Travis Audubon Society Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project ... · the Texas Division of Emergency...

Biological Assessment

Travis Audubon Society

Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project

FEMA HMGP-DR-4223-043

Baker Sanctuary

Travis County Texas

October 2017

ATTACHMENT E

Contents

Summary 1

SECTION 1 Introduction 4

11 Location of Project Area 4

12 Definition of Action Area 6

13 Proposed Action 6

SECTION 2 Description of Species and Habitats 9

21 Golden-cheeked Warbler 9

22 Other Species Considered But Determined ldquoNo Effectrdquo 11

221 Amphibians 11

222 Karst Invertebrates 13

223 Whooping Crane 15

224 Piping Plover 15

225 Black-capped Vireo 15

226 Red Knot 16

227 Least Tern 16

SECTION 3 Environmental Baseline 17

31 Geology and Soils 17

32 Vegetation 18

33 Water Resources and Floodplains 19

34 Wildlife Communities 20

35 Cave and Karst Features 21

36 Existing Habitat Conditions 21



39 Cave and Karst Species 22

SECTION 4 Effects of the Action 23


SECTION 5 Literature Cited 25

SECTION 6 Figures 30

Figure 11 Baker Sanctuary Regional Location Map 30

Figure 12 Baker Sanctuary Proposed Action Area 31

Figure 21 Baker Sanctuary Golden-cheeked Warbler Habitat 32

Figure 22 Results of 2016 Baker Sanctuary 100-acre Golden-cheeked Warbler Survey 33

Figure 23 Results of 2015 Baker Southern Sanctuary Golden-cheeked Warbler Survey 34

Figure 24 Jollyville Plateau Salamander Designated Critical Habitat on Baker Sanctuary 35

Figure 25 Revised Karst Zone Designations for Baker Sanctuary 36

Figure 26 Locations of Known Karst Features at Baker Sanctuary 37

Figure 31 Baker Sanctuary 100-year Floodplain Map 38

Appendix A City of Austin and Travis County Best Management Practices 39

Appendix B USFWS Best Management Practices 42

Appendix C Field Survey Notes 48

Summary

This Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared by the Travis Audubon Society Inc (TAS) to support review by the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 regarding proposed wildfire mitigation activities along the woodland edge of Baker Sanctuary in Travis County Texas Travis County is in south central Texas and is part of the Austin-Round Rock metropolitan area Baker Sanctuary is a member of the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP) which comprises a network of privately and publicly owned land in western Travis County The proposed project would be conducted along a 154 acre boundary which Baker Sanctuary shares with the Cypress Creek neighborhood

The proposed action would reduce hazardous fuels loading in the understory and midstory by removing overgrowth and limbs The fuels reduction would mitigate the effects of a wildfire moving across the wildland-urban interface into developed areas The proposed project would include removal of surface fuels and ldquoladderrdquo fuels that have accumulated and reduce the canopy bulk density to diminish the chance of a fire transitioning into a crown fire or sustaining as a crown fire The project would focus on the woodland edge where fuel loading is greater than in the interior due to greater sunlight penetration along the edges The proposed fuels reduction would start at the edge of private yards within residential properties where the woodlands begin and would minimize the volume of combustibles near homes

TAS proposes to reduce the wildfire hazard along the southeastern Baker Sanctuary boundary by employing three zones of treatment based on forest canopy and distance from the preserve boundary Canopy Edge Canopy Interior and Open Woodland

The Canopy Edge Zone extends from 0 to 30 feet inward from the Baker Sanctuary property boundary and would be applied to land adjacent to residences Work in this zone would include 1) removal of surface fuels downed limbs and logs under four inches in diameter lying on the ground and 2) pruning of live and dead limbs on Ashe juniper and live oak trees to a height of six feet

The Canopy Interior Zone extends from 30 to 100 feet inward from the Baker Sanctuary property boundary and would be applied to land adjacent to residences The treatment would be the same as in the Canopy Edge Zone except that limbs would only be pruned to a height of four feet

The Open Woodland Zone also located between 30 and 100 feet inward from the Baker Sanctuary property boundary would be applied to land adjacent to residences and would be implemented in

1

areas where the canopy is not completely closed The treatment would be the same as in the Canopy Interior Zone except that limbs would be pruned to a height of eight feet

In all three zones juniper and live oak trees that meet the following criteria would be removed less than four inches in diameter less than 10 feet tall not currently contributing to canopy cover (ie underneath or mixing with another treersquos canopy) and not growing into a canopy opening

If a juniper or live oak tree is growing into a canopy opening and is less than 10 feet in height limbs would be pruned to approximately one half of the treersquos current height All juniper trees that have either a dead crown or greater than 75 percent branch mortality are considered dead and would be removed

The pruning and thinning portion of the work would be accomplished by sawyers using chainsaws or similar powered hand tools Fuel removal conducted for this project would not involve heavy machinery (forestry mowers etc) to remove trees or limbs Woody slash would be chipped using a large wood chipper and spread on-site (by hand) to no more than two inches in depth

Access to treatment areas would be via internal (unimproved) roadways whenever possible and by foot when on-site vehicular access is not available

Cut tree stumps would remain in place and no root balls would be removed The contractor would apply by hand a sealant to any stumps left from the removal of oak species The sealant would combat the onset of oak wilt a disease caused by the fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum which is thought to be attracted to the sap in oak tree species and can be transmitted through roots to adjacent oak trees (BCP 2007c)

Fuel reduction activities would take place during the non-breeding season for golden-cheeked warblers (Setophaga chrysoparia) from September 1 through February 28 in compliance with the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan permit The work is proposed to be completed over the three-year span of the grant No herbicides would be used during implementation or maintenance

Per FEMA grant requirements TAS must maintain the areas where hazardous fuels reduction activities have been completed to achieve the proposed wildfire hazard mitigation The proposed project would be implemented using funds associated with FEMArsquos Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)

TAS has developed a maintenance operation program for incorporating fuels reduction maintenance into the Baker Sanctuary Tier III land management plan TAS staff would monitor and maintain the fuels reduction areas on Baker Sanctuary Removal of accumulated surface fuels and pruning and thinning of woody perennials would be performed

2

The Action Area is 154 acres along the southeastern edge of Baker Sanctuary as further described in sections 11 and 12 Federally listed species that may occur in or near the Action Area are listed in Table 1 below TAS has determined that the proposed project may affect and is likely to adversely affect the golden-cheeked warbler (GCWA) There are several other federally listed species in Travis County (described in Section 2) that would not be affected by the project

Critical habitat has been designated for the Jollyville Plateau salamander and is present at Baker Sanctuary but does not occur within the proposed Action Area (USFWS 2013d) No other designated critical habitat exists in the Action Area Although critical habitat has been designated for the Austin blind salamander and whooping crane there is no designated critical habitat within the Action Area for these species FEMA has determined there will be no effects to critical habitat

Federally listed threatened or endangered species in Travis and Williamson Counties are shown in Table 1 Williamson County species have been included for consideration given the proximity of the project area to the county line and based on guidance from USFWS during informal consultation in 2016

Table 1 Federally Listed Species for Travis and Williamson Counties Texas

Common Name Scientific Name Status Effects Determination

Austin Blind Salamander Eurycea waterlooensis Endangered No effect

Barton Springs Salamander Eurycea soscorum Endangered No effect

Jollyville Plateau Salamander Eurycea tonkawae Threatened No effect

Salado Salamander Eurycea chisholmensis Threatened No effect

Georgetown Salamander Eurycea naufragia Threatened No effect

Bee Creek Cave Harvestman Texella reddelli Endangered No effect

Bone Cave Harvestman Texella reyesi Endangered No effect

Tooth Cave Pseudoscorpion Tartarocreagris texana Endangered No effect

Tooth Cave Spider Leptoneta myopica Endangered No effect

Kretschmarr Cave Mold Beetle Texamaurops reddelli Endangered No effect

Coffin Cave Mold Beetle Batrisodes texanus Endangered No effect

3

Tooth Cave Ground Beetle Rhadine persephone Endangered No effect

Black-capped Vireo Vireo atricapilla Endangered No effect

Golden-cheeked Warbler Setophaga chrysoparia Endangered May affect likely to

adversely effect

Whooping crane Grus americana Endangered No effect

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened No effect

Least Tern Sterna antillarum Endangered No effect

Red Knot Calidris canutus Threatened No effect

SECTION 1 Introduction

TAS proposes to conduct hazardous fuels reduction along portions of the woodland edge of the Baker Sanctuary to reduce wildfire hazards along the wildland-urban interface (WUI) which is the zone where structures and other human development meet or mix with wildland or vegetative fuels Removal of organic fuel and debris is intended to prevent the rapid movement of a ground fire into the crown by removing fuels and creating a continuous tree canopy that suppresses vegetative growth The targeted land in Baker Sanctuary represents a potential direct wildfire threat to nearby residences TAS has submitted an application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) for a grant under FEMAs Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) TDEM is the direct applicant for the grant and TAS is the subapplicant

The HMGP is authorized under Section 404 of the Robert T Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act Under the HMGP federal funds pay 75 percent of the project cost and the remaining 25 percent comes from non-federal funding sources

11 Location of Project Area Baker Sanctuary is in south central Texas (Figure 11) and is a member of the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve In May 1996 the USFWS issued the City of Austin and Travis County (Permit Holders) a 30-year 10(a)(1)(B) permit (Permit) to authorize ldquoincidental takerdquo of eight endangered species golden-cheeked warbler black-capped vireo and six karst invertebrates The Permit also covers 27 species of concern (two plants and 25 karst invertebrates) associated with development activities in

4

western Travis County (together all previously described species are referred to as ldquoPermitted Speciesrdquo) This Permit requires the perpetual preservation and management of the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve for the primary benefit of these species The supporting document for this Permit the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan (BCCP) became the first regional multi-species multiple-partner habitat conservation plan in the country

The BCCP set a target preserve size of 30428 acres and 62 karst features (including three cave clusters) as the minimum necessary for Permit issuance The BCCP states that the BCP is to be managed to permanently conserve and facilitate the recovery of populations of the Permitted Species Within the 30428 acres this includes enhanced management and protection of a minimum of 28428 acres for the golden-cheeked warbler and a minimum of 2000 acres managed for the black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) Karst preserves associated with each of the protected karst features should contain a large enough expanse of continuous karst and surface area to maintain the integrity of the karst ecosystem on which each endangered karst invertebrate species depends

Baker Sanctuary is the first wildlife preserve established anywhere specifically for the protection of the GCWA Travis Audubon Society bought the original 94 acres of Baker Sanctuary in 1966 Since then TAS has expanded the Sanctuary to approximately 715 acres all managed for the GCWA and compatible educational use Since the BCCP permit was approved TAS has voluntarily managed Baker Sanctuary as part of the BCP following all requirements of the BCP Land Management Plan and has otherwise assisted as an informal managing partner in the BCCP

In fall 2011 Travis County requested that TAS complete a Managing Partner Agreement and thus formalize the relationship between TAS and the BCCP Subsequently TAS and Travis County negotiated a management agreement and conservation easement for 675 acres of the Sanctuary The management agreement states that TAS is solely responsible for all facets of land management so long as the Sanctuary is owned by TAS with management reverting to Travis County upon the sale or transfer of the Sanctuary to another party or organization other than TAS The 40 acres omitted from the conservation easement will also be managed in accordance to the guidelines laid out in the BCCP

The proposed project would be conducted on land for which Travis County holds a conservation easement along a 154 acre segment of the south eastern Baker Sanctuary boundary The proposed project is adjacent to approximately 80 homes of the Cypress Creek subdivision The Baker Sanctuary conservation easement states that TAS has the right to lsquotrim or remove vegetation snags andor slash constituting a fire hazard per guidelines outlined in the City of Austin and Travis County Fuel Treatments in Juniper and Juniper-Oak Woodlands Best Management Practicesrsquo therefore the proposed project is within the appropriate scope of management allowed by Travis County

5

TAS proposes to reduce the wildfire hazard along the BCP boundary by

removing surface fuels

increasing the distance between the forest floor and the canopy and

thinning the canopy

12 Definition of Action Area

The proposed treatment would be conducted on an approximately 154 acre segment located along the southeastern edge of Baker Sanctuary (Figure 12) The treatment area will be from 30 to 100 feet in width and is located in an area adjacent to the Cypress Creek subdivision The proposed Action Area includes the area where the hazardous fuels reduction work would be performed

13 Proposed Action

The proposed action would reduce the threat of wildfire along the southeastern Baker Sanctuary boundary and residential areas This work would be conducted in three zones based on forest canopy and distance from the preserve boundary Canopy Edge Canopy Interior and Open Woodland

The Canopy Edge Zone extends from 0 to 30 feet from the Baker Sanctuary property boundary and would be applied to land adjacent to residences Work in this zone would include 1) removal of surface fuels downed limbs and logs under four inches in diameter lying on the ground and 2) pruning of live and dead limbs on Ashe juniper and live oak trees to a height of six feet

The Canopy Interior Zone extends from 30 to 100 feet from the Baker Sanctuary property boundary and would be applied to land adjacent to residences The treatment would be the same as in the Canopy Edge Zone except that limbs would only be pruned to a height of four feet

The Open Woodland Zone also located between 30 and 100 feet from the Baker Sanctuary property boundary would be applied to land adjacent to residences and would be implemented in areas where the canopy is not completely closed The treatment would be the same as in the Canopy Interior Zone except that limbs would be pruned to a height of eight feet


6

If a juniper or live oak tree is growing into a canopy opening and is less than 10 feet in height limbs would be pruned to approximately one half of the treersquos current height All juniper trees that have either a dead crown or greater than 75 percent branch mortality are considered dead and would be removed The pruning and thinning portion of the work would be accomplished by sawyers using chainsaws or similar powered hand tools Vegetative fuel removal conducted for this project would not involve heavy machinery (eg forestry mowers) to remove trees or limbs In areas with adequate vehicular access woody slash would be chipped using a large wood chipper and spread on-site (by hand) to no more than two inches in depth In areas without adequate vehicular access cut material would be removed and disposed of off-site A vehicle (large pick-up truck or a full-sized dump truck) would tow the chipper and transport the chipped material when necessary In some cases a small all-terrain vehicle (ie a lsquoGatorrsquo) may be used to help move material although this would probably not be feasible in most situations Cut tree stumps would remain in place and the root balls would not be removed

Access to treatment areas would be via internal (unimproved) roadways whenever possible and by foot when on-site vehicular access isnrsquot available In some cases access may require permission of the Cypress Creek HOA (arranged in advance) for workers to access the Action Area on foot and to bring woody material to the curb for processing Processing of cut material (chipping) may take place on the shoulder of a roadway if Baker Sanctuary access is limited shoulder space is sufficient for safe working conditions and it doesnrsquot interfere with traffic flow

Fuel reduction activities would take place during the non-breeding season for GCWA from S e p t e m b e r 1 through February 28 in compliance with the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan permit The work is proposed to be completed over the three-year span of the grant No herbicides would be used during implementation or maintenance

TAS has developed a maintenance operation program to incorporate fuels reduction maintenance requirements into the Baker Sanctuary Tier III land management plan TAS staff would monitor and maintain the fuels reduction areas on Baker Sanctuary Removal of accumulated surface fuels and pruning and thinning of woody perennials would be performed

Per FEMA grant requirements TAS must maintain the areas where hazardous fuels reduction activities have been completed to achieve the proposed wildfire hazard mitigation Maintenance activities will include mowing treated areas with a heavy brush cutter Any maintenance mowing conducted in treated areas must be done at a height of six inches or higher Ongoing maintenance would not include the use of herbicides

The following avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented by TAS to minimize potential impacts to the golden-cheeked warbler These measures have been adapted from ldquoFuel Treatments in Juniper and Oak-Juniper Woodlands throughout the Range of the Golden- cheeked

7

Warblerrdquo (USFWS 2013a) ldquoGuidelines for the Establishment Management and Operations of Golden-cheeked Warbler and Black-capped Vireo Mitigation Landsrdquo (USFWS 2013b)

Implementation of these measures is a condition of the FEMA grant and a requirement of federal funding These measures are considered as part of the scope of work for the proposed federal action that is under review

TAS would conduct hazardous fuels reduction work only during the non-breeding season for golden-cheeked warblers Work would be allowed from September 1 through February 28 Work would not be conducted from March 1 through August 31

Deposition or accumulation of soil trash ashes refuse waste bio-solids or any other materials at the project site as a result of the proposed action is prohibited Vegetative debris must be removed from the project site or mulched and spread on-site

Contractor must seal any wounds on oaks that are the result of pruning and seal any oak stumps that are created as a result of the proposed action in order to prevent transmission of the oak wilt fungus

TAS must ensure that best management practices (BMPs) are implemented to prevent erosion and sedimentation to nearby or adjacent waters This includes equipment storage and staging practices to minimize erosion and sedimentation

To ensure the project is implemented properly and that staff working within the preserve are aware of issues related to threatened and endangered species TAS will coordinate with work crews prior to the start of work and throughout project implementation TAS will host a preconstruction coordination meeting with work crews to go over the project implementation plan including avoidance and minimization measures intended to protect species These measures are described in detail below TAS will provide a full time monitor that will oversee implementation of the project and ensure compliance with the avoidance and minimization measures

8

SECTION 2 Description of Species and Habitats

The golden-cheeked warbler is the only listed species known to occur in or near the proposed Action Area There is no suitable habitat present within or adjacent to the proposed Action Area for the federally listed Austin blind salamander Barton Spring salamander Jollyville Plateau salamander Salado salamander Georgetown salamander Bee Creek Cave harvestman Bone Cave harvestman Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion Tooth Cave spider Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle Coffin Cave mold beetle Tooth Cave ground beetle black-capped vireo whooping crane piping plover red knot or least tern

21 Golden‐cheekedWarbler The golden-cheeked warbler (GCWA) is a small neotropical songbird in the family Parulidae Male GCWAs have a black back throat upper breast and crown white belly black-streaked sides white wing bars and a black line through the eye with large yellow patches both above and below the eye Female and immature GCWAs are duller with olive upperparts with dark streaks and a yellowish or white chin (NatureServe 2014)

The GCWA breeds only in the mixed Ashe juniper oak woodlands of central Texas and is the only avian species whose breeding range is completely limited to the state The GCWA generally begins to arrive on the breeding grounds in central Texas in early March The majority of the adults and fledglings leave the breeding grounds in late June to July and begin the southward migration to their wintering grounds in southern Mexico (State of Chiapas) and in the Central American countries of Guatemala Honduras and Nicaragua (USFWS 1992)

The GCWArsquos breeding habitat is closed-canopy Ashe juniper-oak woodland in central Texas (USFWS 1992) The GCWA nests only in climax stage woodlands with a high proportion of mature Ashe juniper trees interspersed with other deciduous species and it prefers areas with a moderate to high tree density with dense foliage in the upper levels (USFWS 1992) According to Ladd and Gass (1999) forest stands where GCWAs are typically found average about 40 years in age and 20 feet in height with about 70 percent canopy cover and a tree density of 400 trees per acre The mature Ashe juniper is a key habitat feature for the GCWA since the main component in the speciesrsquo nest is strips of bark from aged juniper trees The loose stringy bark found in the speciesrsquo nest is only observed in older mature trees which accounts for the reliance of the GCWA on mature Ashe juniper stands (Ladd and Gass 1999) A study by Kroll (1980) found that Ashe juniper trees began sloughing bark near the base of the tree by 20 years of age and near the crown at 40 years

9

Historically habitat loss and fragmentation were the major reasons for the decline in the GCWA population A juniper eradication program was implemented in Texas beginning in 1948 and from the 1950s to the 1970s about 50 percent of the juniper acreage was cleared for pasture improvement and urbanization (USFWS 1990) The current threat to the Ashe juniper-oak woodland is urban sprawl growth of urban areas with known GCWA populations such as the city of Austin and the conversion of wooded areas to agricultural land In 1992 60 percent of the remaining warbler habitat was believed to occur in the fastest urbanizing counties of Texas such as Travis Bexar and Kerr (Sexton 1992) Because of the growth and development in this corridor the greatest rate of GCWA habitat loss has occurred in the southern and eastern portions of the Edwards Plateau (USFWS 1990)

The 2006 range map published by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) shows the GCWA as having a potential or known presence in 44 counties in Texas Currently the USFWS distribution map for the GCWA shows the species as being present in 37 counties in the Lampasas Cut Plain Edwards Plateau and Llano Uplift regions of Texas The largest concentration of GCWAs is located in the Balcones Fault Zone (USFWS 1992)

Protection of GCWA habitat is one of the primary goals of the BCP The City of Austin and Travis County have conducted annual GCWA monitoring in the BCP for seventeen years The City surveyed intensive study plots in 2013 A total of 233 territories were identified with an average of 017 territories per hectare or 007 territories per acre (City of Austin 2013) The highest territory densities were observed in the closed canopy woodlands of the largest habitat patches which are in the Bull Creek and Cypress Creek macrosites (City of Austin 2013)

The BCCP Completion Task Group estimated that the BCP which is a large area but still only a portion of the total warbler habitat in Travis County ldquosupports about 1005 pairs of nesting warblers which is within the range that the BCCP deemed necessary to support a viable populationrdquo (BCCP 2011) This estimate is based on City of Austin (COA) and Travis County data and an assumed 80 percent pairing success rate (BCCP 2011)

Mapped golden-cheeked warbler habitat exists within the proposed Action Area (Figure 21) TAS has conducted annual breeding season surveys on a 100-acre ldquoprimerdquo census plot in accordance with the BCCP GCWA survey methodology (BCP 2007b) from 2011 through 2016 (Murray 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 and 2016) The location of the 100-acre census plot is shown in Figure 22 the northeast corner of the plot is approximately 950 feet west of the Action Area The average territory density in the 100-acre plot in the six years for which data are available was 102 with an average pairing success of 93 percent an average breeding success of 67 percent and an average brood size of 28 (Murray 2016) The results of the 2016 survey of the 100-acre census plot are shown in Figure 22 the estimated territory density in 2016 was 105 territories including edge territories (Murray 2016)

10

Baker Sanctuary supports a relatively large breeding population of GCWAs TASrsquos goal for the Sanctuary is to maintain the GCWA population at an estimated 75 individuals during its five-year management plan (TAS 2013) although a full survey of the entire Baker Sanctuary has never been completed TAS completed a GCWA survey in 2015 of that portion of the Sanctuary to the south of Lime Creek Road part of which contains the proposed Action Area The results of the survey are displayed in Figure 23 which shows an estimated 18 territories south of Lime Creek Road excluding the 100-acre census plot (Murray 2015b)

According to the 2015 survey of the southern portion of the Sanctuary the proposed Action Area will encompass habitat which is occupied by GCWAs TAS will utilize Travis Countyrsquos Best Management Practices (BMP) (Appendix A) to install a shaded fuel break in the area indicated (Figure 12) to reduce the risk of wildfire spreading into the adjacent Cypress Creek neighborhood from the Sanctuary or vice versa Travis County developed their BMPs in consultation with USFWS and are based on BMPs developed by USFWS (Appendix B) to treat fuels in juniper-oak woodland throughout the range of the GCWA The only substantial difference between the two BMPs being Travis County shortened the extent of the interior zone treatment from 150rsquo to 100rsquo from the property edge Even though the treatment will occur in the non-breeding season for the GCWA it has been determined that the action is likely to adversely affect the GCWA in or near the proposed Action Area due to impacts of the proposed action warbler habitat

22 Other Species Considered But Determined ldquoNo Effectrdquo

TAS understands that USFWS does not concur or consult on ldquono effectrdquo determinations and is not seeking concurrence on the determinations below

221 Amphibians

Five species of federally listed endangered or threatened salamanders are known to occur in Travis and neighboring counties the Barton Springs salamander (Eurycea sosorum) the Austin blind salamander (Eurycea waterlooensis) and the Jollyville Plateau salamander are found in Travis County the Salado salamander (Eurycea chisholmensis) in Bell County and the Georgetown salamander (Eurycea naufragia) in Williamson County These Eurycea salamanders live in isolated habitat islands in specific caves and springs throughout the Balcones Escarpment region They are perennibrachiate meaning they retain gills and other larval morphological features for their entire lives They also exhibit extreme adaptations to subterranean habitats including vestigial eyes loss of pigment long slender legs and broad flattened heads (Chippindale et al 2000) The habitat for these salamanders occurs in flowing streams with a narrow temperature range and mixtures of gravel cobble aquatic plants and leaf litter free of sediment They rely on clean consistently flowing water

11

with substrates that provide habitat for amphipods and other small aquatic organisms which constitute their preferred prey (USFWS 2005)

The Eurycea salamanders that occur in Travis County are generally divided into two groups based on whether they occur north or south of the Colorado River Barton Springs and Austin blind salamanders are found south of the Colorado River while the Jollyville Plateau salamander occurs north of the Colorado River (Chippindale et al 2000)

The Barton Springs and Austin blind salamanders are only known to occur at Barton Springs in Austin Texas and subterranean habitats in the Edwards Aquifer (Chippindale et al 2000) Their range is limited to south of the Colorado River therefore they are not expected to occur within the Action Area or elsewhere on Baker Sanctuary

The Jollyville Plateau salamander (JPS) occurs widely north of the Colorado River in the springs and water-bearing karst features of the Jollyville Plateau region in Travis and Williamson counties Drainages in Travis County that are known to contain the species are Brushy Creek Bull Creek Cypress Creek Long Hollow Creek Shoal Creek Walnut Creek and West Bull Creek This species is also known from the Brushy Creek Buttercup Creek and Lake Creek drainages that drain northward and eastward from the Jollyville Plateau in Williamson County It is also known to occur in multiple caves in the region including Kretschmarr Salamander Cave Testudo Tube Cave and the caves of the Buttercup Creek Cave system (Chippendale et al 2000)

The JPS generally depends on small and localized aquifers that are extremely susceptible to pollution drying or draining The Jollyville Plateau area northwest of Austin is a rapidly developing and expanding urban area and studies indicate salamander density decreases as urbanization increases and water quality deteriorates (Chippendale et al 2000) Significant negative trends in JPS populations and JPS individuals with deformities have been observed at multiple long-term monitoring sites that are downstream from developed areas (OrsquoDonnell et al 2008) Urban development near springs often leads to a drastic decline in the quantity and quality of water emanating from a spring contributing to the strong negative correlation observed between development and salamander surface abundance (Bendik at al 2014) Research has indicated that JPS populations are relatively resilient to effects of drought Surface abundance often returns to pre-drought levels once a spring resumes flowing even after periods of being dry for over a year Declines in density appear more driven by increases in impervious cover resulting from development than by drought (Bendik 2010)

The Cypress Creek watershed contains some of the largest known populations of JPS (OrsquoDonnell et al 2006) The JPS has been documented on Baker Sanctuary at Baker Spring and Audubon Spring both located south of Lime Creek Road near the Baker Spring Trail The USFWS has designated the area around these springs as JPS critical habitat unit 8 (USFWS 2013f) Figure

12

24 shows the location of the JPS critical habitat in relation to the Action Area Due to frequent periods of drought Audubon Spring is usually dry and has not been regularly surveyed for JPS Baker Spring flows more consistently although it has also gone dry on multiple occasions during recent droughts The City of Austin usually does quarterly JPS surveys at Baker Spring during periods when it is flowing It was dry for over a year in 2008 and 2009 but during the third quarterly survey in 2010 nine JPS individuals were observed (Bendik 2010)

The proposed Action Area is in an upland area with no springs and it lies entirely outside the JPS critical habitat around Baker and Audubon Springs as designated by USFWS Based on this information the JPS is not expected to occur in or near the proposed Action Area

The Salado salamander is endemic to Big Boiling Springs and Robertson Springs in Bell County Texas (NatureServe 2017) the nearest of which is greater than 30 miles from the proposed Action Area

The Georgetown salamander is found in the springs and possibly one cave associated with drainages of the south middle and north forks of the San Gabriel River in Williamson County Texas (NatureServe 2017) the nearest of which is greater than 15 miles from the proposed Action Area

222 Karst Invertebrates

Six species of federally listed endangered karst invertebrates occur in Travis County and are

protected through the BCCP Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion (Tartarocreagris texana) Tooth Cave

spider (Neoleptoneta myopica) Tooth Cave ground beetle (Rhadine persephone) Kretschmarr

Cave mold beetle (Texamaurops reddelli) Bee Creek Cave harvestman (Texella reddelli) and

Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) They inhabit karst features such as caves fissures

sinkholes and other subterranean interconnections in Edwards and Walnut limestones (Veni

1992) Organisms living in karst habitats are highly adapted to specific environmental

conditions that include temperature humidity light and nutrient-supply factors The six

endangered karst invertebrates are well-adapted to underground nutrient-poor environments

They often display adaptations such as loss of eyes and pigment elongate appendages and well-

developed tactile and chemosensory detectors (TAS 2013)

The original Karst Zone maps prepared by Veni (1992) included the Action Area in Karst Zone 3

(defined as ldquoareas that probably do not contain endangered cave speciesrdquo) Veni and Martinez

(2007) redrew the Karst Zone maps and included much of Baker Sanctuary in Karst Zone 1

(defined as ldquoareas known to contain rare cave faunardquo) although no karst surveys of Baker

13

Sanctuary were used to support this remapping The revised Karst Zone map for Baker Sanctuary

is shown in Figure 25

Baker Sanctuary is not known to harbor any of the six endangered karst invertebrates named in

the BCCP permit Baker Sanctuary lies in the Cedar Park Karst Fauna Region (KFR) (Veni 1992

Veni and Martinez 2007) Two of the listed karst invertebrates of Travis and Williamson counties

are known to occur in the Cedar Park KFR Tooth Cave ground beetle and Bone Cave harvestman

(Veni and Martinez 2007) None of the other listed karst invertebrates are known to occur in the

Cedar Park KFR (Veni and Martinez 2007)

The Tooth Cave ground beetle is known to occur in 37 caves in the Cedar Park KFR plus 17 caves

in the Jollyville KFR (USFWS 2008) The nearest known locations of this species whose caves

are approximately 2800 feet from the proposed Action Area are Rolling Rock Cave and Broken

Arrow Cave on the City of Austinrsquos Lime Creek BCP tract

According to Veni and Martinez (2007) the Cedar Park KFR contains three caves with known occurrences of the Bone Cave harvestman (Hatch Cave Lakeline Cave and Underline Cave) However the most recent five-year review of this species lists only Lakeline Cave and Underline Cave (USFWS 2009) Underline Cave is a take cave from Lakeline Mall (Watson pers comm) Thus the nearest cave currently known to be occupied by this species is Lakeline Cave which is approximately four miles east of Baker Sanctuary

The Coffin Cave mold beetle is known to occur only in four caves all found in Williamson County Cobb Cavern Inner Space Cavern Sunless City Cave and Waterfall Canyon Cave (NatureServe 2017) the nearest of which is approximately 12 miles from the proposed Action Area

Zara Environmental LLC has been helping TAS organize and conduct on-going systematic survey of the entire Baker Sanctuary to find and document all karst features To date multiple small karst features have been documented but none of them show much potential to be inhabited by endangered karst invertebrates (TAS 2013)

The proposed Action Area which lies primarily within Karst Zone 1 is an upland area that is bisected in the southern extent by Hatfield Creek an ephemeral tributary to Cypress Creek Only one karst feature located in the proposed Action Area has been found during the karst surveys (Figure 26) a shallow cave whose approximate dimensions are 10 feet long by 9 feet wide by 75 feet deep The cave is not known to support any endangered karst invertebrates (TAS 2013)

14

223 Whooping Crane

Whooping cranes (Grus americana) are potential migrants through most of Texas and winter in coastal marshes of Aransas Calhoun and Refugio counties (TPWD 2014) There is no suitable habitat present within or near the Action Area for the whooping crane Although critical habitat has been designated for the whooping crane it is located over 150 miles to the south therefore no designated critical habitat is found within Travis County for this species

224 Piping Plover

Piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) are potential migrants through most of Texas and winter on the Gulf Coast beaches (TPWD 2014) There is no suitable habitat present within or near the proposed Action Area for the piping plover All critical habitat in Texas designated for the piping plover is located on the Gulf Coast beaches therefore no designated critical habitat is found within Travis County for this species

225 Black‐capped Vireo

The black-capped vireo (BCVI) was listed as endangered in 1987 but was proposed for delisting in December 2016 (USFWS 2016) This species is one of the smallest vireos measuring only 45 inches It is unusual among vireos because it is sexually dimorphic and first-year males show delayed plumage maturation The male BCV has an olive green back dark olive to blackish wings with two pale yellow wing bars white underneath with yellow-tinged flanks and a black head with white spectacles Adult females have a gray head as do the immature males (USFWS 1991)

The BCVI is a neotropical migrant species that breeds in central Texas arriving on its breeding grounds in Texas from late March to mid- April and leaves Texas to begin the migration south by mid-September It is primarily insectivorous during the breeding season mainly feeding on invertebrates gleaned from leaves and stems found low in the scrub vegetation it inhabits (Guilfoyle 2002)

Breeding habitat throughout the BCVIrsquos range varies considerably in its vegetation characteristics Generally the habitat is described as shrubland thickets of various size and distribution where vegetation cover extends to ground level A wide diversity of plant species can provide the habitat structure that BCVIs require The most common type of nesting substrate appears to be various species of sumac (Rhus spp) (USFWS 1991) typically associated with shin oak Ashe juniper Texas red oak plateau live oak and other woody vegetation that forms open shrublands or savannah with highly developed edges Analysis revealed that a factor common to vireo territories and distinguishing them from non-vireo areas was a high density of deciduous

15

vegetation from 0 to 95 feet in height and a total woody cover ranging from 35 to 55 percent (USFWS 1991) A 1985 study summarized known nest sites of the BCVI and found that 63 percent of the documented nest sites were found in four species of woody vegetation Quercus marilandica Q shumardii texana Q stellata and Rhus virens (USFWS 1987)

According to the USFWS recovery plan there were 34 counties in Texas including Travis County known to be occupied by breeding BCVI in 1990 Fewer than 100 BCVI adults were found in Travis County and 40 to 50 males were located northwest of Austin in the Post Oak Ridge area (USFWS 1991) A relatively significant population of BCVI is located in the BCP and Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge (BCNWR) As of June 2012 the City of Austin Travis County and other groups such as the Nature Conservancy have purchased over 30000 acres of BCVI and GCWA habitat as part of the BCP In 2006 there were an estimated 114 BCVI territories in the BCP and BCNWR (Wilkins et al 2006)

There is no suitable BCVI habitat on the Baker Sanctuary There have been occasional unconfirmed reports of BCVI at the Sanctuary over the years but it has not been known to breed there (TAS 2013)

There is no suitable BCVI habitat within or near the proposed Action Area and there are no known

observations (TAS 2013) The BCVI is not expected to occur within or adjacent to the proposed

Action Area

226 Red Knot

Red Knots (Calidris canutus) are potential migrants through most of Texas who nest in the Arctic and winter on the coastal beaches of North and South America including those of the Texas Gulf Coast (TPWD 2014) There is no suitable habitat present within or near the proposed Action Area for the red knot and no critical habitat rules have been published for the red knot

227 Least Tern

Least Terns (Sterna antillarum) nests are typically found throughout southern eastern and southwestern coastal North America on level ground on sandy or gravelly beaches as well as on banks of rivers or lakes in the interior of North America typically in areas with sparse or no vegetation (TPWD 2014) There is no suitable habitat present within or near the proposed Action Area for the least tern and no critical habitat rules have been published for the least tern

16

SECTION 3 Environmental Baseline

The Travis Audubon Societyrsquos Baker Sanctuary project is included within the Edwards Plateau ecoregion (Figure 11) The Edwards Plateau comprises an area of central Texas commonly known as the Texas Hill Country It is a land of many springs stony hills and steep canyons Elevations range from slightly less than 100 feet to over 3000 feet above sea level (Texas AampM 2008) Generally covered by juniper-oak savanna and woodland it is a region of unique habitats

Soils of the Edwards Plateau are usually shallow and underlain by limestone The limestone includes thousands of caves and smaller voids that form a series of underground lakes known as the Edwards Aquifer The southeastern boundary of the Edwards Plateau includes the Balcones Canyonlands The Balcones Canyonlands are highly dissected by high gradient streams that originate from springs in steep-sided canyons and flow down to the Texas Blackland Prairies at the eastern base of the escarpment (Griffith et al 2004)

31 Geology and Soils

Travis County lies at the convergence of two major physiographic regions the Edwards Plateau to the west and the Blackland Prairie to the east (TAS 2013) The boundary of the two regions is marked by the Balcones Escarpment a fault which runs through Travis County just west of Austin (Griffith et al 2004) The proposed Action Area is located in the western portion of Travis County which encompasses geologic features typical of the Edwards Plateau region The uplands of this region are underlain by the Edwards Limestone a lower Cretaceous formation which consists of hard limestone mixed limestone dolomite and dolomite limestone (BCP 2007a) The area is highly dissected by steep mesic canyons with exposed limestone Edwards limestone is a porous rock formation and the passage of water has formed numerous karst features such as sinkholes caves fissures and springs

The Edwards Plateau is also characterized by a thin rocky layer of soil over the limestone The most common upland soils are Brackett series (BlD and BoF) and Tarrant series (TaD and TcA) soils Both Brackett and Tarrant series soils have low permeability and high runoff potential BlD and BoF soils are gravelly clay loam and TaD and TcA soils are generally shallow clays (BCP 2007a)

Baker Sanctuary is primarily on the first member of the Edwards Limestone (TAS 2013) Topography of the Sanctuary is typical of the Edwards Plateau region and hills in the central and southern portions of the property reach elevations of approximately 1080 feet Rock outcrops

17

are rare but a small quantity of the Walnut and Upper Glen Rose formations are found exposed in the canyons (TAS 2013) There are five known springs on the property and other karst features could be present However only one karst feature is known to occur in the Action Area and it is not known to contain any endangered karst invertebrates (TAS 2013)

The soils of Baker Sanctuary consist primarily of Tarrant series soils described as ldquovery shallow stony calcareous clayey soils intermingled with shallow soils overlying limestonerdquo (USDA 1974) Travis County soil maps also indicate small inclusions of Denton silty clay Speck clay loam and Purves silty clay A few small floodplain areas along creeks contain richer alluvial soils Limestone fragments are mixed with all the soils found in the sanctuary (TAS 2013)

The Action Area is on the southeastern boundary of the TAS Baker Sanctuary property (Figure 12) The majority of the Action Area is located in a relatively flat upland a r e a which ranges from 1060 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 960 feet msl The southern section of the Action Area contains a small valley which drops from 960 feet msl to 900 feet msl at the valley bottom The geology is typical of Baker Sanctuary and the higher elevations of the Balcones Escarpment vicinity in general (TAS 2013) It is primarily on the Edwards Limestone with no rock outcrops and its soils consist of Tarrant series (TaD and TcA) soils with limestone fragments (TAS 2013)

32 Vegetation

Travis County is highly dissected by the Colorado River and its tributaries resulting in much

topographical variation (BCP 2007a) The upland areas are typically characterized by plateau

live oak (Quercus fusiformis) savannahs and grasslands although these habitats are less

prevalent than they were historically due to fire suppression and grazing pressure Consequently

oak-Ashe juniper (Juniperus ashei) woodlands are now also common in Edwards Plateau

uplands (Griffith et al 2004) The numerous canyons and valleys contain bottomland and riparian

woodlands which generally support greater plant diversity than the uplands (BCP 2007a)

Baker Sanctuary is over 80 percent covered with mature mixed juniper and oak woodlands (TAS 2013) Ashe juniper is a component in all of the propertyrsquos woodlands and the abundance and diversity of oak and other deciduous species varies by elevation Typical woody species in the uplands and hillside woodlands include Ashe juniper plateau live oak Texas red oak (Q buckleyi) shin oak (Q sinuata) cedar elm (Ulmus crassifolia) Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana) wafer ash (Ptelea trifoliata) redbud (Cercis canadensis) and agarita (Berberis trifoliata) Approximately 10 to 15 percent of the property contains riparian habitats along creeks that are particularly rich in plant diversity In addition to woody species mentioned above these areas can also include Texas ash (Fraxinus texensis) escarpment black cherry

18

(Prunus serotina) sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana) rusty blackhaw (Viburnum rufidulum) and walnut (Juglans sp) Interspersed throughout the uplands and hillsides are small patches of savannah that contain numerous native and non-native grass species prickly pear cactus (Opuntia sp) and twist-leaf yucca (Yucca rupicola) There are no wetlands on the Baker Sanctuary and only intermittent or ephemeral streams so there is no wetland vegetation (TAS 2013)

The Action Area lies within upland habitat characterized by mature mixed juniper and oak woodlands In the southern section of the proposed project the Action Area will cross one drainage Hatfield Creek which is an ephemeral tributary of Cypress Creek (TAS 2013) Treatment will not occur on slopes greater than 15 degrees restricting treatment to upland areas

33 Water Resources and Floodplains

The Action Area lies primarily within the Lake Travis and Lake Austin watersheds of the

Colorado River basin The two northern-most macrosites of the BCP the Cypress Creek and

Devilrsquos Hollow macrosites drain into Lake Travis (BCP 2007a)

The two primary drainages near Baker Sanctuary are Cypress Creek and Lime Creek Surface

hydrology of the Sanctuary consists of four intermittent or ephemeral creeks within small valleys

or canyons and five known intermittent springs and seeps (TAS 2013) In the southern portion

of the Sanctuary are Baker Kutac and Hatfield creeks which are small intermittent or

ephemeral headwater tributaries of Cypress Creek They flow to the southeast and ultimately into

the Cypress Creek arm of Lake Travis Baker and Audubon springs (Figure 24) in the

headwaters of the Cypress Creek watershed have been documented to support populations of the

threatened Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) In the northern portion of the

Sanctuary is Harris Creek which flows north into Lime Creek at the northern boundary of the

Sanctuary Lime Creek drains into the Sandy Creek arm of Lake Travis

There are no surface water resources within or near the Action Area although there are two water

wells at Baker Sanctuary One is located behind Baker Cabin approximate ly 1600 fee t

f rom the Act ion Area and the other is located near the existing Sanctuary managerrsquos

residence approximately 2100 feet from the proposed Action Area The Baker Cabin well was

formerly connected to a windmill to fill a catchment tank but it is currently not functional The

well at the Sanctuary managerrsquos residence is functional and provides drinking water for the

property (Murray 2014b)

19

There are no floodplains within the Action Area (Figure 31) The Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) identifies floodplains on Baker Sanctuary in the southeast corner

and in the northern portion of the Sanctuary the nearest of which is approximately 300 feet west

of the Action Area at the bottom of the valley defined by Hatfield Creek

34 Wildlife Communities

The proposed Action Area lies within the eastern edge of the Edwards Plateau region where the

Balcones Escarpment marks the geological boundary with the Blackland Prairie region to the

east (Griffith et al 2004) The area is highly dissected by the Colorado River and its tributaries

resulting in numerous canyons and high topographic relief Generally the Balcones Escarpment

area represents a transitional zone between eastern and western ecoregions resulting in high

biological diversity (BCP 2007a)

Karst invertebrates of western Travis County consist of a wide variety of troglobitic organisms

The most diversity is seen in the arthropods including amphipods isopods scorpions spiders

pseudoscorpions mites ticks centipedes millipedes and insects but there are also numerous

invertebrates representing other phyla such as worms and mollusks (BCP 2007a) There are

several threatened and endangered species of karst invertebrates in western Travis County that

are addressed in more detail in Section 223 There is one known karst feature in the Action Area

but it is not known to contain endangered karst invertebrates

The fish of the Colorado River watershed represent a transitional assemblage of species from both

eastern and western groups Fifty-nine native freshwater species and numerous non-native

species inhabit the Colorado River basin (BCP 2007a) Several federal species of concern are

found in the area including the blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus) and the Guadalupe bass

(Micropterus treculi) which is the state fish of Texas (BCP 2007a) The Action Area has no

surface water resources and no species of fish (TAS 2013)

Over one-third of the 204 species of reptiles in Texas inhabit the Edwards Plateau region

including one species of land turtle 10 species of aquatic turtles 16 lizard species 36 species

of snakes 15 species of frogs and toads and 15 salamander species (BCP 2007a) Ten of the 15

salamanders are restricted to the subterranean habitats and springs associated with the Edwards

Aquifer Three of these 10 salamanders with extremely limited geographic distributions occur in

Travis County (BCP 2007a) are federally listed These species are discussed further in Section

222 One of these species the Jollyville Plateau salamander has been observed at Baker

20

Sanctuary but not within or near the Action Area (Figure 24) Two other amphibian species

have been observed at the Sanctuary as well as one turtle species four lizard species and seven

species of snakes (TAS 2013)

The Edwards Plateau has an extremely diverse avian community with nearly 400 species from 50 families occurring in Travis County (BCP 2007a) The riparian areas of the Balcones Canyonlands support species with eastern affinities while the drier uplands sustain avian communities more representative of west and south Texas (BCP 2007a) The federally endangered black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler occur in the area and are discussed further in Sections 227 and 228 The golden-cheeked warbler is one of 138 avian species that have been observed at the Baker Sanctuary (TAS 2013) It has also been observed in the Action Area (Murray 2015b) as discussed further in Section 228

35 Cave and Karst Features

Field surveys for karst features were conducted generally following the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit Requirements for Conducting PresenceAbsence Surveys for Endangered Karst Invertebrates in Central Texas (USFWS 2010) In accordance with Appendix III Section II-A of the TCEQ Procedure For Conducting a Geologic Assessment TNRCC-0585-Instructions (Rev 5-1-02) to Geologists for Geologic Assessments on the Edwards Aquifer RechargeTransition Zones of the USFWS protocol a pedestrian survey of the proposed Action Area and approximately 50 feet beyond the proposed Action Area was conducted to identify karst or cave features Transects were spaced at 50 foot intervals following USFWS protocol

The surveys (Appendix C) yielded one karst feature located in the proposed Action Area a shallow cave whose dimensions are detailed in Section 223 Two smaller karst features solutional fractures were also recorded within 50 feet of the proposed Action Area (Figure 26) Biologists did not excavate the interior of any karst or cave features identified during the ecological field surveys and there were no observations of listed karst fauna There were no surface waters observed within 345 feet of the karst or cave features Since excavation or fill of karst features is not in the scope of work for the project it is not expected karst invertebrates will be harmed in any fashion

36 Existing Habitat Conditions

All of the Action Area is dominated by mature mixed juniper and oak woodlands The Action Area is located along the border between natural communities and moderate density residential and rural residential properties

21

37 Golden‐cheeked Warbler

The mixed juniper-oak woodland provides potential nesting and foraging habitat for the golden-cheeked warbler Mature juniper trees with sloughing bark that may provide nesting material were present throughout the proposed Action Area The existing tree age and height profile meets the GCWA requirements for nesting and foraging habitat Four male GCWAs were observed during the spring portions of the habitat survey and six male GCWAs were documented in or near the proposed Action Area during the 2015 survey effort (Figure 23) Mapped GCWA habitat is found throughout the proposed Action Area (Figure 21) There is no designated critical habitat for the golden-cheeked warbler

38 Black‐capped Vireo There is no suitable BCVI habitat on the Baker Sanctuary There have been occasional unconfirmed reports of BCVI at the Sanctuary over the years but it has not been known to breed there (TAS 2013)

There is no suitable BCVI habitat within or near the Action Area and there are no documented observations (TAS 2013) The BCVI is also not expected to occur adjacent to the Action Area There is no designated critical habitat for the Black-capped vireo (USFWS 2013b)

39 Cave and Karst Species

One cave feature within the proposed Action Area was documented during the field surveys (Appendix C) There were no observations of listed karst fauna during the habitat surveys

22

SECTION 4 Effects of the Action

41 Golden‐cheekedWarbler

Mapped habitat for the golden-cheeked warbler exists within the proposed Action Area (USFWS 1996) (Figure 21) Vegetation management activities would be conducted between September 1 and February 28 to avoid direct impacts to nesting birds Direct effects to individual golden-cheeked warblers are not anticipated because the proposed action would take place outside of the breeding and nesting season Golden-cheeked warblers migrate south to southern Mexico and Central America in July and August and begin returning to Texas in early March with most arriving in mid-March (USFWS 2013c)

The proposed action is entirely consistent with the best management practices (BMPs) for treating vegetation that may pose a hazardous wildfire threat and which may also be associated with the golden-cheeked warbler By following the BMPs developed by Travis County (Appendix A) a n d USFWS (Appendix B) TAS will minimize potential effects to the warbler and its habitat Vegetation treatments that are consistent with the BMPs may result in habitat conditions over the long term that are more favorable to the warblers

Two similar hazardous fuels reduction projects have occurred in the vicinity of Baker Sanctuary conducted by Travis County (with FEMA funding under project numbers HMGP DR-1999-TX Project 18) and Williamson County (FEMA HMGP DR-1989-TX Project 19) Travis County treated a number of wildland-urban interfaces (WUI) throughout properties that they manage as a Permit Holder for the BCP the nearest of which is located approximately one mile from the proposed Action Area The Williamson County project treated a similar interface at their Southwest Regional Park located approximately 75 miles from the proposed Action Area Both of these activities resulted in likely to adversely affect determinations under Section 7 of the ESA and USFWS issued Biological Opinions for these activities

The proposed project selective thinning within the WUI will result in the removal of vegetation which has the potential to be utilized as nesting habitat andor post-nesting foragingfledging habitat for the GCWA The loss of this potential habitat is a direct effect of the proposed project while a potential indirect effect may be localized short-term changes in prey abundance over the proposed Action Area The proposed vegetation alteration is minimal and will not result in a reduction of canopy cover or potential nest sites so any long-term cumulative impacts should be negligible or non-existent

The proposed project will provide an important indirect benefit to the golden-cheeked warbler By selectively thinning and removing hazardous fuels in the WUI the likelihood of a catastrophic wildfire will be greatly reduced Approximately 98 of wildfires are caused due to a human ignition source

23

(Bowman Consulting Group 2014) so by selectively thinning woodlands directly adjacent to residential development the likelihood and intensity of potential future wildfires will be significantly reduced

FEMA has determined that the proposed action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the golden-cheeked warbler Adverse effects will be minimized by working outside of the breeding season when birds are not present and by conducting the work consistent with the BMPs for treating vegetation that may pose a hazardous wildfire threat and which may also be associated with the golden-cheeked warbler (USFWS 2013c) Scope of work elements outlined in Section 13 (page 8) will also minimize impacts and will be a requirement of FEMA funding

24

SECTION 5 Literature Cited

Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan 2011 Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan Completion Task Group Report July 2 2011 32 pp

Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP) 2007a Balcones Canyonlands Preserve land management plan Tier I Balcones Canyonlands Preserve overview August 2007

BCP 2007b Balcones Canyonlands Preserve land management plan Tier IIA chapter VII golden-cheeked warbler management 35 pp

BCP 2007c Balcones Canyonlands Preserve land management plan Tier IIA chapter III oak wilt management 15 pp

BCP 2007d Balcones Canyonlands Preserve land management plan Tier IIA chapter IX karst species management 37 pp

Bendik N B Sissel J Fields L OrsquoDonnell and M Sanders 2014 Effect of urbanization on abundance of Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) Herpetological Conservation and Biology 9(1)2016-222 July 13 2014

Bendik N 2010 Jollyville Plateau salamander status report City of Austin November 2010 httpwwwaustintexasgovwatershed_protectionpublicationsdocumentcfmid=186289 Accessed August 2014

Bowman Consulting Group Ltd 2014 Austin-Travis County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 30 pp

Chippindale PA A Price J Weins and D Hillis 2000 Phylogenetic relationships and systematic revision of central Texas hemidactyline plethodontid salamanders Herpetological Monographs 141-80

City of Austin 2013 City of Austin 2013 golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia) and black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapillus) monitoring program Blacones Canyonlands Preserve annual report FY 2012-13 City of Austin Water Utility Wildland Conservation Division Balcones Canyonlands Preserve Austin Texas

25

Griffith GE Bryce SA Omernik JM Comstock JA Rogers AC Harrison B Hatch SL and Bezanson D 2004 Ecoregions of Texas (color poster with map descriptive text and photographs) Reston Virginia US Geological Survey (map scale 12500000) Accessed on August 8 2013 Available at httpwwwepagovwedpagesecoregionstx_ecohtm

Guilfoyle MP 2002 Black-capped vireo and golden-cheeked warbler populations potentially impacted by USACE reservoir operations EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (TNEMRRP-S1-28) US Army Engineer Research and Development Center Vicksburg Mississippi USA

Howells RG 2014 Field guide to Texas freshwater mussels Biostudies Kerrville Texas

Kroll JC 1980 Habitat requirements of the golden-cheeked warbler management implications J Range Manage 33(1)60-65

Ladd C and L Gass 1999 Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) The Birds of North America No 420 A Poole and F Gill eds The Birds of North America Inc Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA

Lyter D M Lytle and WR Carr 1996 Checklist of the vascular plants of Travis Audubon Wildlife Sanctuary Travis County Texas 20 pp

Murray C 2011 Golden-cheeked warbler survey for the Baker Sanctuary 100-acre plot spring 2011 Travis Audubon Society Austin Texas 11 pp




Murray C Personal Communication with Clif Ladd September 20 2014

26


Murray C 2015b Results of the golden-cheeked warbler survey for the southern portion of Baker Sanctuary spring 2015 Travis Audubon Society Austin Texas 15 pp

Murray C 2016 Results of the golden-cheeked warbler survey for the Baker Sanctuary 100-acre prime plot spring 2016 Travis Audubon Society Austin Texas 14 pp

Murray C 2016b Personal Communication with Clif Ladd November 17 2016

NatureServe 2017 NatureServe Explorer An online encyclopedia of life [web application] Version 71 NatureServe Arlington Virginia Available httpexplorernatureserveorg Accessed September 28 2017

OrsquoDonnell L M Turner M Sanders E Geismar S Heilman and L Zebehazy 2006 Summary of Jollyville Plateau salamander data (1997-2006) and status City of Austin December 2006 httpwwwaustintexasgovwatershed_protectionpublicationsdocumentcfmid=186292 Accessed August 2014

OrsquoDonnell L A Gluesenkamp C Herrington M Schlaepfer M Turner and N Bendik 2008 Estimation of Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) populations using surface counts and mark-recapture City of Austin December 2008 httpwwwaustintexasgovwatershed_protectionpublicationsdocumentcfmid=186276 Accessed August 2014

Poole JM WR Carr DM Price and JR Singhurst 2007 Rare plants of Texas Texas AampM University Press College Station TX 640 pp

Sexton C 1992 The golden-cheeked warbler Birding December 1992373-6

Texas AampM Forest Service 2008 Trees of Texas ndash Texas Eco-regions Accessed on August 8 2013 Available at httptexastreeidtamueducontenttexasecoregions

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) 2014 Rare Threatened and Endangered Species of Texas list for Travis County TX Accessed 91114 httpwwwtpwdstatetxusgisrisesES_Reportsaspxcounty=Travis

27

Travis Audubon Society (TAS) 2013 Balcones Canyonlands Preserve Land Management Plan Tier III Travis Audubon Society Baker Sanctuary Cypress Creek Macrosite August 2013 147 pp

US Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1974 Soil Survey of Travis County Texas US Government Printing Office Washington DC

USDA 2016 PLANTS species account for Streptanthus bracteatus httpplantsusdagovcoreprofilesymbol=STBR Last accessed October 2 2016

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1987 Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants determination of the black-capped vireo to be an endangered species Federal Register Vol 52 No 193 October 6 1987

USFWS 1990 Federal Register Vol 55 No 87 Friday May 4 1990Proposed Rule

USFWS 1991 Black-capped Vireo (Vireo atricapillus) Recovery Plan Austin Texas USA

USFWS 1992 Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) Recovery Plan Albuquerque New Mexico USA

USFWS 2005 Barton Springs Salamander (Eurycea sosorum) Recovery Plan US Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque NM 144 pp

USFWS 2008 Tooth cave ground beetle (Rhadine persephone) 5-year review summary and evaluation USFWS Austin Ecological Service Field Office 17 pp

USFWS 2009 Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) 5-year review summary and evaluation USFWS Austin Ecological Services Field Office 24 pp

USFWS 2013a Fuel Treatments in Juniper and Oak-Juniper Woodlands throughout the Range of the Golden-cheeked Warbler Available online at httpwwwfwsgovsouthwestesDocumentsR2ESAUES_GCWA_FINAL_BMPpdf Accessed September 3 2013

USFWS 2013b Guidelines for the Establishment Management and Operations of Golden- cheeked Warbler and Black-capped Vireo Mitigation Lands Available online at httpwwwfwsgovsouthwestes DocumentsR2ESCons_Bank_ Mitigation_Guidance_for_GCW_and_BCVpdf Accessed September 3 2013

USFWS 2013c Species Profile for Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) Available online at httpecosfwsgovspeciesProfileprofilespeciesProfileaction spcode=B07W Accessed September 4 2013

28

USFWS 2013d Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Designation of Critical Habitat for the Austin Blind and Jollyville Plateau Salamanders Final Rule Federal Register Vol 78 No 161 August 20

USFWS 2013f Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Endangered Status for Four Central Texas Salamanders and Designation of Critical Habitat Proposed Rule Federal Register Vol 78 No 17 January 25

USFWS 2016 Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants removing the black-capped vireo from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife proposed rule and 12-month petition finding request for comments Federal Register 81(241)90762-90771 December 15 2016

Veni G 1992 Geologic controls on cave development and the distribution of cave fauna in the Austin Texas region Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service Fort Worth Texas 68 pp + apps figs

Veni G and C Martinez 2007 Revision of karst species zones for the Austin Texas area Prepared for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 45 pp

Watson Cyndee Pers Comm With Clifton Ladd October 8 2014 USFWS Austin Ecological Services Field Office

Wilkins N R Powell A Conkey and A Snelgrove 2006 Population status and threat analysis for the black-capped vireo Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Texas AampM University

29

SECTION 6 Figures

Figure 11 Baker Sanctuary Regional Location Map

30

Figure 12 Baker Sanctuary Proposed Action Area

31

Figure 21 Baker Sanctuary Golden‐cheeked Warbler Habitat

32

Figure 22 Results of 2016 Baker Sanctuary 100‐acre Golden‐cheeked Warbler Survey

Colored polygons within the 100-acre survey plot delineate individual GCWA territories

33

Figure 23 Results of 2015 Baker Southern Sanctuary Golden‐cheeked Warbler Survey

Colored polygons on the southern sanctuary delineate individual GCWA territories

34

Figure 24 Jollyville Plateau Salamander Designated Critical Habitat on Baker Sanctuary

35

Figure 25 Revised Karst Zone Designations for Baker Sanctuary

36

Figure 26 Locations of Known Karst Features at Baker Sanctuary

37

Figure 31 Baker Sanctuary 100‐year Floodplain Map

38

Appendix A City of Austin and Travis County Best Management Practices

City of Austin and Travis County Best Management Practices for Fuel Treatments in the

Balcones Canyonlands Preserve

Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide Best Management Practices (BMPs) for reducing wildfire risk along the wildland-urban interface of the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP) while maintaining golden-cheeked warbler (GCWA) and other protected species habitat Presence of closed woodland and forest canopies with diverse species composition helps to reduce fire spread and lower the probability of burn as it reduces the presence of fine fuels (White et al 2009) Therefore primary goals to reduce wildfire risk in GCWA habitat are to promote the formation of closed canopy Ashe juniperoak woodlands on the BCP and to encourage adjacent landowners to maintain defensible space around their structures The strategies and specifications for fuel reduction treatments in GCWA habitat are intended to inhibit crown fire initiation and the sustained spread of fire through the tree canopy

Best Management Practices These Best Management Practices were developed to offer guidance for reducing wildfire risk in GCWA habitat along the wildland-urban interface of the BCP Fuel treatment in GCWA habitat shall maintain or promote a shaded canopy to keep understory fuels from growing and potentially contributing to the spread of fire into the canopy

A wildland fire risk assessment will be conducted by BCP staff prior to fuel treatment BCP staff will incorporate findings from literature reviews and from wildfire risk modelling into risk assessments as appropriate Risk assessments will include identification of at-risk structures and a review of the amount of defensible space around structures adjoining the BCP Wildland fuels will be assessed within 100 feet (30 meters) from at-risk structures or roads BCP staff will evaluate site characteristics including habitat topography and natural resources present Based on the risk assessment BCP staff will develop an appropriate treatment plan and will include the Best Management Practices detailed in this document In exceptional cases BCP staff may require changes or modifications to specific measures described in this prescription in order to achieve the goals and mission of the preserve as outlined in the Balcones Canyon Conservation Plan to further address minimizing wildland fire risk or to address safety concerns

Wildfire preparedness is most successful with full community participation The public will be encouraged to implement practices recommended by the Firewise program (wwwfirewiseorg) Firewise practices have been shown to be highly effective in reducing wildfire risk The public may contact their local fire department for a fire risk assessment of their property

39

Fuel mitigation treatment shall only be done during the non-nesting period (September 1-February 28)

Precautionary measures to prevent the spread of oak wilt will be followed (httptexasoakwiltorg2011pruning-guidelines-for-prevention-of-oak-wilt-in-texas) All wounds on oaks including stumps and cuts resulting from pruning will be immediately sealed and pruning tools will be disinfected accordingly

Heavily sloped areas (gt30 percent grade or 15o) will be avoided Alternative measures such as implementing treatments along the downslope edge of woodlands may be implemented when conditions immediately adjacent to structures are not considered viable due to topography

Treatment areas are distinguished by three zones each categorized by habitat type and proximity to the edge of the forest These zones are closed canopy woodland edge closed canopy woodland interior and open woodland Fuel mitigation activities are slightly different in each zone and standard protocol may vary due to local conditions or a managing partnerrsquos professional discretion Refer to Table 1 for a summary of treatment specifications and possible treatment variations for each zone

Prior to treatment BCP staff will identify and mark any protected areas (ie karst openings rare plant species etc) to be excluded from treatment

Care will be taken to minimize the risk of spills of hazardous materials No refueling equipment staging or storage of fuels is permitted within 500 feet of a cave opening

Options for removal of the slash are as follows

Mulch and move slash from the treatment site to a staging area to be used for habitat restoration on other areas within the BCP

Remove all slash from treatment site

Chip all slash on site and leave the remaining chips in piles not to exceed 6 feet in diameter and 3 feet in height

Chip all slash on site and leave the remaining chips in contour rows not exceeding 1 foot wide and 1 foot in height with a minimum spacing of 1 foot OR

Chip all slash and spread on-site at a thickness of no more than two inches

40

Table 1 Summary of Fuel Mitigation Treatments

Zone Zone Definition

Treatment Specifications Variations

All Zones 0‐100 feet from forest edge

Remove all dead limbs and fallen dead wood

Retain all treeslimbs including small junipers or live oaks that contribute to canopy cover or will eventually fill a canopy gap

Remove juniper and live oak trees that are lt4 inches in diameter AND lt 10 feet tall

Do not prune or remove deciduous hardwood trees (excluding live oak)

Retention of dead logsbranches gt4 inches in diameter

Remove snags (gt75 crown mortality) OR remove snag branches within 10 feet of ground Retain hardwood snags gt4 inches in diameter AND gt10 feet tall

Deciduous hardwood trees may be removed if contributes to fire risk

Shrubs that are lt4 inches in diameter AND lt 10 feet tall may be removed indiscriminately OR removed selectively at professional discretion

Closed 0‐30 feet from Prune all live and dead branches None Canopy forest edge from juniper and live oak trees Woodland (closed tree below 6 feet Edge canopy that

restricts grass cover to lt50 of ground cover)

Closed 30‐100 feet Prune all live and dead branches None Canopy from forest from juniper and live oak trees Woodland edge (closed below 4 feet Interior tree canopy

that restricts grass cover to lt50 of ground cover)

Open 0‐100 feet Prune all live and dead branches Grass within 10 feet of a canopy Woodland from forest

edge (open tree canopy that allows tall grass to grow gt50 of ground cover)

from juniper and live oak trees below 8 feet

tree may be maintained in a mowed or grazed condition

Shrubs within 10 feet of a canopy tree may be removed

Tree canopy spacing may touch but not overlap

41

Appendix B USFWS Best Management Practices

Fuel Treatments in Juniper and Oak-Juniper Woodlands throughout the Range of the Golden-cheeked Warbler

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to provide voluntary Best Management Practices (BMPs) for treating vegetation that may pose a hazardous wildfire threat and may be associated with the federally endangered golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga chrysoparia)(GCWA) The BMPs were developed to help reduce the intensity of wildland fire and reduce potential impacts to the GCWA from the effects of the fuel treatment The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has completed an intra-Service Endangered Species Act consultation on these BMPs and when followed no further consultation is required with the USFWS for impacts to GCWA We recommend that anyone planning treatments that do not follow the specification of these BMPs or may impact other federally listed species should consult with the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see contact information below) Any treatment shall only be done during the non-breeding period (September-February) Specifications within these BMPs do not indicate the need for a treatment nor do they allow for treatments that are not authorized by the property owner Following these BMPs does not relieve responsibility for obtaining or complying with any local permits codes ordinances or restrictions These BMPs do not apply to hazard fuel reduction activities on lands that have been identified and protected as mitigation for the take of GCWA or GCWA habitat Please note this document may be revised as new information becomes available For further guidance and specific questions concerning these BMPs please contact the Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) Fire Program at (512) 339-9432 USFWS Austin Ecological Services Office at (512) 490-0057 or the Texas AampM Forest Service Mitigation and Prevention Office at (979) 458-7362

Overview of Golden-Cheeked Warbler Habitat Needs

The GCWA was listed as endangered by the USFWS in 1990 and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in 1991 due to past ongoing and imminent habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from urban encroachment widespread clearing of juniper as a range management practice and other threats such as oak wilt nest predation and parasitism and browsing of deciduous species by white-tailed deer goats and various exotic ungulates The GCWA breeds in only one location in the world central Texas High quality breeding habitat for these birds is characterized by mature woodlands of Ashe juniper and a mix of oaks and other broad-leaved species with a closed canopy cover (70-100) However GCWA may also occur in woodlands with canopy cover as low as 35 especially in proximity to high quality habitat Many of the closed canopy woodlands (70-100 cover) that are optimal warbler habitat have a lower risk of fire because the treesrsquo shade limits growth of fine fuels such as grasses Proper implementation of these BMPs can reduce the

42

How to Use the BMPs

risk of fire still further so long as the closed canopy is retained which also minimizes (though it does not eliminate) disruption of the warblersrsquo habitat

This document outlines a progression of tasks for determining wildland fire risk and performing associated treatments to reduce wildland fire risk

1 Have a wildland fire risk assessment completed and documented by your local fire department Texas AampM Forest Service or other appropriate land management office

2 If your home is at risk begin with improvements to the home and the landscaped area immediately adjacent to the home Studies show the most effective treatments that reduce wildland fire risk occur within the area immediately adjacent to a home (see Section on Home Ignition Zone)

3 If the vegetation located outside the landscaped area but within 150 feet of your home or other occupied structure requires treatment determine if it is suitable GCWA habitat (httpwwwtpwdstatetxuspublicationspwdpubsmediapwd_bk_w7000_0013_golden_cheeked_ warbler_mgmtpdf)

4 After improvements have been made to the home and adjacent landscaped areas and if the remaining vegetation is suitable GCWA habitat follow the BMPs in this document If the vegetation is not suitable GCWA habitat then the BMPs are not applicable Consult your local fire department Texas AampM Forest Service or other appropriate land management office for additional assistance

5 If during the wildland fire risk assessment vegetation adjacent (within 30 feet) to a road right-of-way has been identified as requiring treatment to protect homes or other occupied structures determine if it is suitable GCWA habitat If it is follow the BMPs for an Edge Zone Treatment Treatments along road right-of-ways may only occur within the first 30 feet of vegetation

6 In order to be covered under these BMPs for potential impacts to GCWA a report must be submitted to the Refuge Fire Program within 10 days of the completion of any treatments The report must include at a minimum 1) an estimate of the acreage of habitat impacted 2) a copy of the wildland fire risk assessment 3) a map depicting the exact locations of any treatment areas and 4) a description of the types of treatments (closed canopy or open woodland) that were completed Reports must be submitted to Fire Program Balcones Canyonlands NWR 24518 FM 1431 Marble Falls Texas 78654

43

Risk Assessments

Before beginning any hazardous fuel treatment in GCWA habitat an assessment of wildland fire risk must be completed A wildland fire risk assessment provides an appraisal of hazards to your home This risk assessment focuses primarily on two levels of concern (1) your home and the landscaped area immediately adjacent to your home and (2) wildland fuels located beyond the landscaped area extending outward to approximately 150 feet Your homersquos risk from wildland fire should be evaluated using Firewise standards which will determine the vulnerability based on a number of factors including building materials and condition location of the home on the property wildland vegetation that is close and adjacent to buildings terrain and risks to outbuildings The risk assessment should also determine if there is a risk to your home from vegetation that occurs adjacent to any roads in the area Contact your local fire department Texas AampM Forest Service or other appropriate land management office for further guidance and assistance on risk assessments

Home Ignition Zone

The Home Ignition Zone as described by Firewise standards includes a house and its immediate surroundings (within 150 feet) or to the property boundary or lot line whichever is nearer The condition of the Home Ignition Zone principally determines the potential for home ignitions during a wildfire A house burns because of its interrelationship with everything in its surrounding Home Ignition Zone To minimize the chance of a home ignition the homeowner should eliminate a wildfires potential relationship with hisher house This can be accomplished by interrupting the natural path a fire takes Flammable items such as dead vegetation should be removed from the area immediately around the house to prevent flames from contacting it Also reducing the amount of live vegetation will affect the intensity of the wildfire as it enters the home ignition zone possibly reducing the intensity For more information on the home ignition zone visit httpwwwfirewiseorg

Modifications within the home ignition zone are proven to be the most effective treatment to reduce wildland fire risk Treatments within the Home Ignition Zone that are within a regularly irrigated and maintained landscape are addressed under these BMPs

General BMP Objectives

1 Reduce the chance of a surface fire transitioning into a crown fire by providing a shaded (closed canopy) fuel break

11 Maintain or promote a shaded canopy to keep grass from growing Leaf litter and duff that accumulate from a closed canopy woodland burn with less intensity than grass Therefore it is important not to remove trees rather they should be pruned to facilitate further closure of the canopy

44

Best Management Practices

12 Remove small junipers and live oak in the understory to reduce ldquoladder fuelsrdquo Ladder fuels are those fuels that increase the chance that a surface fire will transition into a crown fire (ie they provide vertical continuity)

13 Remove dead vegetative material (branches stumps landscape debris trash etc) These materials are a significant threat and act as ladder fuels

14 Raise the canopy base height of taller trees by removing lower limbs Increasing the height to the lowest limb of a tree reduces the chance that a surface fire will ignite lower limbs and initiate a crown fire

15 Seal all wounds on oaks including stumps and cuts resulting from pruning to prevent transmission of the oak wilt fungus

2 Reduce the chance of a crown fire sustaining in the canopy

21 Thin woodlands by removing juniper and live oak where these trees are competing for the same canopy space as deciduous hardwood trees Deciduous hardwood trees have less canopy bulk density and are less likely to sustain crown fire as compared to juniper and live oak The percent canopy cover should be the same before and after treatment

22 In areas consisting of mostly juniper thin subdominant junipers Removing juniper in the understory will reduce canopy bulk density and increase canopy base height that would otherwise contribute to a sustained crown fire

23 In areas consisting of mostly juniper thin juniper in the over-story where trees or branches overlap while maintaining full canopy closure Promoting fewer but larger and taller trees will reduce canopy bulk density near the ground reducing the likelihood of a sustained crown fire

The intent of the BMPs is to offer guidance on how to modify vegetation that poses a potential fire hazard to private property The strategies and specifications for hazardous fuel reduction treatments are intended to reduce the likelihood of tree crown fire initiation and the sustained spread of fire through the tree crown To reduce the likelihood that a fire occurring on the surface would transition into the tree canopy (crown fire initiation) the surface fire intensity must be reduced ladder fuels removed and the height to the lowest part of the canopy (canopy base height) must be increased The concept here is to provide a shaded fuel break where ladder fuels are reduced and shade from the remaining canopy prohibits grasses (fine fuels) from growing thereby reducing the intensity of a wildfire As such it is very important to maintain full canopy closure To reduce the spread of fire through the tree crown the amount of fuel in the tree canopy (canopy bulk density) must be reduced through a very specific tree thinning and removal process Determining the location of a treatment is critical Treatments that are not located and implemented correctly andor do not follow these BMPs can be ineffective and possibly increase

45

the fire risk Protecting stubs stumps and other wounds on oaks from the oak wilt fungus is also critical introducing oak wilt will cause the death of many trees which then become fuel Some locations where treatments are most effective are at the edge of woodlands along travel corridors and at the edge of landscaped yards Locations of necessary treatments should be identified during the risk assessment and should be used only after other mitigation measures including modifications to your home and landscaping have been completed Any treatment to GCWA habitat shall only be done during the non-breeding period (September-February)

Fuel Reduction Specifications

All treatments described below for Closed Canopy Woodlands and Open Woodlands are applicable only to 1) The vegetation within 150 feet of your home or other occupied structure and 2) The vegetation within 30 feet of a road right-of-way

Closed Canopy Woodland ndash If the vegetation is a closed canopy woodland the following specifications should be followed A closed canopy woodland for this purpose is defined as a woodland where canopy closure is sufficient to limit growth of tall grass to less than 50 of the ground cover Typically such areas exceed 70 canopy cover and are associated with high quality GCWA habitat The beginning of the Edge Zone is defined as the line where continuous grass and other herbaceous ground cover ends If the woodland is narrow then an Edge Zone treatment should be completed at the perimeter of the closed canopy woodland and the remainder of the woodland treated with Interior Zone specifications as needed

Edge Zone Treatment 0-30 feet

bull Remove all dead wood dead limbs and dead vegetation

bull For junipers and live oaks remove (prune) low branches on which all live foliage is within 6 feet of the ground Do not remove any branch that has foliage above 6 feet (ie contributing to canopy layer) Do not prune or remove deciduous hardwood trees

bull Shrubs and small trees less than 4 inches in diameter and less than 10 feet in height should be removed unless with continued growth they are likely to close a canopy gap otherwise prune as specified Seal all wounds on oaks including stumps to prevent transmission of the oak wilt fungus

Interior Zone Treatment 30-150 feet

bull Remove fallen trees and dead branches that create ladder fuels to a height of 4 feet Any dead trees or branches above four feet that are considered ladder fuels should also be removed For any standing dead trees remove branches within 10 feet of the ground Fallen tree trunks and standing snags (without small branches) are acceptable to leave in place

bull For junipers and live oaks remove (prune) low branches on which all live foliage is within 4 feet of the ground Do not remove any branch that has foliage above 4 feet (ie contributing to canopy

46

layer) Do not prune or remove deciduous hardwood trees Seal all wounds on oaks including stumps to prevent transmission of the oak wilt fungus

bull Thin juniper and live oak trees less than 4 inches in diameter but maintain dominant (larger) tree canopy cover Thinning should involve removing the whole tree and not pruning the tree Focus on trees in the understory and mid-story first Trees should only be thinned if the thinning does not result in a reduction in canopy cover or spacing of more than 16 feet between remaining tree trunks Thinning more than this will also negatively impact the habitat needs of the GCWA and will have the potential to increase surface vegetation which will increase the chance of crown fire initiation

bull Thin large diameter juniper trees or branches from multi-stemmed trees greater than 4 inches if they overlap and do not contribute to the canopy These trees and branches are usually identified as leaning in one direction into small openings in the canopy

Open Woodland ndash If the vegetation is characteristic of an open woodland or there are open woodlands leading into closed woodlands the following should apply An open woodland for this purpose is defined as a woodland where the lack of canopy closure allows tall grass to cover more than 50 of the ground

All Treatments

bull Trees should be pruned to a height of 8 feet Seal all wounds on oaks to prevent transmission of the oak wilt fungus

bull Tree canopy spacing can touch but not overlap

bull Shrubs need to be removed from within 10 feet of the canopy of a tree

bull Grass needs to be removed from within 10 feet of the canopy of a tree or kept in a mowed or grazed condition

Debris Removal

The debris or slash created from the treatments will create an increased fire risk The debris must be removed and not allowed to accumulate through the duration of the treatment If the slash cannot be removed through one of the listed options the treatment should not be implemented Options for removal of the slash listed in order of preference are as follows

bull Remove all slash from the treatment site

bull Chip all slash on site and leave the remaining chips in piles not to exceed 6 feet in diameter and 3 feet in height

bull Chip all slash on site and leave the remaining chips in contour rows not exceeding 1 foot wide and 1 foot in height

47

Appendix C Field Survey Notes

48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact

Contents

Summary 1

SECTION 1 Introduction 4

11 Location of Project Area 4

12 Definition of Action Area 6

13 Proposed Action 6

SECTION 2 Description of Species and Habitats 9


22 Other Species Considered But Determined ldquoNo Effectrdquo 11

221 Amphibians 11

222 Karst Invertebrates 13

223 Whooping Crane 15

224 Piping Plover 15


226 Red Knot 16

227 Least Tern 16

SECTION 3 Environmental Baseline 17

31 Geology and Soils 17

32 Vegetation 18

33 Water Resources and Floodplains 19

34 Wildlife Communities 20

35 Cave and Karst Features 21

36 Existing Habitat Conditions 21




















Summary







1










2

















3




adversely effect









4






5




thinning the canopy



13 Proposed Action






6







7








8






9






10





221 Amphibians


11







12





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact



















Summary







1










2

















3




adversely effect









4






5




thinning the canopy



13 Proposed Action






6







7








8






9






10





221 Amphibians


11







12





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact










2

















3




adversely effect









4






5




thinning the canopy



13 Proposed Action






6







7








8






9






10





221 Amphibians


11







12





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact

















3




adversely effect









4






5




thinning the canopy



13 Proposed Action






6







7








8






9






10





221 Amphibians


11







12





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact




adversely effect









4






5




thinning the canopy



13 Proposed Action






6







7








8






9






10





221 Amphibians


11







12





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact






5




thinning the canopy



13 Proposed Action






6







7








8






9






10





221 Amphibians


11







12





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact




thinning the canopy



13 Proposed Action






6







7








8






9






10





221 Amphibians


11







12





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact







7








8






9






10





221 Amphibians


11







12





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact








8






9






10





221 Amphibians


11







12





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact






9






10





221 Amphibians


11







12





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact






10





221 Amphibians


11







12





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact





221 Amphibians


11







12





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact







12





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact





















13

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact

















14

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact

223 Whooping Crane


224 Piping Plover






15






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact






Action Area

226 Red Knot


227 Least Tern


16








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact








17




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact




32 Vegetation









18
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact
























19
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact
































20










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact










21







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact







22








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact








23



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact



24












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact












25












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact












26












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact












27














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact














28








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact








29

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact

SECTION 6 Figures


30


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact


31


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact


32



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact



33



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact



34


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact


35


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact


36


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact


37


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact


38








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact








39













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact













40























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact























41



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact



Purpose




42

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact

How to Use the BMPs









43

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact

Risk Assessments


Home Ignition Zone






44











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact











45












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact












46





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact





All Treatments





Debris Removal





47


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact


48

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact

49

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact

50

Structure Bookmarks

Artifact

Travis Audubon Society Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project ... · the Texas Division of Emergency...

Documents

Transcript of Travis Audubon Society Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project ... · the Texas Division of Emergency...