APPENDIX A PROJECT ALIGNMENTS AND MAPSa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · Gremminger & Associates, Inc. 226 South Live Oak Street Bellville, Texas

APPENDIX A

PROJECT ALIGNMENTS AND MAPS

FIGURE: 1 DATE: 03/11/2011 GAI Project Number: 210202

.

Gremminger & Associates, Inc. 226 South Live Oak Street

Bellville, Texas 77418

Project Location Map Newfield-Huxley Lateral Pipeline Project

Shelby County, Texas

Reference: USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle: SHELBYVILLE, TX Scale 1:24,000

Match Line

Newfield Well B1 Interconnect Station

Newfield Well D1 Interconnect Station

Newfield Well GG1 Interconnect Station

Project Start

Newfield Well K1 Interconnect Station


.





Reference: USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle: HUXLEY, TX Scale 1:24,000

Project End

Newfield Wells A1 & E1 Interconnect Station

Match Line


.



Location Map of Avoided Resources Newfield-Huxley Lateral Pipeline Project


USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangles: Huxley & Shelbyville , TX Scale: 1:24,000

Match Line FM

2694

FSR

165

FSR

107

FSR

142

FM

3471

FSR

143

CR

2420

CR

2350 FM

417

CR

2335

CR

2603

515-foot Horizontal

Directional Drill Avoiding

Two (2) Intermittent Stream

Channels

Road Bore

Road Bore

150-foot Horizontal Bore

Avoiding Emergent Wetland


Avoiding Ephemeral Stream


.





USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle: Huxley, TX Scale: 1:24,000

Match Line

FM

2694

FSR

181

FSR

107

FM

3471

FSR

142

FSR

197 CR

2603

230 Feet of Reduced

Construction Workspace

to Maintain a 50-foot

Riparian Buffer

1,100-foot HDD

of Campground

and Cemetery

990-Foot HDD 2,880-foot HDD

1,660-foot Horizontal

Directional Drill (HDD)

Road Bore Road Bore

Road Bore


.



Tree Survey Sample Points Newfield-Huxley Lateral Pipeline Project



Match Line

19

12 13 15 16 17 14 11

10

18 FM

2694

FSR

165

FSR

107

FSR

142

FM

3471

FSR

143

CR

2420

CR

2350 FM

417

CR

2335

CR

2603

9 1 3 5

6 4

2

8


.






Match Line

7

FM

2694

FSR

181

FSR

107

FM

3471

FSR

142

FSR

197

CR

2603


.



RCW Forage Quality by Stand Newfield-Huxley Lateral Pipeline Project


USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangles: Huxley & Shelbyville, TX Scale: 1:48,000

- Forest Service Land - Fair Foraging Habitat - Poor Foraging Habitat

Pipeline ROW (Paralleling F.M. 2694)

Poor Foraging Habitat

Poor Foraging Habitat Fair Foraging Habitat

Fair Foraging Habitat


APPENDIX B

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

BE Cover Sheet and Survey Summary BE Number: 07-12-05 Biologist(s): Elton Muzny and Dustin Heep, GAI

yes X no Alternative Consultation Process Determination: No Effect X Is Not Likely to Adversely Affect Likely to Adversely Affect

Project Area Survey Summary

Species Acres Miles # Captured Red-cockaded woodpecker 80 6.6 0

To: (Resources) Robert Potts From: (Deciding Officer) William E. Taylor

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION TPF II EAST TEXAS GATHERING, LLC PROPOSED NEWFIELD HUXLEY 12-INCH NATURAL GAS GATHERING PIPELINE FOREST COMPARTMENTS 9, 15, 16, AND 19; NATURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT AREA 50 SABINE NATIONAL FOREST SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION NUMBER: 07-12-05 Prepared for: U.S. Department of Agricultural Forest Service Sabine National Forest 5050 State Highway 21 East Hemphill, Texas 75948 Prepared on behalf of: TPF II EAST TEXAS GATHERING, LLC 2626 Cole Avenue Dallas, Texas 75204 Prepared by: GREMMINGER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 226 South Live Oak Street Bellville, Texas 77418 GAI Project No. 210202 September 13, 2012

210202003RPT GREMMINGER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ii

CONTENTS

1.0 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Biological Evaluation, Purpose and Scope ......................................................................... 1 1.2 Objectives of BE .................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Evaluation Data ................................................................................................................... 2

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Proposed Project Description ............................................................................................. 3 3.0 COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTION .......................................................................... 5

3.1 Coordination ........................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Completed Biological Evaluations of Nearby Projects ........................................................ 5

4.0 SPECIES CONSIDERED AND SPECIES EVALUATED ................................................................ 7

4.1 Federally Listed Species Considered Further ..................................................................... 7 4.2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species` .............................................................................. 7 4.3 Species Evaluation for Analysis of Potential to Affect ........................................................ 8 4.4 Evaluated Species Survey Information ............................................................................. 15

4.4.1 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker ................................................................................ 15 4.4.1.1 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Forage Analysis ...................................... 15

4.4.2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species ................................................................ 17 5.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT .................................................................................................... 18

5.1 Federal Listed Species ..................................................................................................... 18 5.2 Region 8 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species .............................................................. 18

6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 19 SIGNATURE PAGE ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 and 2 Project Location Maps on USGS Quadrangle Figure 3 Avoided Resources Map Figure 4 Avoided Resources Map Figure 5 Tree Sample Point Map Figure 6 Tree Sample Point Map Figure 7 Forage Quality Analysis Map Shelby 01 to 06 Survey Alignment Sheets APPENDICES A CISC Forage Analysis and Tree Sample Data Table B Project Photographs

210202003RPT GREMMINGER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1

1.0 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

1.1 Biological Evaluation, Purpose and Scope

This Biological Evaluation (BE) evaluates the potential effects, resulting from construction and operations

of the TPF II East Texas Gathering, LLC (TPF II) proposed 6.6-mile (34,937-foot) segment of 12-inch

Newfield Huxley natural gas gathering pipeline (the Project), on federally listed threatened, endangered,

or candidate species; or species on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) Regional

Foresters Sensitive Species (RFSS) list (Proposed Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species;

cumulatively called PETS) within Region 8 of the National Forest system, and specifically those

potentially located within Compartments 9, 15, 16, and 19 of the Sabine National Forest (SNF) in Shelby

County, Texas.

This BE has been prepared in accordance with the USFS Manual 2670, Final Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for Vegetation Management in the Coastal

Plain/Piedmont dated February 27, 1989 and regulations promulgated under Section 7(a)(2) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq).

The ESA requires Federal agencies to insure that any activities they authorize, fund, or carry out do not

jeopardize the continued existence of any species, or adversely modify critical habitat, that is federally

listed, or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. Compliance with ESA includes a requirement

to consult with the U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on projects that

may affect federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species.

Pursuant to directives contained within FSM 2670.32, it is USFS policy to review through the biological

evaluation process, actions and programs authorized, funded, or carried out by the USFS to determine

their potential effect on threatened and endangered species, species proposed for formal listing

(candidate species), and regional species considered sensitive.

This BE is the instrument for evaluating and documenting the potential effects of the proposed pipeline

construction and operations on PETS species that occur, or could potentially occur, in the project area.

1.2 Objectives of BE

The objectives of this BE include:


• An analysis of the potential effects to PETS species resulting from construction and operations of the proposed Project;

• Compliance with the ESA so that an action by the USFS does not jeopardize or adversely affect

threatened, endangered, or candidate species or supporting habitat; • Compliance with the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT) 1996 Revised Land and

Resource Management Plan, and the Final EIS and ROD for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont dated February 27, 1989;

• Provide project design criteria if necessary to minimize any potential effects that implementation

of the project may have on PETS species; and • 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. The PETS species list was reviewed through scientific literature with consideration of responsible opposing views and acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, uncertainty and risk.

1.3 Evaluation Data

A pedestrian field assessment of the proposed pipeline route and lands that would be affected by

construction of the project occurred from August 1-3, 2011. This BE and the evaluations of potential

effect on PETS species are based upon the following information:

• Field assessment of the project route and immediately adjacent lands assessing approximately 80 acres total performed by Elton Muzny and Dustin Heep of Gremminger and Associates, Inc. in August 2011;

• Published information on the ecological requirements for individual PETS species and species

descriptions for Region 8 of the National Forest System and the SNF;

• Published GIS location information on PETS species obtained from the USFS NFGT Contractor BE and NEPA Information website;

• Review of the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Revised Land and Resource

Management Plan, 1996, amended; and • Review of the Biological Opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the EIS on the U.S.

Forest Service National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, and ROD, 1996.


2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Proposed Project Description

The proposed project is the installation and operation of six and six tenths (6.6) miles (34,937 feet) of 12-

inch diameter welded steel natural gas gathering pipeline named the Newfield Huxley Natural Gas

Gathering Pipeline, within and across Compartments 9, 15-16, and 19 of the SNF in Shelby County,

Texas as shown on Figures 1 and 2 in the Illustrations section. As shown on the civil survey alignment

sheets, Figures Shelby 01 through Shelby 06, the pipeline would be installed within a 30-foot (ft) wide

permitted easement that abuts the south side of the easement of Farm to Market Road (FM) 2694, laying

inside the south boundary of the recorded road easement by 1-ft, and 20-ft south of and parallel to a

communications fiber-optic line within the same road easement area for 4.3 miles of its length, and then

at the same offsets from the roadway and cable, but 15-ft outside the road easement for the remaining

2.3 miles. Five (5) 30-ft square surface sites for connections to known natural gas production wells are

included in the scope of this action.

Based upon the survey data provided for the Project, the permitted easement provided for this utility line

would equal 24.2 acres in total. During construction of the pipeline segment, TPF II is requesting the

temporary use of a 20-ft wide additional workspace north of and parallel to the proposed pipeline

centerline. Installation of the pipeline would be by conventional trench excavation and backfill, and

horizontal directional drilling (HDD). If authorized, construction of this pipeline segment would affect a

total of 40.2 acres on SNF lands (16.0 acres of temporary use and 24.2 acres of 30-ft-wide permanent

easement) with 27,143 linear feet of surface disturbance (31.25 acres) resulting from the clearing of

vegetation for the proposed construction activities and avoidance of 7,794 feet (8.9 acres) of surface

impacts by HDD. Of the 31.25 acres of surface disturbance proposed on SNF lands, 12.5 acres would be

in previously cleared and maintained herbaceous easement along FM 2694, and 18.8 acres would be in

wooded or shrub habitat cleared and maintained as the maintenance easement for the pipeline and the

interconnect sites. The attached (Illustrations) Figures 1 through 4, present the project location and

alignment sheets Figures Shelby 01 through 06 present the spacing aspects as discussed. The

anticipated duration of construction is approximately sixty to ninety (60-90) days from initiation to clean-up

and restoration of disturbed grounds.

The 12-inch gathering pipeline is designed to transport up to 200 million standard cubic feet of natural gas

a day operating at the maximum allowable operating pressure.


This 6.6 mile pipeline will gather produced natural gas to an existing TPF II gathering trunkline which

exists west of the National Forest boundary.

The purpose of this pipeline is to gather produced volumes of natural gas from Newfield existing and

planned production wells produced from nineteen (19) lease units inside the National Forest boundary,

occurring north and south of FM 2694, and gather the gas volumes to a TPF II trunkline west of the

National Forest.

The need of the project is driven by the lack of a market outlet sufficient for the produced volumes of

natural gas coming from Newfield Petroleum production wells inside the National Forest.

Currently, Newfield is permitting flow lines from their well locations inside the National Forest to

interconnect with an existing gas pipeline operated by CenterPoint Energy occurring parallel to FM 2694

on the north side of the roadway. The issue with using and continuing to utilize the CenterPoint pipeline

is that the line commences as a 8-inch diameter line, reduces to a 4-inch diameter pipeline in the middle,

and then drops to a 3-inch diameter line. The existing gas service, small pipeline diameter, and

operational limits due to the age of the pipeline provide limited and interrupted flow service to two existing

Newfield production wells, both of which spend multiple hours a day blocked and unable to flow gas due

to the limitation of the CenterPoint pipeline. Currently, Newfield has additional well locations inside the

National Forest in permit processing.

The proposed TPF II pipeline will provide gathering service and market outlet for the produced volumes

from the existing and future Newfield production wells inside the SNF.

USFS policy for utility projects is that a 50-ft-wide buffer of uncleared land will be maintained on both

sides of any conveyance of surface water and a 50-meter-wide buffer will be maintained on either side of

known cultural resources, the Boles Field Campground, and the National Hall of Fame Cemetery of Fox

Hounds. This is implemented as a design criteria, and to comply with this policy, TPF II will utilize HDDs

and bores to install a total of 7,794 feet of the pipeline beneath these resources and their buffers. A

reduced width construction corridor will be implemented for 230 linear feet to maintain a 50-ft riparian

buffer with a parallel stream channel. These design criteria implementations result in a reduction of

potential surface impacts by 8.9 acres. While the avoidance of these resources are not captured by the

analysis provided in this BE, no additional workspace is necessary to implement these drills at their entry

or exit points and surface disturbances would be entirely avoided between the HDD entry and exit

locations. Figures 3 and 4 in the Illustrations section present the current locations where these design

criteria will be implemented.


3.0 COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTION

3.1 Coordination

The initial project review request was submitted to the USFS on March 14, 2011. Informal staff meetings

occurred during late March, April, and early May of 2011 regarding this project and known resource issue

of concern on or adjacent to the proposed route of installation. A project coordination meeting between

the TPF II representatives and USFS staff occurred on May 19, 2011.

USFS staff participants to these meetings included: • Cheryl Foster, USFS Minerals Representative; • Lynn Jackson, USFS NEPA Coordinator; • Tom Zimmerman, USFS Land Mineral Project Manager;

• Eliode Joseph, USFS ANG/SAB;

• T. Dandy Jones, USFS ANG/SAB Wildlife Biologist;

• Phyllis Wolf, USFS ANG/SAB Archeologist;

• Walter C. Cooper, USFS ANG/SAB ORA; and

• Kathy Duncan, USNF ANG/SAB Silviculture/NEPA

At the direction of USFS staff, a BE for the proposed project is necessary to comply with the National

Environmental Policy Act, and the BE should include a forage analysis of the habitat suitability for use by

red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) [RCWs].

3.2 Completed Biological Evaluations of Nearby Projects

Biological Evaluation (BE) 07-11-05: Newfield Exploration Company, PDU “Oak” #D1

Dated 10/25/10

The Newfield Exploration Company conducted a BE to investigate potential impacts of developing a well

pad, access road, and pipeline ROW in the SNF in Compartment 9, Stands 3 and 13 (C9-3 and C9-13).

It was determined that the project construction and operation would have “no effect” to any federally listed

threatened or endangered species, and “no impact” to any RFSS.


Biological Evaluation (BE) 07-10-18 by Eastex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (ETC) USFS Project No.

33340

Dated 9/26/2011

Eastex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (ETC) Fiber Optics Cable Special Use Permit Compartment 15, 16,

18 & 19 USDA Service Region 8 decision.

ETC proposed to install, via horizontal directional drilling, 42,800 ft of fiber optics cable within the cleared

right of way of FM 2694 & FM 3471, within the SNF. It was determined that the project construction and

operation would have “no effect” to any federally listed threatened or endangered species, and “no

impact” to any RFSS.


4.0 SPECIES CONSIDERED AND SPECIES EVALUATED

The Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species considered by this BE are those published by the

USFS on the Official Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES) list, last revised October 13,

2010. This list of species is derived from direct consultation between the USFS staff and USFWS

regarding federal listed species and species under consideration for listing that require further study. The

list of sensitive species is derived by USFS internal consultation on species for which population viability

may be a concern.

The consideration of individual species for analysis of potential direct, indirect, or cumulative effect is

based upon published information on species habitat requirements and the absence or presence of the

potential supporting habitat within, or immediately adjacent to, the proposed pipeline project area.

4.1 Federally Listed Species Considered Further

All federally listed Threatened, Endangered, and PETS Species for the SNF were considered for this

project. The RCW is the only species that may be affected by the proposed project and is evaluated

further in this document:

A summary analysis to include any federally listed species into the BE’s detailed analysis of potential to

affect, is presented in Section 4.3 below.

4.2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) implementing regulations under which the Forest Plan was

prepared require National Forests to maintain viable populations of species that occur on a National

Forest (36 CFR 219.19, USDA Department Regulation 9500-4). As part of the strategy to address the

NFMA viability requirements and avert the need for listing under the Endangered Species Act, each

region of the USFS has developed a list of RFSS, which are species for which population viability may be

a concern. Direction in the Region 8 supplement to the USFS manual emphasizes maintaining viability

for RFSS and ensuring that management activities do not result in trends toward federal listing (USFSM

2670.22, 2670.32). None of the species on the RFSS list for SNF are expected to be affected by the

proposed project. A summary analysis to include any of these individual species into the BE’s detailed

analysis of potential to affect, is presented in Section 4.3 below.


4.3 Species Evaluation for Analysis of Potential to Affect

Table 4.3 below presents a listing of all PETS species, summarizes the known information on habitat

requirements, and provides determinations to include or eliminate each species for further analysis based

on project location and existing habitat that would be affected by the proposed action.


Table 4.3

Federal Threatened and Endangered Species and Region 8 PETS Species

Species Status Environmental Baseline for Potential Habitat and Occurrence Further Analysis Required

Red-cockaded woodpecker

(Picoides borealis)

Endangered

Mature old growth pine forest with bunchgrass herbaceous layer. Little to no mid-story layer.

Yes. However, there are no known clusters of this species in vicinity to the project, but suitable habitat is present, and the project does occur within a USFS Habitat Management Area for this species.

Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus)

Region 8 Sensitive Species

Remote forested floodplains and bottomland hardwoods in Texas and Louisiana. May occasionally occur in upland deciduous and coniferous-deciduous forests and coastal flatwoods. Require winter den cavities and large territories for foraging.

No, the nearest recorded sighting is 2.7 miles northeast of the proposed project’s east endpoint, and the project site does not have preferred floodplain bottomland habitats for foraging or dens.

White bladderpod (Lesquerella pallida)

Endangered Openings within coniferous-deciduous forests on thin, poorly drained alkaline sandy loam or sandy clay loam soils, over glauconite or ironstone layers of the Weches Formation. Winter/spring seeps that dry in summer.

No, the Weches Formation does not occur on the project site. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis)


Dry open pine woods savanna in the southeastern U.S., possibly oak-palmetto scrub and open spaces transitioning to forest (clear cuts). Builds grass nests on ground near grass clumps.

No, the project site does not have an open grass understory preferred by this species. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)


Prefers old-growth and mature stands of coniferous or hardwood trees for perching, roosting, and nesting in reasonable vicinity to bodies of permanent open water. Nests are large, and therefore tall, mature trees are required to support the nest structure.

No. The closest known nest is in compartment 21 several miles away from the Toledo Bend area. This known location will not be a factor in or impact to the Bald eagle or its current habitat of use. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Migrant loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicia migrans)


Preferred habitats include grasslands, orchards, and open areas with scattered trees. Nests are a bulky cup made of twigs and grass concealed in dense trees and shrubs.

No, the project site does not have the open areas or brush preferred by this species. 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 would not affect this species.


Table 4.3



Louisiana pine snake

(Pituophis melanoleucus ruthveni)

Region 8 Sensitive

Species

Pine savanna and pine forest with limited mid-story. Requires a well developed herbaceous understory and a population of pocket gophers for cover and forage. No known occurrences of this species are shown in the USFS GIS database in vicinity to the project.

No, the project site does not have a population of pocket gophers. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius)


Roosts in a variety of shelters including caves, mines, bridges, buildings, culverts, and tree hollows. It prefers oak-hickory to mixed conifer-hardwood habitats and is often associated with human habitations near streams or lakes. Forages in vicinity to permanent water bodies.

No. Project location could provide roost habitat, but there are no permanent water bodies in vicinity for foraging. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii)


Occupies forested area where natural caves do not exist, by roosting in hollow trees, crevices behind back, under dry leaves, bridge spans, and within voids of buildings and water wells. Forages in vicinity to permanent water bodies.

No. Project location could provide roost habitat but there are permanent water bodies in vicinity for foraging. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Sabine shiner (Notropis sabinae)


Shallow streams and rivers with light to moderate currents and fine sandy bottoms.

No, no intermittent or perennial aquatic habitat occurs on project site. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Blackbelted crayfish (Procambarus nigrocinctus)


Moderately flowing streams and ephemeral pools of the Neches River among rocks and debris.


Neches crayfish (Procambarus nechesae)


Wet ditches and ephemeral or intermittent pools and creeks in portions of East Texas. Not collected in Sabine, San Augustine, or Shelby Counties as of 2010.



Table 4.3



Sabine fencing crayfish

(Faxonella beyeri)

Region 8 Sensitive

Species

Streams, ephemeral pools, and roadside ditches of East Texas. Aquatic plants are usually present; implying routine to periodic soil saturation.

No, no aquatic habitats will be affected on the project site. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Louisiana pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii)


Streams and moderate size rivers. No, no intermittent or perennial aquatic habitat occurs on project site. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura)


Streams and moderate size rivers. No, no perennial aquatic habitat occurs on project site. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Southern hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana)


Small and moderate size rivers. No, no perennial aquatic habitat occurs on project site. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaemus)


Small and moderate size rivers. No, no perennial aquatic habitat occurs on project site. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Texas pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi)


Large and moderate size rivers. No, no perennial aquatic habitat occurs on project site. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Triangle pigtoe (Fusconaia lananensis)


Creeks and pools of Attoyac Bayou. No, no perennial aquatic habitat occurs on project site. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.


Table 4.3



Big Thicket emerald dragonfly

(Somatochlora margarita)

Region 8 Sensitive

Species

Seeps and bogs with slow flowing water and sandy bottoms. Winged adults forage in vicinity of breeding grounds.

No, no seeps or bogs occur on the project site and no known occurrences are recorded within Shelby County. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Barbed rattleroot (Prenanthes barbata)


Mesic loblolly-hardwood and riparian forests. Moist, sloped sandy soils preferred. Increased light and decreased moisture is detrimental to this species.

No, the project site is not sloped and prescribed burns provide abundant light to the understory. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Clasping twistflower (Streptanthus maculates)


Seasonally moist open areas on the Weches Formation in San Augustine County (may be extirpated in Nacodoches County). May also occur in certain sandy forested areas of Sabine and Anderson Counties.

No, the Weches Formation does not occur at the project site. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Drummond’s yellow-eyed grass

(Xyris drummondii)


Requires full sun and moist to wet acid sandy soils. Peat bogs and seeps preferred, but will subsist in clear cuts, if not drained, until over-story canopy closes.

No, the project site is not wet. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Harper’s yellow-eyed grass (Xyris scabrifolia)


Found on side slopes and hillside seeps of strongly sloping to steep hills overlying sandy, loamy soils, generally near mid-slope of the headwaters of small ravines or lower slopes at headwaters of small streams

No, the project site is not wet and lacks any hillside seeps. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Incised agrimony (Agrimonia incisa)


Found in dry to mesic fire-maintained open longleaf pine/scrub oak communities with sandy or sandy loam soils. Sometimes at the edge of more mesic habitats

No, there are no known occurrences in this county and there are no longleaf/scrub oak habitats within the project site. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.


Table 4.3



Large beakrush

(Rhynchospora macra)

Region 8 Sensitive

Species

Acid sandy bogs and wet pine savannas maintained by periodic fires to control woody species density.


Mohlenbrock’s umbrellasedge (Cyperus grayoides)


Occurs in eroded open areas with deep, periodically disturbed sandy soils. Does not occur in shaded areas or in areas of high competition with other herbaceous species. May also occur in areas where soils have been disturbed by logging or road construction.

No, the project site soils do not consist of deep sands. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Southern lady’s slipper (Cypripedium kentuckiense)


Sandy soils near streams within mature floodplain forest; also on shaded mesic ravine slopes.

No, the project location does not have mature floodplain forests. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Pineland bogbutton (Lachnocaulon digynum)


Open wet exposed acid sands and sphagnum mats within hillside seeps on the Catahoula Formation. Prescribed burns necessary to maintain open conditions.


Sabine coneflower (Rudbeckia scabrifolia)


Partially shaded hillside seepage bogs within periodically burned broadleaf semi-evergreen acid seep forests.


Scarlet catchfly (Silene subciliata)


Occurs in dry to mesic mixed pine-hardwood forests, on well-drained, but not xeric, sandy soils and is often found on slopes at the fire-maintained ecotone between upland longleaf pine woodlands and mesic ravine forests.

No, the project site does not contain any longleaf pine woodlands. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Slender gayfeather (Liatris tenuis)


Fire maintained dry upland longleaf pine savanna habitats associated with the Catahoula formation.

No, the project site is not within a known county of occurrence. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.


Table 4.3



Texas bartonia

(Bartonia texana)

Region 8 Sensitive

Species

Bogs along wooded streams.


Texas golden gladecress (Leavenworthia texana)


Reported from four sites: bare ground within rocky outcrops of the Weches formation in Sabine and San Augustine Counties.

No, the Weches Formation does not occur on the project site. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Texas trillium (Trillium texanum)


Forested wetland habitats. No, the project site is not wet. This species is not considered further in this analysis because they are not expected to occur within the area affected by the project. Therefore, this project would not affect this species.

Yellow fringeless orchid (Platanthera integra)


Low, wet pine savannas; sphagnum seeps; and boggy areas.



4.4 Evaluated Species Survey Information

Section 4.3 above provides a summary analysis and conclusion on the need to perform an intensive

analysis of potential to affect any individual species on the PETS species list. The result of this analysis

is that potential effects to the RCW should be further analyzed due to the proposed project’s location

within an established RCW habitat management area and its potential to affect RCW foraging habitat.

4.4.1 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker

The RCW is a small (8-inch) ladder-backed woodpecker that historically was dependent on old aged (60-

70+ year old) open pine woodlands. Fire suppression and logging practices have greatly reduced the

optimal habitat available to this species throughout its range from eastern Texas to North Carolina. This

species requires mature pine trees, preferably longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), with red-heart disease in

which to excavate a nest cavity. Pine dominated forests with little to no mid-canopy and an open

understory canopy (less than 15 to 20 feet in height) are preferred. Medium aged to mature pine stands

are required for foraging.

Based upon USFS published location data there are no known clusters of RCWs within six (6) miles of

the proposed project. As a result no direct affect to known clusters and the immediately adjacent foraging

habitats would result from the proposed project. The August 2-3, 2011, pedestrian field assessment of

the proposed utility location and adjacent habitats covered approximately 80 acres in total. No individuals

of this species or positive visual or auditory indicators of the species presence were made during this field

assessment.

4.4.1.1 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Forage Analysis

In August 2011, GAI staff performed a pedestrian assessment of the project area located within the SNF.

GAI staff utilized (19) 30-ft diameter circular plots centered along the staked project route centerline to

record species compositions in the overstory, midstory, and understory; recorded the species, numbers of

individuals of each species, and diameter at breast height (dbh) of every tree within the sample plots; and

photographed the habitats conditions within the sample plots and that of the adjacent habitat. The

collected data was then used in conjunction with recent aerial photography to extrapolate an estimated

stem number of trees within the total project area and, combined with USFS data, evaluate forage

analysis conditions for RCWs within the project area.

Based upon the survey results, three (3) habitats would be affected by construction of the project and

include intermediate to mature loblolly pine forest (Pinus taeda) with an average of 12 inches dbh and


having a maximum individual height of 110 ft or less; mixed hardwoods; and shrub/scrub mixed woods.

Photographs of these habitats are provided in Appendix B. Based upon the data collected and

assignation of the data to similar aerial imagery signatures, approximately less than 5,000 pine tree stems

greater than 5 inches dbh would be cut and permanently removed as a result of the pipeline construction

and maintenance easement. Appendix A contains the results of the CISC foraging analysis and tree

sample data table. Figures 5 and 6 present the location of the 18 tree sample points along the proposed

project route.

Published USFS stand data, supplemented by data collected by GAI biologists, was utilized to complete a

CISC forage quality analysis for RCWs. Data from each sample point was processed and the numbers of

individuals separated into the following four (4) categories: pines having 5-10.9 inches dbh; pines having

greater than 11 inches dbh; hardwoods having 6-11.9 inches dbh; and hardwoods greater than 12 inches

dbh (Appendix A). The results of this CISC analysis determined that the pine forest habitats which would

be directly affected by construction and operations of the proposed project score are classified as “poor”

or “fair” for potential use by this species. The average managed stability and suitability rating for the

sample points was 54.8 percent. GAI biologists did observe that the lack of habitats meeting the

classification of “good” for potential use by RCWs may be attributed to their immediate proximity to Farm-

to-Market 2694. GAI’s observation is that the narrow belt of pine forest adjacent to the roadway does not

necessarily typify the habitat conditions within the forest compartment interior. Figure 7 presents a map

of the results of the CISC forage analysis.

Activities within the cumulative effects analysis area would result in the moderate- to long-term net loss of

less than 18.7 acres of potential suitable RCW habitat in the habitat management area (HMA) and

representing 0.003% of the total 6,534 acres within the HMA, due to the installation and subsequent

maintenance of the 30-ft wide easement in an emergent vegetative condition. The impacted acreages

are immediately adjacent to existing utility easements and FM 2694 and are greater than six (6) miles

from the nearest known cluster. Foraging habitat would not be substantially impacted for any individual

cluster and would not likely reduce the ability of USFS to continue growing the population in the northern

HMA.

Determination: It is the conclusion of this BE, through the above analysis, that the proposed project is “not

likely to adversely affect” RCWs.


4.4.2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Based upon the summary analysis presented in Section 4.3 above, the habitat directly affected by the

proposed project is unlikely to support use or occupancy by individuals on the PETS species list. No

direct, indirect or cumulative effects to sensitive species should result from this project.


5.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT

5.1 Federal Listed Species

As presented and discussed in Section 4.0, the section of the SNF crossed by the project contains

habitats managed to be suitable habitat for RCWs. Since the lands immediately adjacent to and within

the proposed area of effect were not observed to support, and are not known to support occurrences of

any individual federal listed species, the project would have no direct effect to any Federal listed

Threatened and Endangered species. However, activities within the cumulative effects analysis area

would result in the moderate- to long-term net loss of less than 31.25 acres of potentially suitable RCW

habitat. Because the impacted acreages are immediately adjacent to existing utility easements and FM

2694, are greater than six (6) miles from the nearest known cluster, and foraging habitat would not be

substantially impacted for any individual cluster and would not likely reduce the ability of USFS to

continue growing the population in the northern habitat management area, the project will be “not likely to

adversely affect” Federal Threatened and Endangered species..

5.2 Region 8 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

The project as proposed should have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on any RFSS, and

authorization of the project should not result in any negative trend for populations of these species.

Therefore, the proposed project would have “no impact” to any RFSS.


6.0 REFERENCES

Center for Plant Conservation (http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/) Accessed August, 2011. Gremminger and Associates Inc. Field Assessment, August 2011 Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Natural Heritage Program; Rare Plant Fact Sheet PMCYP0N1C0 (Rhynchospora macra), http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fact_sheet_plant/32044-Rhynchospora%20macra/Rhynchospora_macra.pdf) Accessed July, 2011. National Geographic Society. 2002. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, fourth Edition. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. Nature Serve Explorer (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/) Accessed September, 2011. Poole, J.M., Carr, W.R., Price, D.M., and Singhurst, J.R. 2007. Rare Plants of Texas: A Field Guide. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and A&M University Press, College Station, Texas. Reagan Smith Energy Solutions, Inc. 2002. Horton Federal #1H Biological Assessment. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Natural Heritage Species Information, 2011 http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species The Cornell Lab of Ornithology: All About Birds (http://www.birds.cornell.edu). Accessed August, 2011. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (http://www.iucnredlist.org). Accessed August, 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Internet Endangered Species List, 2011 http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies/lists/ListSpecies.cfm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Division of Migratory Bird Management; Birds of Conservation Concern, 2008 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Contractor BE, and NEPA Information, 2011 http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gjAwhwtDDw9_AI8zPwhQoY6IeDdGCqCPOBqwDLG-AAjgb6fh75uan6BdnZaY6OiooA1tkqlQ!!/dl3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfMjAwMDAwMDBBODBPSEhWTjJNMDAwMDAwMDA!/?navtype=&cid=stelprdb5288039&navid=170160000000000&pnavid=140000000000000&ss=110813&position=Not%20Yet%20Determined.Html&ttype=detail&pname=National%20Forests%20and%20Grasslands%20in%20Texas-%20Partnerships U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service; Plants Database (http://plants.usda.gov/java/) Accessed September, 2011. W.E. Taylor; Decision Memo, Biological Evaluation Number 07-10-18; Accessed online December, 2011 http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/71132_FSPLT2_060782.pdf

http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fact_sheet_plant/32044-Rhynchospora%20macra/Rhynchospora_macra.pdf

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/fact_sheet_plant/32044-Rhynchospora%20macra/Rhynchospora_macra.pdf

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/

http://www.iucnredlist.org/

http://plants.usda.gov/java/


SIGNATURE PAGE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION TPF II EAST TEXAS GATHERING, LLC PROPOSED NEWFIELD HUXLEY 12-INCH NATURAL GAS GATHERING PIPELINE FOREST COMPARTMENTS 9, 15, 16, AND 19; NATURAL HERITAGE MANAGEMENT AREA 50 SABINE NATIONAL FOREST SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION NUMBER: 07-12-05 Prepared by: Larry J Gremminger Larry J. Gremminger, CWB Managing Environmental Scientist Gremminger and Associates, Inc. 226 South Live Oak Bellville, Texas 77418 Approved by: April Crawley, NEPA Biologist USDA Forest Service Angelina and Sabine National Forests 111 Walnut Ridge Road Zavalla, Texas 75980 Reviewed by: T. Dandy Jones, Wildlife Biologist Sabine National Forest Angelina/Sabine Ranger District 5050 Highway 21 East Hemphill, Texas 75948


ILLUSTRATIONS


.





Reference: USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle: SHELBYVILLE, TX Scale 1:24,000

Match Line

Newfield Well B1 Interconnect Station

Newfield Well D1 Interconnect Station

Newfield Well GG1 Interconnect Station

Project Start

Newfield Well K1 Interconnect Station


.





Reference: USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle: HUXLEY, TX Scale 1:24,000

Project End

Newfield Wells A1 & E1 Interconnect Station

Match Line


.






Match Line FM

2694

FSR

165

FSR

107

FSR

142

FM

3471

FSR

143

CR

2420

CR

2350 FM

417

CR

2335

CR

2603

515-foot Horizontal

Directional Drill Avoiding

Two (2) Intermittent Stream

Channels

Road Bore

Road Bore


Avoiding Emergent Wetland


Avoiding Ephemeral Stream


.






Match Line

FM

2694

FSR

181

FSR

107

FM

3471

FSR

142

FSR

197 CR

2603

230 Feet of Reduced

Construction Workspace

to Maintain a 50-foot

Riparian Buffer

1,100-foot HDD

of Campground

and Cemetery

990-Foot HDD 2,880-foot HDD

1,660-foot Horizontal

Directional Drill (HDD)

Road Bore Road Bore

Road Bore


.






Match Line

19

12 13 15 16 17 14 11

10

18 FM

2694

FSR

165

FSR

107

FSR

142

FM

3471

FSR

143

CR

2420

CR

2350 FM

417

CR

2335

CR

2603

9 1 3 5

6 4

2

8


.






Match Line

7

FM

2694

FSR

181

FSR

107

FM

3471

FSR

142

FSR

197

CR

2603


.



RCW Forage Quality by Stand Newfield-Huxley Lateral Pipeline Project


USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangles: Huxley & Shelbyville, TX Scale: 1:48,000

- Forest Service Land - Fair Foraging Habitat - Poor Foraging Habitat

Pipeline ROW (Paralleling F.M. 2694)

Poor Foraging Habitat

Poor Foraging Habitat Fair Foraging Habitat



APPENDIX A

CISC FORAGE ANALYSIS AND TREE SAMPLE DATA

CISC Forage Analysis Using GAI Field Data

MATRIX CISCDATA STANDARDS

TPF II Newfield Huxley Pipeline


CISC MATRIX for Recovery Plan Standards

Stand characteristics 3 2 1 0

Rank (revs) c

Weight

Forest Types 1

Pine Pine-Hrdwd Hrdwd a

1 0.02

BA Pine (≥11'') 2a, 2d

>37 20 to 36 10 to19 <10 9 0.20

BA Pine (5-10.9'') 2c

<23 23 to 29 30 to 39 ≥40 4 0.09

BA Hardwood (≥12'') 2g

Long L. <10 10 to 22 23 to 29 >30 5 0.11

Lob,Short L, Slash <30 30 to 40 41 to 50 >50

BA Hardwood (6-11.9'') 2f

0 to 1 1 to 10 10 to 30 >30 7 0.16

Age (years) 2a

≥60 30 to 59 <30 b

8 0.18

# of Burns since 2000 2e

≥ 4 2 to 3 1 0 6 0.13

Last RxBurn (yrs since) 2e

<4 4-6 ≥7 NoBurn 3 0.07

Season RxBurn 2e

GS NGS NoBurn 2 0.04

45.00 1.00

b. Any stand less than 30 years old is considered poor.

c. Rankings are based off the rankings used for the MATRIX.

Note: Superscripts "1" through "2e" refer to the criteria from 8I Part A, pgs. 188-189 of the recovery plan (2003)

CISC Forage Analysis Using GAI Field Data

MATRIX CISCDATA STANDARDS

TPFII Newfield Huxley Pipeline


Stand characteristics 0 1

stand age3a <30 30+

BA Pine (≥11'') 3b <40 or >70 40-70

BA Pine (5-10.9'') >20 <20

BA Hardwood (6-11.9'') >1 0-1

*Total BA

(pine and HW)3e >80 <80

# burns since 1997

(% gnrdcv) 3g >=5 <5

fire return interval3g >5 years <=5 years

season of last prescribed

burn3g NGS GS

Unsuitable Suitable

CISC MATRIX for Managed Stability Standards

Score

CISC Forage Analysis Using GAI Field DataRAW DATA

TPF II Newfield Huxley PipelineShelby County, Texas

stands_ciscUSTAND

stands_cisc. COMPARTMENT

stands_cisc.STAND

stands_cisc.AGE_YEAR

stands_cisc.FOR_TYPE

Forest Type AGE

stands_cisc.BA_PINE_PO

stands_cisc.BA_PINE_SA

stands_cisc.BA_HARD_PO

stands_cisc.BA_HARD_SA

# Burns since 2000

Last RxBurn

Last RxBurn

(yrs since)

Season of RxBurn

813070019002 19 2 1913 32 Pine 98 84 298 117 0 1 2002 9 GS813070019001 19 1 1975 32 Pine 36 0 215 0 0 1 2002 9 GS813070019007 19 7 1975 32 Pine 36 31 432 0 0 1 2002 9 GS813070019016 19 16 1917 32 Pine 94 16 372 98 0 1 2002 9 GS813070019014 19 14 1942 32 Pine 69 22 245 50 97 1 2002 9 GS813070019015 19 15 1929 32 Pine 82 0 57 47 0 1 2002 9 GS813070019011 19 11 1975 32 Pine 36 70 0 0 0 1 2002 9 GS813070019012 19 12 1937 32 Pine 74 0 234 22 57 1 2002 9 GS813070019017 19 17 1988 32 Pine 23 8 202 0 0 1 2002 9 GS POOR813070016029 16 29 1923 32 Pine 88 22 221 0 24 1 2002 9 GS813070016027 16 27 1923 32 Pine 88 0 230 37 0 1 2002 9 GS813070016002 16 2 1923 32 Pine 88 20 50 0 10 1 2002 9 GS813070015005 15 5 1929 32 Pine 82 15 121 16 175 1 2002 9 GS813070015010 15 10 1976 31 Pine 35 33 66 0 0 1 2002 9 GS813070015002 15 2 1922 31 Pine 89 0 241 29 0 1 2002 9 GS813070015003 15 3 1930 25 Pine 81 0 73 12 9 1 2002 9 GS813070009010 15 10 1981 31 Pine 30 0 254 0 0 1 2002 9 GS813070015011 9 11 1930 13 Pine- 81 0 70 10 20 1 2002 9 GS



stand data point BA Pine 5-8.9" BA Pine ≥9" BA HW 6-10.9" BA HW ≥11" Data Point BA Pine ≥9" BA Pine 5-8.9" BA HW ≥11" BA HW 6-10.9"2 1 84 298 117 0 1 298 84 0 1171 2 0 215 0 0 2 215 0 0 07 3 29 587 0 0 3 587 29 0 0

4 33 277 0 0 4 277 33 0 016 4 33 277 0 0 5 467 0 0 196

5 0 467 196 0 6 245 22 97 5014 6 22 245 50 97 7 57 0 0 4715 7 0 57 47 0 8 234 0 57 2211 n/a 9 202 8 0 012 8 0 234 22 57 10 325 24 0 017 9 8 202 0 0 11 116 21 48 029 10 24 325 0 0 12 230 0 0 37

11 21 116 0 48 13 162 0 297 2227 12 0 230 37 0 14 148 34 66 02 n/a 15 54 12 163 275 13 0 162 22 297 16 66 33 0 0

14 34 148 0 66 17 120 0 0 5715 12 54 27 163 18 363 0 0 0

10 16 33 66 0 0 19 254 0 0 02 17 0 120 57 0

18 0 363 0 03 n/a

10 19 0 254 0 011 n/a



BA Pine 5-8.9" BA Pine ≥9" BA HW 6-10.9" BA HW ≥11"7 2 29 587 0 0 7 31 432 0 0

20 33 277 0 0

16 20 33 277 0 0 16 16 372 98 016 0 467 196 0

29 43 24 325 0 0 29 22 221 0 2445 21 116 0 48

5 67 0 162 22 297 5 15 121 16 17568 34 148 0 6669 12 54 27 163

2 61 0 120 57 0 2 0 241 29 064 0 363 0 0

2 ok1 ok7 ok

16 ok14 ok15 ok11 ok12 ok17 ok29 ok27 ok

2 ok5 Poor

10 ok2 ok3 ok

10 ok11 ok

Average Basal Area per Data PointMultiple Data Point Representations per Stand

Hardwood Dominance Test

CISC Forage Analysis Using GAI Field DataSCORES


stands_cisc. USTAND

stands_cisc. COMPARTMENT

stands_cisc.STAND Forest Type AGE stands_cisc.

BA_PINE_POstands_cisc.BA_PINE_SA


stands_cisc.BA_HARD_SA

# Burns since 2000

Last RxBurn

(yrs since)

Season of

RxBurn

813070019002 19 2 3 3 0 3 0 3 1 0 3813070019001 19 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 0 3813070019007 19 7 3 2 1 3 3 3 1 0 3813070019016 19 16 3 3 3 3 0 3 1 0 3813070019014 19 14 3 3 3 3 0 0 1 0 3813070019015 19 15 3 3 3 3 0 3 1 0 3813070019011 19 11 3 2 0 0 3 3 1 0 3813070019012 19 12 3 3 3 3 1 0 1 0 3813070019017 19 17 3 0 3 3 3 3 1 0 3813070016029 16 29 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 0 3813070016027 16 27 3 3 3 3 0 3 1 0 3813070016002 16 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 0 3813070015005 15 5 3 3 3 3 1 0 1 0 3813070015010 15 10 3 2 1 3 3 3 1 0 3813070015002 15 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 0 3813070015003 15 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 0 3813070009010 15 10 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 0 3813070015011 9 11 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 0 3

Table 1CISC Forage AnalysisSCORES WEIGHTED

TPF II Newfield-Huxley PipelineShelby County, Texas

stands_cisc. USTAND

stands_cisc.COMPARTME

N

stands_cisc.STAND

Forest Type AGE stands_cisc.

BA_PINE_POstands_cisc.BA

_PINE_SAstands_cisc.BA

_HARD_POstands_cisc.BA

_HARD_SA# Burns

since 2000Last RxBurn (yrs since)

Season of

RxBurn

Sum of Weighted

Scores

Normilization to 5 Classification Notes

813070019002 19 2 0.06 0.54 0 0.6 0 0.33 0.13 0 0.12 1.78 2.97 Fair813070019001 19 1 0.06 0.36 0.27 0.6 0.48 0.33 0.13 0 0.12 2.35 3.92 Fair813070019007 19 7 0.06 0.36 0.09 0.6 0.48 0.33 0.13 0 0.12 2.17 3.62 Fair813070019016 19 16 0.06 0.54 0.27 0.6 0 0.33 0.13 0 0.12 2.05 3.42 Fair813070019014 19 14 0.06 0.54 0.27 0.6 0 0 0.13 0 0.12 1.72 2.87 Fair813070019015 19 15 0.06 0.54 0.27 0.6 0 0.33 0.13 0 0.12 2.05 3.42 Fair813070019011 19 11 0.06 0.36 0 0 0.48 0.33 0.13 0 0.12 1.48 2.47 Fair813070019012 19 12 0.06 0.54 0.27 0.6 0.16 0 0.13 0 0.12 1.88 3.13 Fair813070019017 19 17 0.06 0 0.27 0.6 0.48 0.33 0.13 0 0.12 1.99 3.32 Fair Poor by default due to age813070016029 16 29 0.06 0.54 0.27 0.6 0.48 0.11 0.13 0 0.12 2.31 3.85 Fair813070016027 16 27 0.06 0.54 0.27 0.6 0 0.33 0.13 0 0.12 2.05 3.42 Fair813070016002 16 2 0.06 0.54 0.27 0.6 0.48 0.22 0.13 0 0.12 2.42 4.03 Fair813070015005 15 5 0.06 0.54 0.27 0.6 0.16 0 0.13 0 0.12 1.88 3.13 Fair Poor due to HW dominance813070015010 15 10 0.06 0.36 0.09 0.6 0.48 0.33 0.13 0 0.12 2.17 3.62 Fair813070015002 15 2 0.06 0.54 0.27 0.6 0.16 0.33 0.13 0 0.12 2.21 3.68 Fair813070015003 15 3 0.06 0.54 0.27 0.6 0.16 0.33 0.13 0 0.12 2.21 3.68 Fair813070009010 15 10 0.06 0.36 0.27 0.6 0.48 0.33 0.13 0 0.12 2.35 3.92 Fair813070015011 9 11 0.04 0.54 0.27 0.6 0.32 0.22 0.13 0 0.12 2.24 3.73 Fair

CISC Forage Analysis Using GAI Field DataSCORES (Managed Stability)


COMPARTMENT stands_cisc.STAND AGE stands_cisc.B

A_PINE_POstands_cisc.BA_PINE_SA


stands_cisc.BA_PINE +

HARD

# Burns since 2000

Last RxBurn

(yrs since)

Season of

RxBurn

Sum_Mang_Stab_SCORES

Suitability Rating

19 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 37.5%19 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 62.5%19 7 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 50.0%19 16 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 50.0%19 14 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 37.5%19 15 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 5 62.5%19 11 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 5 62.5%19 12 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 50.0%19 17 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 50.0%16 29 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 50.0%16 27 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 50.0%16 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 87.5%15 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 50.0%15 10 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 5 62.5%15 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 50.0%15 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 50.0%15 10 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 62.5%9 11 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 5 62.5%

TREE SAMPLE DATA

TPF II: Newfield-Huxley Lateral Pipeline


Sample Point

Pines PO

(5-10.9" dbh)

Pines SA

(>11" dbh)

Hardwoods

(6-11.9" dbh)

Hardwoods

(>12" dbh)

1 8 12 5 0

2 0 3 0 0

3 3 7 0 0

4 3 3 0 0

5 2 4 6 0

6 1 2 2 2

7 0 1 1 0

8 0 2 1 1

9 5 1 0 0

10 4 2 0 1

11 1 2 0 0

12 0 3 2 0

13 3 0 1 2

14 2 1 0 1

15 1 1 1 3

16 2 1 0 0

17 0 3 0 0

18 1 1 4 0

19 3 4 0 0

APPENDIX B

PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS

210202003PIC REVISED GREMMINGER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1

Photograph 1: Habitat conditions near Sample Point 18.

Photograph 2: Habitat conditions at Sample Point 15.









Photograph 8: Habitat conditions on east end of the project and west of Forest Service Road 181.

APPENDIX C

EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

Calculated 2012 Construction and Operations Air Emissions TPF II East Texas Gathering, LLC

Newfield-Huxley 12-Inch Natural Gas Gathering Pipeline Shelby County, Texas

The following information summarizes the anticipated emissions resulting from equipment operations for

construction during 2012 to install and operate 6.6 miles of new 12-inch diameter natural gas gathering

pipeline and five (5) meter station surface facilities located on National Forest System land within the

administrative boundaries of Compartments 9, 15, 16, and 19 of the Sabine National Forest.

Construction Emissions Direct emission sources are the equipment used to construct the pipelines and stations. Indirect emission

sources are the heavy-duty vehicles that will deliver equipment and construction materials to the

construction right-of-way and station sites, and the light duty cars and trucks that will transport

construction workers to the site.

The calculated emissions are based on the anticipated number of workdays by type of equipment,

utilization factor, and AP-42 emission rates by horsepower rating for either the diesel or gasoline engines

as applicable.

Where manufacturers information could not be obtained, compression ignition (diesel) engine emissions

factors were based on AP-42 emission factors as summarized in Table 1. Spark ignition engine emission

factors were based on USEPA Study of Non-road Engine and Vehicle Emission from 1991 as

summarized in Table 2 for a representative mix of equipment types and utilization rates.

Direct Emissions Based upon information supplied by a pipeline contractor that has completed similar projects in this area

and the general scope of work by pipe size, length, and land type the anticipated amounts and types of

equipment by activity is presented in Table 3. If necessary, manufacturer’s information was researched

to obtain horsepower ratings for the standard units. Table 4 presents this data and results of the

calculated emissions. These calculations result in total NOx emissions of 12.13 tons, VOC emissions of

0.70 tons, SO2 emissions of 1.76 tons and PM emissions of 0.78 tons.

Indirect Emissions Heavy-duty Motor Vehicles Indirect heavy-duty motor vehicle emissions were estimated based on the duration in days required for all

phases of the proposed pipeline construction; equipment mobilization and demobilization; anticipated

equipment deliveries for meter station components; and construction materials deliveries to the work

sites.

Emissions were calculated using the low altitude, high mileage emission rate for VOC (HC) and NOx as

listed by the USEPA AP-42 Mobile Source Emissions Table 7.1.1. The worst case emissions amounts

were utilized to bias the resulting calculations conservatively. An average mileage per day by work

category was assumed and applied as noted on the calculations page.

Light Duty Motor Vehicles Indirect light duty motor vehicle emissions were estimated based on the number of construction workers

commuting to the site on a daily basis by activity type. Emission factors were calculated using the USEPA

AP-42 Mobile Source Emissions Table 2.1A.2 and low elevation, high mileage rates. To bias the resulted

calculated emissions conservatively, a minimum of an 80 mile per day round trip was assumed; all

vehicles were assumed to be light trucks rather than some percentage of cars; and total manpower was

based upon the anticipated number of equipment units plus helpers as appropriate.

Table 5 present the information and results of the calculated indirect emissions. These calculations result

in total NOx emissions of 1.47 tons, and VOC emissions of 1.25 tons.

Summary and Conclusions The estimated VOC and NOx and emissions for construction and operations for 2012 are as follows:

Emissions Sums for Construction and Operations, 2012

Emissions Category VOC (HC) Tons NOx Tons Direct Construction Emissions 0.70 12.13 Indirect Construction Emissions 1.25 1.47 Total Calculated Emissions 1.95 13.60

Tables 1 and 2 Emissions by Ignition Type

TPF II East Texas Gathering, LLC Newfield-Huxley Natural Gas Gathering Pipeline Project


Table 1: Compression Ignition Engine Emissions, Gram/Horsepower/Hour Engine Power (hp) Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)

NOx VOC (as HC1) CO PM SO2 0 to 11 7.03 0.77 6.00 0.75 1.00 11 to 25 6.50 0.60 4.90 0.60 1.00 25 to 50 6.90 0.60 4.10 0.60 1.00 50 to 100 6.90 0.53 3.70 0.48 1.00 100 to 175 6.90 0.40 3.70 0.28 1.00 175 to 300 6.90 0.40 8.50 0.40 1.00 300 to 600 6.90 0.30 8.50 0.40 1.00 600 to 750 6.90 0.30 8.50 0.40 1.10 >750 6.90 0.30 8.50 0.40 1.10 1. VOCs are not listed, used unspecified Hydrocarbon values. AP-42 Table 3.3-1 (<600 hp), and Table 3.4-1 (>600 hp) Table 2: Miscellaneous Spark Ignition Engines Equipment Emission Equipment Equipment Type Rating

(BHP) Emission Factor1 NOx VOC

as HC CO SOx PM

Air Compressor 450 cm Misc. construction equipment 150 1.92 11.88 376.20 0.25 0.30 Backhoe Rubber-Tired Rubber-tired loader 75 5.42 10.17 211.90 0.24 0.31 Bending Machine 22-36 Misc. construction equipment 85 4.79 11.88 257.40 0.26 0.06 Boring Machine 30-48 Misc. construction equipment 90 4.79 11.88 257.40 0.26 0.06 Chain Saws Chain saw <4 HP 4 0.96 625.80 1,328.10 - 3.60 Fill Pump Pump <50 HP 40 0.81 23.09 670.70 0.27 0.22 Fork Lifts-980 Forklift 270 5.16 12.22 258.70 0.27 0.06 Generator- 5 kw Generator <50 HP 17 0.81 23.09 670.70 0.27 0.22 Pressure Pump Misc. construction equipment 125 4.79 11.88 257.40 0.26 0.06 Water Pump-4” Pump <50 HP 40 0.81 23.09 670.70 0.27 0.22 Water Pump-6” Misc. construction equipment 60 4.79 11.88 257.40 0.26 0.06 Based on EPA 460/3-91-02 (Nov 1991) Table 2-07 (in use not idle).

Table 3 2012 Construction

Equipment Types and Numbers by Construction Component TPF II East Texas Gathering, LLC

Newfield-Huxley Natural Gas Gathering Pipeline Project Shelby County, Texas

Direct Emissions Equipment Listing

1. Pipeline Conventional Construction

Mainline Pipe Gang (2) 320 Excavators, trenching, stringing support (60 days) (3) 572 sidebooms (40 days) (1) bending machine (20 days) (1) tack tractor/welding (40 days) (4) truck welding rigs (60 days) (2) 320 Excavators, lower-in (30 days) (2) D6 Dozers/ROW preparation, support, initial backfill (40 days) Tie-In Crew

Duration: 20 days (2) 320 Excavators/trenching, stringing support, clean up (2) 572 sidebooms (4) truck welding rigs (1) D6 Dozer Cleanup and Restoration Crew

Duration: 30 days (1) 320 Excavator (1) D6 Dozer (1) 45 HP Diesel tractor

Environmental Compliance and Maintenance Crew Duration: 60 days

(1) 320 Excavator (1) D6 Dozer (1) Ditch witch (1) Diesel crew cab work truck 2. Horizontal Bores (5) Duration: 1 day each 1 Unit (5 days) 3. Meter Station tie-ins (5)

Duration: 6 days each (1) 320 Excavator, site preparation, ditch & pipe support (30 days) (1) D6 Dozer (30 days)

(1) truck welding rig (30 days) 4. Horizontal Directional Drills (5)

Duration: 7 days each (1) 540 Hp Unit , or similar (Tier III) (35 days)

Table 42012 Direct Emission CalculationsTPF II East Texas Gathering, LLC

Newfield-Huxley Natural Gas Gathering Pipeline ProjectShelby County, Texas

Units and Equipment Type Total Days Hours HP VOC (HC)1 NOX1 PM SO2 PM Tons SO2 TonsVOC (HC)

Tons NOx Tons

Conventional Pipeline ConstructionMainline Pipe Gang

2 320 Excavator trench & stringing 120 10 138 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.05 0.18 0.07 1.26

3 572 Sideboom 120 10 200 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.07 0.26 0.11 1.82

1 Bending Machine 20 10 81 0.53 6.9 0.48 1.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.12

1 Tack Tractor/Welding 40 10 40 0.6 6.9 0.6 1.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.12

4 Welding Rigs 240 10 40 0.4 6.9 0.4 1.00 0.04 0.11 0.04 0.73

2 320 Excavators Lower In 30 10 138 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.31

2 D6 Dozer 80 10 165 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.04 0.15 0.06 1.00

Tie-In Crew2 320 Excavator trench & stringing 40 10 138 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.42

2 572 Sideboom 40 10 200 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.61

4 Welding Rigs 80 10 40 0.4 6.9 0.4 1.00 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.24

1 D6 Dozer 20 10 165 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.25

Cleanup and Restoration Crew1 320 Excavator trench & stringing 30 10 138 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.31

1 D6 Dozer 30 10 165 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.38

1 45 HP Diesel Tractor 30 10 45 0.6 6.9 0.6 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10

Environmental Crew1 320 Excavator trench & stringing 60 10 138 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.03 0.09 0.04 0.63

1 D6 Dozer 60 10 165 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.03 0.11 0.04 0.75

1 Ditch Witch Trencher 60 10 15 0.6 6.9 0.6 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07

1 Diesel Crew Truck 60 10 155 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.71

Horizontal Bores

5 Horizontal Bores 5 10 50 0.3 6.9 0.4 1.00 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.02

Hydrostatic Testing

1 JD6016 5 12 85 0.4 6.9 40.00 1.00 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.04

Table 42012 Direct Emission CalculationsTPF II East Texas Gathering, LLC


Units and Equipment Type Total Days Hours HP VOC (HC)1 NOX1 PM SO2 PM Tons SO2 TonsVOC (HC)

Tons NOx Tons

Horizontal Directional Drill

1 Horizontal Drillng Rig 35 10 540 0.3 6.9 0.4 1.00 0.08 0.21 0.06 1.44

Meter Station 35 days (5)

1 D6 Dozer 30 10 165 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.38

1 320 Excavator 30 10 138 0.4 6.9 0.28 1.00 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.311 Welding Rig 30 10 40 0.6 6.9 0.60 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09

TOTAL: 0.78 1.76 0.70 12.131 Emission Rate in gram/hp/hr

Table 52012 Indirect Emission CalculatonsTPF II East Texas Gathering, LLC


GAI Project No. 29108

Vehicle Type ActivityNumber of

TrucksHours

Per Day

Total Vechicle

Days Miles/DayTotal Miles

HC grams/mile

NOx grams/

mile

VOC (HC) Tons

NOx Tons

Stringing 4 10 80 100 32000 2.100 6.490 0.074 0.229String Mob/Demob 4 10 16 250 16000 2.100 6.490 0.037 0.114Trucks: Misc1 2 5 120 150 36000 2.100 6.490 0.083 0.258Materials Delivery 3 8 180 300 162000 2.100 6.490 0.375 1.159Equip Maintenance 1 6 60 200 12000 2.100 6.490 0.028 0.086Fuel Delivery 1 8 60 300 18000 2.100 6.490 0.042 0.129Welding Trucks 9 10 350 150 472500 2.100 6.490 0.000 3.380HDD Rig Mob/Demob 2 12 4 400 3200 2.100 6.490 0.001 0.023

Inspection, Full staff 4 10 240 100 96000 1.927 1.581 0.204 0.167Contractor Trucks 6 10 360 100 216000 1.927 1.581 0.459 0.376HDD Crew 6 4 14 120 10080 1.927 1.581 0.021 0.018Bore crews3 4 6 140 120 67200 1.927 1.581 0.143 0.117Station Work 6 6 180 100 108000 1.927 1.581 0.229 0.188

Totals 36 1150 1248980 1.251 1.468

1 - Assuming 50 percent vehicle utilization (60 total days duration in 2012)2 - Calculation based upon five meter station pours3 - Calculations based upon 5 individual road bores

Heavy Duty - Diesel

Light Duty - Gas

APPENDIX D

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

SNF TES Newfield Huxley Lateral page 1

Appendix D TPF II East Texas Gathering, LLC’s Newfield Huxley Lateral Pipeline Project

Sabine National Forest Federally Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species, and Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Checklist

Species Scientific name Status Species Present

No Suitable Habitat*

Suitable Habitat Present

Habitat Requirement

Federally Listed Endangered or Threatened

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E X 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).

Louisiana Black Bear Ursus americanus luteolus T X Extensive forests (at least 2500 ac.) dominated by mature hardwoods; river basin bottomland hardwood forests. Needs areas with minimal human disturbance and low open road density (TPWD 2005)

Navasota ladies’-tresses Spiranthes parksii E X 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).

Regional Forester Sensitive

(Birds)

Bachman’s Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis RS X

Open, frequently burned pine forests with a dense bunchgrass ground cover and minimal woody understory (Oberholser 1974; LeGrand and Schneider 1992; Hardin and Probasco 1983; Hamel 1992). The Project area has moderately dense woody understory in areas and lacks occurrences of dense bunchgrass ground cover.

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus RS X

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. Project site is <3 miles from Toledo Bend Reservoir and contains some large mature loblolly trees that could be utilized for nesting purposes.

Migrant Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicia migrans RS X

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. (USFWS 2000). In the Pineywoods region of Texas, migrant loggerhead shrikes are found in pastures, urban areas, and along roadsides.


(Mammals)

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii RS X

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).

Southeastern Myotis Myotis austroriparius RS X

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).

(Reptiles)

Louisiana Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus ruthveni RS, C1 X

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).

(Fish)

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

(Insects)

Big Thicket Emerald Dragonfly Somatochlora margarita RS X

Larvae associated with small, clear, sandy-bottomed streams and boggy seeps within loblolly and longleaf pine stands (NatureServe 2011). 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).

(Crustaceans)

Sabine Fencing Crayfish Faxonella beyeri RS Roadside ditches that are intermittently filled (NatureServe 2011).

Blackbelted Crayfish Procambarus nigrocintus RS X Occurs among debris in streams with sandy or rocky bottoms (Hobbs 1990).

(Freshwater Bivalves)

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


Triangle Pigtoe Fusconaia lananensis RS X Mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel in streams (Howells et al. 1996).

Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura RS X Small to large rivers with moderate flows on gravel, gravel-sand, and sand bottoms (Howells et al. 1996).

Southern Hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana RS X Creeks and rivers with moderate current, often in gravel (Howells et al. 1996).

Louisiana Pigtoe Plerobema riddelli RS X Rivers similar to Sabine/Red in TX (Howells 1996)

Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus RS X Found in quiet waters in sand and mud (Howells et al. 1996).

(Plants)

Incised Groovebur Agrimonia incisa RS Fire-maintained longleaf pine savanna on well-drained but not xeric sandy soils (Orzell 1990).

Panicled indigobush Amorpha paniculata RS X 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).

Texas Bartonia Bartonia texana RS X 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 2011).

Mohlenbrock’s Umbrella Sedge Cyperus grayoides RS X

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 2011).

Southern (KY) Lady’s Slipper Cypripedium kentuckiense RS X Near wooded seepage areas, on stream floodplains, and in mesic hardwood ravines on lower mesic slopes or on stream terraces (Orzell 1990).

Pineland bogbutton Lachnocaulon digynum RS X Hillside seepage bogs, wet pine savannas, wet sphagnum bogs in pine savannas (NatureServe 2011). Pitcher plant bogs and wetland pine savanna with herbaceous groundcover.

Texas Glade Cress (Texas Golden Gladecress) Leavenworthiia texana RS X

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

Slender Gayfeather Liatris tenuis RS X Open pine forests on sandy soil in eastern Texas (Orzell 1990). Habitat requirements include fire maintained dry, upland longleaf pine savanna. The Project area is periodically fire maintained but is not longleaf savannah.

Yellow Fringeless Orchid Plantanthera integra RS X Frequently burned hillside seepage bogs (Orzell 1990). Pitcher plant bogs and wet savannas w/ herbaceous understory.


Barbed Rattlesnake Root Prenanthes barbata RS X Rich, mesic hardwood forests, and near rivers and streams. Mesic hardwood or riparian forests with unique associates, nearest populations in Nacogdoches and Jasper Cos.

Large Beakrush Rhynchospora macra FS X Bogs, wet pine savannas, and wet flatwoods. Pitcher plant bogs or open herbaceous seeps.

Sabine (Bog) Coneflower Rudbeckia scabrifolia RS X 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.

Scarlet Catchfly Silene subciliata RS X

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.

Oklahoma Twistflower Streptanthus maculatus RS X Moist, open woodlands and glauconitic outcrops (the latter are not known to occur on the ANF). Open calcareous glades usually on Weches Formation in Texas, nearest pop. in Sabine Co.

Texas Trillium Trillium pusillum var. texanum FS X

Low, boggy hardwood bottoms; seep borders of ravine streams. Often in sphagnum mats (NatureServe 2011).. Baygalls and forested seeps.

Drummond’s Yellow-eyed Grass Xyris drummondii RS X Hillside seepage bogs, in areas of exposed fine wet sand or peaty sand (Orzell 1990).. Pitcher plant bogs and open herbaceous seeps.

Louisiana yellow-eyed grass Xyris louisianica RS X Occur on the lower edges of hillside seepage slopes and wet claypan pine savannas (Philipps 2007).

Rough-leaf Yellow-eyed Grass Xyris scabrifolia RS X 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

(Source: Land and Resource Management Plan, Appendix D, 1996 and Regional Forester’s List August 2001 as amended)

Notes: “E” indicates Federally endangered; “T” indicates Federally threatened; “C” indicates Federal Candidate; “RS” indicates Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (Region 8); and “FS” indicates NFGT Sensitive Species; “*” indicates species identified as having no suitable habitat within the project area are not considered further within the biological evaluation.

Appendix D TPF II East Texas Gathering, LLC’s Newfield Huxley Lateral Pipeline Project

Sabine National Forest Management Indicator Species Evaluation

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 This species is present but greater than 6 miles from the Project location. Effects are addressed in the T&E species section of the EA.

Slender Gayfeather Longleaf pine woodland/savannah X The Project will not impact this community type.

Incised Groovebur Longleaf pine woodland/savannah X The Project will not impact this community type.

Scarlet Catchfly Longleaf pine woodland/savannah X The Project will not impact this community type.

Longleaf – Bluestem series Longleaf pine woodland/savannah X There is significant loblolly and some oaks within the Project area. The ECS indicates this to be a loblolly-hardwood mix.

Navasota Ladies Tresses Longleaf pine barrens X Barrens do not occur in the Project area.

Little Bluestem –Rayless Goldenrod series Longleaf pine barrens X Barrens do not occur in the Project area.

Yellow Fringeless Orchid Herbaceous wetlands X Herbaceous wetlands (seepage bogs) do not occur in the Project area.

Sphagnum – Beakrush series Herbaceous wetlands X Herbaceous wetlands (seepage bogs) do not occur in the Project

area.

Nodding Nixie Bay – Shrub Wetlands X Bay-shrub wetlands do not occur in the Project area.

Texas Baronia Bay – Shrub Wetlands X Bay-shrub wetlands do not occur in the Project area.

Sweetbay – Magnolia series Bay – Shrub Wetlands X Bay-shrub wetlands do not occur in the Project area.

Louisiana Squarehead Dry-xeric oak pine forest X This species was not detected during surveys of the Project area.

Shortleaf – Oak forest Dry-xeric oak pine forest X Acreage of this community type will not be altered by this Project.



Rationale Yes No

Loblolly - Oak forest Mesic oak-pine forest X There is significant loblolly and some oaks within the Project area. The ECS indicates this to be a loblolly-hardwood mix.

Southern Ladyslipper Mesic hardwood forest X The Project will not impact this community type.

Beech-White Oak series Mesic hardwood forest X The Project will not impact this community type.

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

Little Bluestem – Indiangrass Tallgrass prairie X Tallgrass prairie is not present within the Project 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 bottomlands or streamsides.

Bottomland Hardwood Bottomlands, Streamsides X Acreage of this community type will not be altered by this Project.

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 Project area.

Whitetail Deer


X Species is in demand by hunters. Know to occur in Project area.

Yellow-Breasted Chat


X Selected as MIS for early successional habitat only (USFS 2002).



Rationale Yes No

Pileated Woodpecker

Forest/Grassland: Mid-succession (20-50 yrs) Late-succession (50-90 yrs) Old growth (90+ years)

X Species dependent on large diameter trees/snags. Known to occur in Project area.

Gray Squirrel/Fox Squirrel

Forest/Grassland: Mid-succession (20-50 yrs) Late-succession (50-90 yrs) Old growth (90+ years)

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.

Snags


X Snags may be removed in association with this Project.

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 Project area.

Sabine Shiner Aquatic – Rivers and Streams X Project will not affect rivers and streams in the Project area.

Dusky Darter Aquatic – Rivers and Streams X Project will not affect rivers and streams in the Project area.

Scaly Sand Darter Aquatic – Rivers and Streams X Project will not affect rivers and streams in the Project area.

Stonefly Guild Aquatic – Rivers and Streams X Project will not affect rivers and streams in the Project area.

Documents

APPENDIX A PROJECT ALIGNMENTS AND MAPSa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · Gremminger & Associates, Inc. 226 South Live Oak Street Bellville, Texas