwoods (Hovis and Labisky 1985; Jackson 1994; Conner et al. 2001; Walters et al. 2002;

USFWS 2003). The species has moderate potential to occur in mature, pine-dominated stands with a

mixture of hardwoods and hardwood midstory, as is present throughout portions of the Sam Houston

National Forest. The RCW excavates cavities in live pine trees, using older 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, pines ≥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.

This species has a high potential to occupy some of the proposed treatment areas because surveys of high

and moderate potential habitat in/near the treatment areas confirmed that the species was present.

Available Inventories

Surveys of the treatment areas and adjacent RCW habitat during June 2012 resulted in discovery of one

dead undocumented cavity tree.

Available inventory information is adequate because inventories of high and moderate potential habitat

within/near the proposed treatment area are current enough to guide project design, support determination

of effects, and meet requirements for conservation of this species.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The delineated treatment areas contain portions of five active and two inactive clusters (Table 1). Four of

these active clusters contain dead cavity trees within the 150 foot treatment corridor along the roads that are

proposed to be cut. These trees are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. RCW clusters in the proposed treatment areas, and dead cavity trees that are proposed

to be cut.

Cluster Status Dead Tree #

34-1 Active 17*

34-4 Active

34-5 inactive

35-7 Active 903, 904

35-8 (new cluster) Active 1, 2

36-9 inactive

38-4 Active 19, new tree

*This tree is not in one of the treatment areas, but is proposed to be cut as it is within

150 feet of the road and presents a hazard.

None of the dead cavity trees proposed to be cut are being used by RCWs for roosting, and all clusters have

at least four useable cavities. According to district wildlife biologist Dano Jauregui, all of these trees pose


BE 04-12-11

5

a hazard to roads, with the exception of the dead, previously undiscovered, cavity tree. However, this tree

is leaning toward a live active cavity tree, and thus needs to be cut to protect the live cavity tree from

damage when it falls naturally. Restrictions in the salvage (timber sale) contract impose significant

penalties for damaging a live cavity tree, and oversight by Forest Service personnel will further ensure

protection of live cavity trees.

All work in RCW clusters will begin no earlier than one hour after sunrise and will cease at least one hour

prior to sunset, so as to avoid disturbing birds leaving and entering their roost cavities. Work will also

occur outside the nesting season, which runs from 01 April through 31 July.

The above restrictions will be sufficient to prevent direct and undue indirect effects to the RCW by

preventing loss of living cavity trees and disturbance of roosting birds. Some minor disturbance of

foraging birds may occur during removal of dead trees in the treatment areas, but the limited size of the

treatment areas will enable the birds to easily avoid these activities. There will be increased travel along FS

204 and 271, past five active clusters, during tree removal. But again, activity will occur outside of the

hours described above, thus preventing disturbance to roosting birds.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed hazard tree removal would not result in any cumulative effects. No net loss or gain of habitat

would occur, since only dead/dying trees would be removed. These have already been effectively removed

from the foraging base by their death.


Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Mammals

Southeastern Myotis (Myotis autroriparius)

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus

rafinesquii)

Mammals - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii)

Southeastern Myotis (Myotis austroriparius)

Environmental Baseline

These two species of bats reach the western limit of their ranges in eastern Texas. These species are

addressed together in the effects analysis because they have similar habitat requirements and the effects of

this project are expected to be similar for each species.

The Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is primarily a solitary species that roosts in hollow trees, crevices behind

loose bark, and under dry leaves (Davis and Schmidly 1994. It has also been observed roosting in

buildings, abandoned mines, and wells (BCI 2001; Menzel et al. 2003), and under bridges (Lance et al.

2001). The southeastern myotis is a colonial bat that roosts in caves, mines, bridges, culverts, and tree

hollows (BCI 2001, p.48; Lance et al. 2001). This species is associated with aquatic habitats, such as

ponds and streams, over which it forages for insects (Rice 1957; Schmidley 1991; BCI 2001).

Research on habitat associations for both species in eastern Texas indicates that these two species of bats

have high potential to occur within mature bottomland hardwood communities containing large diameter,

hollow hardwoods, often of the genus Nyssa, within one kilometer (0.6 mile) of water (Mirowsky and

Horner 1997). This research found that both species of bats preferred to roost in these large, hollow

hardwoods. Lance et al. (2001) found big-eared bats, and occasionally southeastern myotis, roosting


BE 04-12-11

6

under concrete bridges as well as in large hollow Nyssa in Louisiana. Bridges used by these bats were

always associated with a higher percentage of surrounding mature hardwood forest than were unused

bridges. A similar affinity for hardwood-dominated roosts near water was found for big-eared bats in

South Carolina (Bunch et al. 1998). Thus, two important components of high potential habitat across the

range of the two species are mature bottomland hardwood forest and proximity to water.

High potential foraging habitat for these bats is bottomland hardwood forest. Both bats consume moths,

but the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is considered a moth specialist (Hurst and Lacki 1997; Lacki and

Ladeur 2002). The big-eared bat usually forages by gleaning; that is, picking insects off vegetation, and

has been observed to forage quite low, within 1 m of the ground (Mirowsky and Horner 1997; BCI 2001).

The myotis shows a marked preference for foraging over water, where it skims the surface of the water in

search of insects (Rice 1957; Schmidley 1991; BCI 2001).

Both species of bats display a bimodal pattern of foraging activity, common to a number of bat species;

that is, they forage for several hours soon after dark, and again for a few hours in the morning before

returning to their day roosts before dawn (Reynolds and Mitchell 1998; Menzel et al. 2001). Between

foraging bouts, they likely rest in temporary night roosts in or near their foraging areas. Bats may use a

variety of sites for these temporary roosts, depending upon what is available. The big-eared bat, which

occasionally forages in upland areas or non-hardwood stands adjacent to high potential bottomland

foraging areas, may use snags with loose bark or cavities, or upland hardwoods with cavities, as

temporary roost sites.

Both species are experiencing population declines across their ranges. The greatest threat facing the big-

eared bat is loss of bottomland forest roost habitat (Bunch et al 1998; NatureServe 2010), particularly the

large hollow trees needed for maternity roosts. The species is also vulnerable to nondestructive intrusion,

that is, disturbance of roosting colonies, and may abandon roost sites if disturbed (NatureServe 2010).

The myotis is similarly threatened by loss of maternity roost habitat.

The cumulative effects analysis area for these two species consists of the section of compartment 42

covered in this proposal and adjacent private lands surrounding these national forest lands.

Available Inventories

No area-wide inventories were conducted for these species specifically for this project, because high

potential habitat does not occur in or near the treatment areas and the species do not have high potential to

occur in the surrounding area. Thus, it was determined that no area-wide inventories were needed.

However, mist net surveys conducted by Texas A&M University students during June-August 2010 at

Kelly’s Pond failed to document either of these two species of bats, although numerous specimens of a

number of other bat species were captured.

Both species of bat have previously been found in adjacent Walker County, to the north. The big-eared

bat was found roosting under a culvert at the old Huntsville State Fish hatchery site on one occasion.

This location is about 19 miles NNE of the treatment area. The myotis was found roosting in culverts

under Interstate 45 near Huntsville, approximately 16 miles NNE of the treatment area.

Available inventory information is adequate because no high potential habitat exists within proposed

treatment areas on National Forest land. The presence or absence of possible high potential habitat

(maternity roost habitat in the form of abandoned buildings) on nearby private lands cannot be

determined.

Direct and Indirect Effects


BE 04-12-11

7

Because no high potential habitat occurs in the treatment areas, there would be no potential for direct

impacts (injury or death) to these species. It is possible that individuals could occasionally roost

temporarily in dead trees in the treatments areas, but this is unlikely, given the fact that neither species

was found during mist net surveys near the habitat most closely resembling high potential habitat in the

immediate surrounding National Forest. There is a slight potential for negative indirect impacts from the

removal of potential roost sites. However, only those dead and dying trees that present a hazard to

visitors and roads would be removed. Numerous dead and dying trees are present scattered throughout

the remainder of the Forest, and these would provide numerous potential roost sites for any bats needing

them. Thus, the proposed removal of the hazard trees would likely be of little importance.

Cumulative Effects

This project would have no cumulative impacts on these two bats. No high potential (maternity roost)

habitat would be affected.

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

The following table displays the determinations of effect for the species evaluated in detail, and

summarizes the rationale for those determinations.

Table 1. Determinations of effect for species analyzed.

Species Scientific Name Determination

Of Effect Rationale

Federally Listed/Proposed

Red-cockaded Woodpecker

Picoides borealis Not likely to adversely affect

Several dead, unused cavity trees would be cut. Timing and nesting season restrictions would prevent disturbance.

R8 Sensitive Species

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat

Southeastern Myotis

Corynorhinus rafinesquii

Myotis austroriparius

May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

No high potential habitat would be impacted; adequate temporary roost trees (snags) would remain.

A. Threatened and Endangered Species

Formal consultation with the USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service is not required. The proposed

project is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed Threatened or Endangered species.


The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or

a loss of viability of any R8 Sensitive species.

MITIGATION MEASURES


BE 04-12-11

8

No mitigation measures above and beyond those included in the project proposal are necessary to protect

TES species from the management actions that would occur with this project.

PREPARED BY:

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

determinations.

Dawn K. Carrie 19 June 2012

Dawn K. Carrie Date

Wildlife Biologist

Sam Houston National Forest


BE 04-12-11

9

LITERATURE CITED

Bat Conservation International. 2001. Bats of eastern woodlands. Report prepared by Bat

Conservation International for the Southern Region Offices of the USDA, Forest Service and U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 311 p.

Bunch, M. J. Sorrow, and A. Dye. 1998. Rafinesque’s big-eared bat surveys and prelisting recovery:

final report. South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources. 82pp.

Burt, D.B., and R.J. Allen. 2004. Bachman’s sparrow, brown-headed nuthatch and pine warbler habitat

preferences in east Texas. Final Report. Dept. of Biology, SFA State University. Nacogdoches,

TX. 18 p.

Conner, R. N., D. C. Rudolph, D. Saenz, and R. R. Schaefer. 1994. Heartwood, sapwood, and

fungal decay associated with red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. J. of Wildl. Manage. 58:728-

734.

_______, _______, and J. R. Walters. 2001. The Red-cockaded Woodpecker,

Surviving in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Texas Press. Austin, TX. 363 p.

_______, and D. Saenz. 2005. The longevity of large pine snags in eastern Texas. Wildl. Soc. Bull.

13:700-705.

Correll, D. S. and M. C. Johnston. 1979. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Second printing. The

University of Texas at Dallas. Richardson, TX.

Davis, W. D. and D. J. Schmidly. 1994. The Mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept.

Nongame and Urban Program Dept. Austin, TX. 338 p.

Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,

Southeastern Region. Chapel Hill, NC. 433 p.

Hovis, J. A. and R. F. Labisky. 1985. Vegetative associations of red-cockaded woodpecker colonies in

Florida. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:307-314.

________, R. W. Neck, and H. D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and

Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division. Austin, TX. 218 p.

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

J. Mammal. 78:525-528.

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.

Lacki, M. J., and K. M. Ladeur. 2002. Seasonal use of lepidopteran prey by Rafinesque’s big-eared bats

(Corynorhinus rafinesquii). Amer. Midl. Nat. 145:213-217.

Lance, R. F., B. T. Hardcastle, A. Talley, and P. L. Leberg. 2001. Day-roost selection by Rafinesque’s

big-eared bats (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) in Louisiana forests. J. Mammal. 82:166-172.


BE 04-12-11

10

Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980.

Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History. 867 p.

Menzel, M. A., J. M. Menzel, W.M. Ford, J. W. Edwards, T. C. Carter, J. B. Churchill, and J. C. Kilgo.

2001. Home range and habitat use of male Rafinesque’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus

rafinesquii). Am. Midl. Nat. 145:402-408.

Menzel, M. A., J. M. Menzel, J. M. Kilgo, and others. 2003. Bats of the Savanna River Site and

vicinity. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-68. Ashville, NC. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Southern Research Station. 69 p.

Mirowsky, K. and P. Horner. 1997. Roosting ecology of two rare vespertilionid bats, the southeastern

myotis and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, in east Texas: 1996 Annual Report. Texas Parks and

Wildlife Dept., Endangered Resources Branch. Austin, TX. 48 p.

NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: October 26, 2011).

Price, A. H., R. L. Orr, R. Honig, M. Vidrine, S. L. Orzell. 1989. Draft Report. Status Survey for the

Big Thicket Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita). 17 p.

Reynolds, L. A., and W. A. Mitchell. 1998. Species profile: southeastern myotis (Myotis

austroriparius) on military installations in the southeastern United States. Tech. Rep.

SERDP-98-8, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

26pp.

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

Rudolph, D. C., and R. N. Conner. 1991. Cavity tree selection by red-cockaded woodpeckers in

relation to tree age. Wilson Bull. 103(3): 458-467.

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

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of the

Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forests in the Southern Region.

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

Texas.

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), species

account. Arlington Ecological Services Field Office. Arlington, TX. 1 p.

_______. 2000. Loggerhead shrike status assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bloomington,

IN. 169 p.


BE 04-12-11

11

______. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): Second revision.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 296 p.

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

Walters, J. R., S. J. Daniels, J. H. Carter III, and P. D. Doerr. 2002. Defining quality of red-cockaded

woodpecker foraging habitat based on habitat use and fitness. J. Wildl. Mange. 66:1064-1082.

SHNF Kelly’ Hazard Tree Removal BE

BE 04-12-11

Appendix I Kelly’s Pond Hazard Tree Removal

Threatened/Endangered/Sensitive (TES) Species Consideration

Sam Houston National Forest

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

Species Status1

Habitat Requirements

For High Potential Habitat

Habitat

Present in

Treatment

Area

Potential for Species to

Occur in Treatment

Area

Effects Analysis Needed?

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

E

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).

Yes

This species has high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because it has been previously documented in these areas.

Yes – Tree removal will occur within clusters

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

S

Coastal areas, and around large bodies of water such as reservoirs, lakes, and rivers (USFWS 1995, 2007). Nests and associated pilot trees are typically located in large trees within two miles of open water.

Yes

This species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because surveys of high potential habitat in the treatment areas did not reveal the presence of this species.

No – This species is not considered further in this analysis because it is does not occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis)

S

Open, frequently burned pine forests with a dense bunchgrass ground cover and minimal woody understory (Hamel 1992; Burt and Allen 2004).

No

This species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because these areas do not include high potential habitat as described.

No – This species is not considered further in this analysis because it is not expected to occur within the area affected by the project, and the proposed activities will not generate high potential habitat. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.


BE 04-12-11

Species Status1



Habitat

Present in

Treatment

Area


Occur in Treatment

Area


Migrant Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus migrans)

S

Open grassland areas with widely scattered trees or shrubs. Species is generally absent from closed canopy forests, and grasslands without trees or shrubs (USFWS 2000).

No


No – This species is not considered further in this analysis because it is not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species.

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii)

S

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. May also use abandoned buildings (Mirowsky and Horner 1997).

Yes


Yes – Any bats roosting on adjacent private land may occasionally use this section of National Forest land.

Southeastern Myotis (Myotis autroriparius)

S

Associated with aquatic habitats, such as ponds and streams (BCI 2001). 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 (Mirowsky and Horner 1997).

Yes


Yes – Any bats roosting on adjacent private land may occasionally use this section of National Forest land.

Sabine Shiner (Notropis sabinae)

S

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

No




BE 04-12-11

Species Status1



Habitat

Present in

Treatment

Area


Occur in Treatment

Area


Big Thicket Emerald Dragonfly

(Somatochlora margarita) S

Larvae associated with small, clear, sandy-bottomed streams and boggy seeps within loblolly and longleaf pine stands (Natureserve 2011). Adults forage for insects at canopy level over mature forest and over gravel roads and small openings (Price et al. 1989).

No (larvae)

This species (larvae) does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because these areas do not include high potential habitat as described.


Louisiana Pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii)

S Streams (Howells et al. 1996). No



Sandbank Pocketbook (Lampsilis satura)

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

No



Texas Heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus)

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

No




BE 04-12-11

Species Status1



Habitat

Present in

Treatment

Area


Occur in Treatment

Area


Texas Bartonia (Bartonia texana)

S Wet seepage areas, stream edges, sphagnum bogs.

No



* Sources: USFWS & Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, 2010.

1 Status: E = Federally Endangered, T = Federally Threatened, C = Federal Candidate, S = Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species.


BE 04-12-11

biological evaluationa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2012. 7. 5. · this...

Documents