Environmental Assessment (EA) Is Tiered to Other Environmental Documents That Are Available for Review at the Lake George Ranger District Office

United States Department of Environmental Agriculture

Forest Assessment Service

March, 2011 Hog Valley Scrub

PALS No. 25932

Lake George Ranger District, Ocala National Forest Marion and Putnam Counties, Florida

For Information Contact: Mike Herrin, District Ranger 17147 E. Hwy 40 Silver Springs, FL 34488 352-625-2520 [email protected]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion. age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………. 2 Background ………………………………………………………………………………... 2 Purpose and Need for Action …………………………………………………………….... 2 Proposed Action ………………………………………………………………………….... 3 Decision Framework ………………………………………………………………………. 4 Public Involvement ………………………………………………………………………... 4 Issues ………………………………………………………………………………………. 4 ALTERNATIVES ………………………………………………………………………….. 4 Alternatives ………………………………………………………………………………... 4 Design Features ………………………………………………………………………….... 9 Monitoring ………………………………………………………………………………… 10 Comparison of Alternatives ……………………………………………………………….. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ………………………………………………... 12 Physical Components ……………………………………………………………………… 12 Air ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 12 Soils ……………………………………………………………………………………... 12 Water …………………………………………………………………………………….. 13 Biological Components …………………………………………………………………… 14 Vegetation ……………………………………………………………………………….. 14 Wildlife ………………………………………………………………………………….. 16 Socio-economic Components ……………………………………………………………... 18 Economics ……………………………………………………………………………….. 18 Recreation and Scenery ……….………………………………………………………… 19 Heritage Resources ……………………………………………………………………… 21 Travel Management ……………………………………………………………………... 22 Environmental Justice and Civil Rights ………………………………………………… 22 Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ………………………………………... 22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ………………………………. 22 Cumulative Effects ………………………………………………………………………... 23 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED ……………………………………………. 24 TABLES 1 Comparison of Sand Pine Scrub Existing and Desired Conditions .…………………… 3 2 Details of Alternative B - Proposed Action …....……………………………………… 5 3 Alternative B Road Reconstruction and Maintenance …………….………………….. 6 4 Details of Alternative C - More Contiguous Scrub Habitat …………………………... 7 5 Alternative C Road Reconstruction and Maintenance ...………..….………………….. 8 6 Summary of Activities and Outputs …………………………………………………… 11 7 Summary of Significance Criteria to Support a Finding of No Significant Impact …… 11 8 Trend Analysis of Scrub Opening Size on the Lake George Ranger District …………. 14 9 Summary of Financial Efficiency Analysis - Alternative B ..…………………………. 19 10 Summary of Financial Efficiency Analysis - Alternative C ..…………………………. 19 11 Scenery Analysis ………………………………………………………………………. 20 12 Potential Contribution of Effects ……………………………….……………………… 23 13 Effects of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions and Disturbances ……... 23 14 Potential Cumulative Effects …………………………..………………………………. 24 15 Agencies and Persons Consulted ………………………………………………………. 24 APPENDICES A Maps B References C Biological Assessment (Wildlife) D Biological Evaluation (Wildlife) E Biological Evaluation (Plants) F Engineering Analysis G Summary of Comments to Public Notice

INTRODUCTION

Background ______

The sand pine-scrub ecosystem was historically regenerated by catastrophic stand replacing wildfires. Due to hazardous fuel conditions, natural wildfires are suppressed now and openings are primarily created by timber harvests. These are similar in their effects to wildfires, but they are usually smaller in size, leave less dead standing snags, and leave more coarse woody debris on the ground. Because timber harvests do not facilitate sand pine regeneration as predictably as wildfires, mechanical site preparation and reforestation of sand pine is often needed to mimic this fire-adapted ecosystem. Many of the species endemic to the scrub, including several federally listed species, depend on the early successional habitat that was historically created by large wildfires. Scrub-jays, sand skinks, and other species associated with early successional scrub habitat have responded favorably in the past to habitat created by the mechanical methods of timber harvest, site preparation, and reforestation. The analysis in this Environmental Assessment (EA) is tiered to other environmental documents that are available for review at the Lake George Ranger District office:

EA for Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Amendment Updating Gopher Tortoise, Bald Eagle, Flatwoods Salamander and Florida Scrub-jay Direction (LRMP Amendment 8) (2009). EA for South Ocala Scrub (2009). Sand/Pine Scrub Ecosystem Landscape Scale Assessment. USDA Forest Service. 2008 (Updated 2009). EA for Florida Scrub-jay Pipeline (2008). EA for Florida Scrub-jay Project FY-04 (2007). EA for Route Designation in the Sand Pine Scrub Ecosystem of the Ocala National Forest (ONF) (2007). EA for ONF Prescribed Burning (2006). Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for Access Designation in Restricted Areas on the ONF (2005). FEIS for the National Forests in Florida, Record of Decision (ROD), and the LRMP (1999). FEIS for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont (VMEIS) (1989).

Purpose and Need for Action ______

Existing Condition

The ONF provides habitat for the largest remaining population of Florida scrub-jays in the world. Under current ecosystem management practices this population has been generally stable to increasing. The current suitable scrub-jay habitat (3-12 years) on the ONF is mapped on page 81 of the 2009 Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report. There are about 3,400 acres of suitable scrub-jay habitat within the analysis area of this project. Table 1 summarizes the existing condition of sand pine scrub within the analysis area.

Desired Condition

The following Forest Plan Management Area (MA) goals, forest-wide goals, and forest-wide objectives describe different aspects of the desired condition:

Goal: Reduce hazardous fuels to lower the risks of catastrophic wildfire to people and communities, while mimicing the effects of fire on the ecosystem in support of the National Fire Plan. Goal: Increase the average opening size in the sand pine scrub ecosystem to increase scrub-jay occupancy, and better mimic natural disturbance processes that perpetuate rare and endemic plant and animal species in support of Forest Plan MA Standard and Guideline (S&G) 8.2-3 (LRMP, p. 4-47). Goal: Control and eliminate non-native invasive species (NNIS) on the ONF in support of national agency direction. MA 7.1 Goal: To allow or mimic natural processes and patterns to maintain a rich diversity of native plants and animals, including recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker. To produce poletimber and large pine sawtimber. To provide a wide range of opportunities for people to use and experience the forest. * MA 8.2 Goal: To produce pine pulpwood under conditions that balance efficient timber production practices with practices that promote the growth and perpetuation of species native to the Big Scrub area within the ONF. To provide a wide range of opportunities for people to use and experience the forest (LRMP, p. 4-46). Forest-wide Goal 5: Contribute to the social and economic well-being of local communities by promoting sustainable use of renewable natural resources and participating in efforts to devise creative solutions for economic health (LRMP, p. 2-3).

Forest-wide Goal 6: Maintain or, where necessary, restore ecosystem composition, structure, and function within the natural range of variability in all ecosystems, with emphasis on longleaf pine-wiregrass, sand pine-oak scrub, pine flatwoods, hardwood/cypress, oak hammock ecosystems, and other imperiled specialized communities (LRMP, p. 2-3). Forest-wide Goal 8: Conserve and protect important elements of diversity - such as endangered and threatened species habitat, declining natural communities, and uncommon biological, ecological, or geological sites (LRMP, p. 2-4). Forest-wide Goal 9: Manage for habitat conditions to recover and sustain viable populations of all native species, with special emphasis on rare species (LRMP, p. 2-4). Forest-wide Goal 10: Apply prescribed burning technology as a primary tool for restoring fire's historic role in ecosystems (LRMP, p. 2-4). Forest-wide Goal 17: Preserve significant heritage resources as remnants of our cultural heritage by locating, evaluating, and protecting heritage resource sites (LRMP, p. 2-4). Forest-wide Goal 19: Protect, enhance, and where necessary, restore the forest's scenery resource values. Forest-wide Objective 7: Replace between 500 and 1,000 acres of the off-site sand pine to the appropriate native vegetation in the next 10 years. The long-tern objective is to restore the off-site sand pine to the appropriate native vegetation. * Forest-wide Objective 9: Maintain a dynamic system of at least 45,000 to 55,000 acres of habitat capable of supporting scrub-jays Forest-wide on the ONF. The 10-year population objective is 742 to 907 groups (LRMP, p. 2-5). Forest-wide Objective 19: Regenerate between 39,000 and 41,000 acres of sand pine on the ONF (LRMP, p. 2-6). Forest-wide Objective 21: Provide the following habitat conditions in the next 10 years (LRMP Table 2.2, p. 2-7). A portion of Table 1 below summarizes the desired sand pine habitat conditions.

* Only applies to a small 15-ac. portion of the proposal (compartment 22, stand 40).

Need

The Proposed Action would meet several needs by moving the existing resource conditions toward the desired conditions:

Maintain viable populations of scrub-jays and other early successional scrub species by providing openings of early successional habitat for colonization from adjacent and nearby sites. Increase the average opening size in the scrub ecosystem to better mimic natural disturbance processes that have perpetuated rare plant and animal species endemic to the scrub. Capture the declining economic value of timber in damaged and mature sand pine stands. Reduce hazardous fuels and mimic the effects of fire on the scrub ecosystem within the scope of, and in support of, the National Fire Plan. Convert and restore the last off-site sand pine stand on Riverside Island to longleaf pine sandhill. * Reduce impacts from unnecessary roads by using the travel analysis process to identify a minimum road system within the project area.

* Only applies to a small 15-ac. portion of the proposal (compartment 22, stand 40).

Table 1. Comparison of Sand Pine Scrub Existing and Desired Conditions Forest Plan Existing Condition Within the Analysis Area Desired Condition Forest-wide Objective Objective 9 * 3,400 ac. of habitat 3-12 years old 45,000 to 55,000 ac. of habitat Objective 19 ** 4,200 ac. of sand pine regeneration during the past 10 years 39,000 to 41,000 ac. of sand pine regeneration Objective 21 *** Sand pine habitat conditions: Sand pine habitat conditions: 0-10 age class = 12 % 1-10 age class = 20 % 11-30 age class = 50 % 11-30 age class = 45 % 31-50 age class = 28 % 31-50 age class = 25 % 51+ age class = 10 % 51+ age class = 10 % * Includes lands both suitable and unsuitable for timber production. Sand pine stands and scrub oak stands within the age classes preferred by scrub-jays are included. ** Includes only sand pine stands suitable for timber production. *** Includes sand pine stands both suitable and unsuitable for timber production.

Proposed Action ______

The ONF of the National Forests in Florida (NFF) is proposing to create about 3,412 acres of new scrub openings. The Proposed Action includes harvesting sand pine timber and crookedwood, as well as several connected actions listed below. The stands proposed for treatment were selected to provide opportunities for scrub-jay colonization from nearby occupied

sites, combine stands to make larger openings, and capture mortality of sand pine in mature and damaged stands. One 15- acre area of off-site sand pine would be harvested and restored to longleaf pine sandhill. A travel analysis (FSM 7712) identified a minimum road system within the project area, and identified opportunities to decommission Level 1 (closed) roads from the transportation system. Some segments of Level 1 (closed) roads were identified to be re-designated as Level 2 roads that would remain closed to the public, but would be open for administrative use only. The Proposed Action is needed now to meet the needs outlined above.

Decision Framework ______

Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official will review the alternatives. The decision to be made is whether to:

Take No Action at this time - Alternative A, or Implement Alternative B - Proposed Action or Implement Alternative C - More Contiguous Scrub Habitat.

Public Involvement ______

The Proposed Action was provided to the public and other agencies on 3/31/2009. In addition, this project was listed 10 times in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (10/2008, 1/2009, 4/2009, 7/2009, 10/2009, 1/2010, 4/2010, 7/2010, 10/2010, and 1/2011). A Request for Comments will be published as a legal notice in the Ocala Star Banner (Marion County, FL). The EA and Request for Comments will be mailed to those who expressed interest in this project. Comments will be summarized in Appendix G.

Issues ______

The Responsible Official and interdisciplinary team reviewed comments raised during project scoping. No significant issues (unresolved conflicts) were identified. The following comments were submitted by WildLaw on behalf of Save Our Big Scrub, Inc. and Wild South:

Comment that the project should be decommissioning roads, implementing travel management directives, removing roads from administrative maps that are no longer needed for resource management, and evaluating areas for more intensive road rehabilitation/restoration, particularly unneeded roads causing hydrological impacts. Response: We agree. During the process of preparing this EA, a minimum road system was identified within the project area. The action alternatives (B and C) would decommission about 60.7 miles from the transportation system that are no longer needed for resource management. Design feature 19 was developed. Comment that proposed openings for scrub-jays may be too small to maximize effectiveness, and to consider combining more stands to create larger openings. Response: We agree. Alternative C was developed in response to this comment. Six small isolated stands would not be treated at this time, but three adjacent stands would be combined with the stands proposed for harvest. Comment about public perception and the need for public education to promote understanding of scrub-jay management and its visual impact of larger openings. Response: We agree. Design feature 16 was developed in response to this comment. Comment about not letting the current location of motorized trails hinder scrub-jay management. Response: We agree. Even though motorized trails would usually remain open during timber harvest, site preparation and reforestation treatments, they are subject to temporary relocation or closure as needed (design feature 15).

ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives ______

One off-site sand pine stand in the action alternatives (B and C) is within MA 7.1 Longleaf/Slash Pine, Adaptive Management, RCW Management (LRMP, pp. 4-39 through 4-40). All scrub stands are within MA 8.2 Sand Pine, Mixed Regeneration, Moderate Openings (LRMP, pp. 4-46 through 4-47). All quantities shown are estimates based on preliminary measurements. Actual quantities would be determined during project layout. This EA analyzes all of the stand/treatment combinations that are potentially necessary for this project, because there is uncertainty regarding the future success of natural regeneration on any given area. If an action alternative is selected, the project would be implemented by several

timber sales and their connected actions. Timber sales would be prepared in 2011. Timber harvest would begin in 2012 and may continue into 2013. Road reconstruction would include erosion control, cleaning and re-shaping ditches and resurfacing with a mixture of sand and clay. Road maintenance would include clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

Alternative A - No Action

This alternative would not implement the Proposed Action or any action alternatives.

Alternative B - Proposed Action

Harvest crookedwood from up to 40 scrub stands (about 3,412 acres). Harvest sand pine timber (about 37,600 CCF) by clearcutting up to 29 scrub stands (about 2,991 acres). Site prepare by prescribe burning and/or roller chopping up to 40 scrub stands (about 3,412 acres). Reforest by natural regeneration or row seeding sand pine up to 39 scrub stands (about 3,337 acres). Convert and restore one sandhill stand by removing off-site sand pine timber (about 200 CCF on about 15 acres), site preparing with hexazinone herbicide, prescribed burning, planting longleaf pine seedlings, and releasing with hand tools. Reconstruct about 4.1 miles of existing Forest Service road. Maintain about 32.27 miles of existing Forest Service road. Use and obliterate about 0.86 miles of temporary road. Decommission about 60.7 miles of Level 1 (closed) road from the transportation system that are no longer needed for resource management, and that were not selected to remain open to the public during the route designation process (EA for Route Designation in the Sand Pine Scrub Ecosystem of the ONF, 2007). Re-designate about 21.7 miles of Level 1 (closed) roads as Level 2 roads that would remain closed to the public, but would be open for administrative use only. Comply with all applicable S&Gs, design features, and project monitoring described in this document.

Table 2. Details of Alternative B - Proposed Action Total Herbicide Site Prep, Natural Prescribe Burn New Scrub Opening Prescribe Burn, Harvest Harvest Regeneration Location and/or Scrub Opening Size 2012 Plant Longleaf Pine, Crookedwood Sand Pine or Row Seed (Cmpt-Stand) Roller Chop Size 2012 (All adjacent Release with Hand (ac.) (ac.) Sand Pine (ac.) (ac.) stands 0-6 years) Tools (ac.) (ac.) (ac.) C1-S3 * 10 10 10 10 10 10 - C1-S26 * 21 21 21 21 21 21 - C2-S8 75 - 75 - 75 172 - C3-S17 168 168 168 168 168 168 - C3-S29 164 164 164 164 164 336 - C3-S32 31 10 31 31 31 - - C4-S1 33 - 33 33 33 33 - C4-S18 168 168 168 168 168 328 *** - C4-S33 * 171 171 171 171 197 545 *** - C4-S34 * 26 - 26 26 - - - C6-S2 129 129 129 129 129 478 *** - C6-S7 * 70 70 70 70 172 - - C6-S9 * 76 76 76 76 - - - C6-S24 * 26 5 26 26 - - - C10-S16 233 233 233 233 233 233 - C11-S3 204 204 204 204 204 204 - C13-S4 * 110 110 110 110 152 412 - C13-S10 25 - 25 25 25 - - C13-S16 * 42 - 42 42 - - - C13-S17 21 - 21 21 21 21 - C13-S28 21 - 21 21 21 - - C15-S4 * 156 156 156 156 216 *** 216 *** - C15-S39 30 30 30 30 30 30 - C16-S4 * 24 - 24 24 - - - C16-S17 18 - 18 18 18 18 - C16-S19 77 77 77 77 77 77 -

C16-S22 32 - 32 32 32 32 - C16-S31 * 36 36 36 36 - - - C17-S16 10 10 10 10 10 10 - C21-S7 * 164 164 164 164 188 - - C21-S8 137 137 137 137 137 441 - C21-S20 38 - 38 38 38 38 - C21-S22 * 24 - 24 24 - - - C22-S40 ** - 15 - - N/A N/A 15 C31-S8 65 65 65 65 65 - - C32-S13 135 135 135 135 135 135 - C32-S17 184 184 184 184 184 279 - C32-S46 73 73 73 73 73 104 - C35-S30 257 257 257 257 257 257 - C100-S1* 69 69 69 69 128 171 *** - C100-S4 * 59 59 59 59 - - - Totals 3,412 3,006 3,412 3,337 3,412 4,769 15 * To create larger openings stand is located adjacent to additional stands in this alternative. ** Convert / restore off-site sand pine stand to longleaf pine sandhill. *** Includes adjacent openings in adjacent compartments

Table 3. Alternative B Road Reconstruction and Maintenance Proposed Work (miles) Traffic Location Road Number Service Lanes Surface (Cmpt-Stand) R M Temp-OB Level C1-S3 Temp-OB - - 0.10 - SL N C1-S26 11 - 0.7 - C SL SC C3-S17 70-1.4 - 0.7 - D SL N " 70 - 1.39* - C SL SC C3-S29 70-1.4C1 - 0.51 - D SL N C3-S32 Temp-OB - - 0.41 - SL N " 70-1.4 - 0.7* - D SL N " 70-1.4A - 1.20 - D SL N " 70 - 1.39* - C SL SC C4-S18 70 - 4.10* - C SL SC C6-S2 74 - 2.50* - C SL SC C6-S7 66-7.8A - 0.58 - D SL N " 74 - 2.95* - C SL SC C6-S9 66-7.8A - 0.58* - D SL N " 74 - 2.95* - C SL SC C6-S24 66-7.8A - 0.58* - D SL N " 74 - 2.95* - C SL SC C10-S16 Temp-OB - - 0.05 - SL N C11-S3 66-7.8 - 1.36 - D SL N " 66 - 3.15* - C SL SC C13-S4 66-5.9 - 0.90 - D SL N " 70 - 4.70 - C SL SC C15-S4 66-2.1 - 1.23 - D SL N " 66 - 2.08* - C SL N C15-S39 66 - 0.22* - C SL SC C16-S19 66 - 2.65 - C SL SC C16-S31 66-2.1 - 1.23* - D SL N " 66 - 2.08* - C SL N C17-S16 66 - 5.2 - C SL SC C21-S7 11-17.3 - 1.87 - D SL N " Temp-OB - - 0.26 - SL N C21-S8 11-17.3 - 1.10* - D SL N " Temp-OB - - 0.26* - SL N

C22-S40 11 - 1.02 - C SL SC " 66 - 4.70* - C SL SC C31-S8 316-9.2 - 0.56 - D SL SC C32-S13 62 - 1.10* - C SL SC C32-S17 41 - 0.26* - C SL SC " 62 - 1.70 - C SL SC C32-S46 Temp-OB - - 0.04 - SL N " 41 - 1.04 - C SL SC " 62 - 1.70* - C SL SC C35-S30 29-1.6 - 1.16 - D SL N " 29 - 1.63 - C DL SC C100-S1 74 4.10 - - C SL SC C100-S4 74 - 3.56 - C SL SC TOTALS 4.10 32.27 0.86 R - Reconstruction SL - Single Lane N – Native Soil * Mileages for duplicate road M – Maintenance or Purchaser Maintenance DL - Double Lane SC - Sand Clay segments are not included in totals. Temp OB – Use and Obliterate Temporary Road

Alternative C - More Contiguous Scrub Habitat

Alternative C was developed in response to the comment that the openings proposed for scrub-jays in Alternative B may be too small to maximize effectiveness. Six small isolated stands would not be treated at this time, but three adjacent stands would be combined with the stands proposed for harvest.

See Appendix A for maps.

Harvest crookedwood from up to 36 scrub stands (about 3,425 acres). Harvest sand pine timber (about 39,655 CCF) by clearcutting up to 28 scrub stands (about 3,120 acres). Site prepare by prescribe burning and/or roller chopping up to 36 scrub stands (about 3,425 acres). Reforest by natural regeneration or row seeding sand pine up to 35 scrub stands (about 3,350 acres). Convert and restore one sandhill stand by removing off-site sand pine timber (about 200 CCF on about 15 acres), site preparing with hexazinone herbicide, prescribed burning, planting longleaf pine seedlings, and releasing with hand tools. Reconstruct about 4.1 miles of existing Forest Service road. Maintain about 31.21 miles of existing Forest Service road. Use and obliterate about 0.86 miles of temporary road. Decommission about 60.7 miles of Level 1 (closed) road from the transportation system that are no longer needed for resource management, and that were not selected to remain open to the public during the route designation process (EA for Route Designation in the Sand Pine Scrub Ecosystem of the ONF, 2007). Re-designate about 21.7 miles of Level 1 (closed) roads as Level 2 roads that would remain closed to the public, but would be open for administrative use only. Comply with all applicable S&Gs, design features, and project monitoring described in this document.

Table 4. Details of Alternative C - More Contiguous Scrub Habitat Total Herbicide Site Prep, Natural Prescribe Burn New Scrub Opening Prescribe Burn, Harvest Harvest Regeneration Location and/or Scrub Opening Size 2012 Plant Longleaf Pine, Crookedwood Sand Pine or Row Seed (Cmpt-Stand) Roller Chop Size 2012 (All adjacent Release with Hand (ac.) (ac.) Sand Pine (ac.) (ac.) stands 0-6 years) Tools (ac.) (ac.) (ac.) C1-S3 * 10 10 10 10 - - - C1-S23 * 36 36 36 36 67 612 *** - C1-S26 * 21 21 21 21 - - - C2-S8 75 - 75 - 75 172 - C3-S17 168 168 168 168 168 168 - C3-S29 164 164 164 164 164 336 - C3-S32 31 10 31 31 31 - - C4-S1 33 - 33 33 33 33 - C4-S18 168 168 168 168 168 328 *** -

C4-S33 * 171 171 171 171 197 - - C4-S34 * 26 - 26 26 - - - C6-S2 129 129 129 129 129 478 *** - C6-S7 * 70 70 70 70 172 - - C6-S9 * 76 76 76 76 - - - C6-S24 * 26 5 26 26 - - - C10-S16 233 233 233 233 233 233 - C11-S3 204 204 204 204 204 204 - C13-S4 * 110 110 110 110 152 387 - C13-S16 * 42 - 42 42 - - - C13-S28 21 - 21 21 21 - - C15-S4 * 156 156 156 156 216 *** 216 *** - C15-S22 * 82 82 82 82 112 216 - C15-S39 * 30 30 30 30 - - - C16-S4 * 24 - 24 24 - - - C16-S17 * 18 - 18 18 - - - C16-S19 * 163 163 163 163 181 181 - C16-S31 * 36 36 36 36 - - - C21-S7 * 164 164 164 164 188 441 - C21-S8 137 137 137 137 137 - - C21-S22 * 24 - 24 24 - - - C22-S40 ** - 15 - - N/A N/A 15 C32-S13 135 135 135 135 135 135 - C32-S17 184 184 184 184 184 279 - C32-S46 73 73 73 73 73 104 - C35-S30 257 257 257 257 257 257 - C100-S1* 69 69 69 69 128 171 *** - C100-S4 * 59 59 59 59 - - - Totals 3,425 3,135 3,425 3,350 3,425 4,951 15 * To create larger openings stand is located adjacent to additional stands in this alternative ** Convert / restore off-site sand pine stand to longleaf pine sandhill *** Includes adjacent openings in adjacent compartments

Table 5. Alternative C Road Reconstruction and Maintenance Proposed Work (miles) Traffic Location Road Number Service Lanes Surface (Cmpt-Stand) R M Temp-OB Level C1-S3 Temp-OB - - 0.10 - SL N C1-S23 11 - 0.7 - C SL SC C1-S26 11 - 0.7* - C SL SC C3-S17 70-1.4 - 0.7 - D SL N " 70 - 1.39* - C SL SC C3-S29 70-1.4C1 - 0.51 - D SL N C3-S32 Temp-OB - - 0.41 - SL N " 70-1.4 - 0.7* - D SL N " 70-1.4A - 1.20 - D SL N " 70 - 1.39* - C SL SC C4-S18 70 - 4.10* - C SL SC C6-S2 74 - 2.50* - C SL SC C6-S7 66-7.8A - 0.58 - D SL N " 74 - 2.95* - C SL SC C6-S9 66-7.8A - 0.58* - D SL N " 74 - 2.95* - C SL SC C6-S24 66-7.8A - 0.58* - D SL N " 74 - 2.95* - C SL SC C10-S16 Temp-OB - - 0.05 - SL N C11-S3 66-7.8 - 1.36 - D SL N

" 66 - 3.15* - C SL SC C13-S4 66-5.9 - 0.90 - D SL N " 70 - 4.70 - C SL SC C15-S4 66-2.1 - 1.23 - D SL N " 66 - 2.08* - C SL N C15-S22 66 - 0.22* - C SL SC C15-S39 66 - 0.22* - C SL SC C16-S19 66 - 2.65 - C SL SC C16-S31 66-2.1 - 1.23* - D SL N " 66 - 2.08* - C SL N C21-S7 11-17.3 - 1.87 - D SL N " Temp-OB - - 0.26 - SL N C21-S8 11-17.3 - 1.10* - D SL N " Temp-OB - - 0.26* - SL N C22-S40 11 - 1.02 - C SL SC " 66 - 4.70 - C SL SC C32-S13 62 - 1.10* - C SL SC C32-S17 41 - 0.26* - C SL SC " 62 - 1.70 - C SL SC C32-S46 Temp-OB - - 0.04 - SL N " 41 - 1.04 - C SL SC " 62 - 1.70* - C SL SC C35-S30 29-1.6 - 1.16 - D SL N " 29 - 1.63 - C DL SC C100-S1 74 4.10 - - C SL SC C100-S4 74 - 3.56 - C SL SC TOTALS 4.10 31.21 0.86 R - Reconstruction SL - Single Lane N – Native Soil * Mileages for duplicate road M – Maintenance or Purchaser Maintenance DL - Double Lane SC - Sand Clay segments are not included in totals. Temp OB – Use and Obliterate Temporary Road

Design Features ______

Design features were identified for the action alternatives. Similar features have proven to be effective on similar projects and within similar environmental settings on the ONF.

1. Adequately regenerate areas to sand pine following harvest using forest-wide S&Gs (LRMP, p. 3-20). 2. Water and wetlands are protected by S&G WA-1 incorporates Best Management Practices (State of Florida guidelines) (LRMP, p. 3-24). All water and wetlands would be buffered by at least 35 feet from ground disturbing activities. 3. Maximize the potential for beneficial effects and minimize the potential for adverse effects on Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) plant and animal species. The timber sale administrator would coordinate with the botanist or wildlife biologist about the placement of log landings and skid trails. 4. To reduce the risk of destroying reptile eggs, roller-chopped stands that fail to meet the sand pine lower stocking level of 200 seedlings per acre would not be re-chopped. 5. No roller-chopping activities would occur from May to August to prevent destruction of the eggs or young of ground- nesting birds and herpetofauna. 6. Harvest or site preparation activities would occur in Compartment 35, Stand 30 only after bald eagle chicks from the nearby nest have fledged or breeding activity has otherwise stopped. Determination would be based on survey results from the state wildlife agency, or treatment would be deferred until after April 1, based on status data from the December nest surveys. 7. To reduce the potential of adversely affecting eastern indigo snakes, all contractors would be educated on their identification, status, felony charges that would result from their take (16 USC, Endangered Species Act), and federal law against killing, molesting, or possessing wildlife without a permit [36 CFR 261.8(a)]. 8. If actively occupied striped newt ponds are discovered within or adjacent to the project area, the potential habitat of any terrestrial striped newts would be protected from roller-chopping with a 700-foot radius buffer from the occupied wetland margin.

9. Field personnel and contractors would be educated in gopher tortoise burrow identification if new to the ONF. Log landings and skid trails would not be located within 25 feet of known gopher tortoise burrows. Equipment operators would be instructed to maintain a 25 foot distance during operations when previously unknown burrows are encountered. 10. Minimize the potential for introduction and spread of non-native invasive species (NNIS) such as cogon grass, Japanese climbing fern, and Japanese mimosa on the ONF as a result of timber sales or other mechanical activities. Cogon grass and Japanese climbing fern are present in the project area. Known and new NNIS locations would be documented and treated prior to timber harvest. All equipment would be washed according to timber contract specifications (BT6.35) before entering the ONF. If site preparation equipment may be transported on a road right-of-way, a Forest Service official would inspect the route. Coordination would also take place to prevent the spread of NNIS during road reconstruction and maintenance. 11. The Ocala NF Archeologist would locate and protect heritage resource sites on the ground prior to ground disturbing activity. 12. Prescribed burning would be done within Regional and Forest standards, and within parameters described in the EA for Prescribed Burning on the ONF (2006). 13. Emphasize prescribed burning to enhance habitat for TES species. For details of site preparation and reforestation options see S&Gs for MA 8.2 (LRMP, pp. 4-46 through 4-47). 14. Promote the scenic and environmental goals of the Florida National Scenic Trail (FNST) at Compartment 1, Stand 23 by using trail protection measures as outlined in the FNST Certification Agreement between the USDA Forest Service and the Florida Trail Association. (Alternative C) 15. Promote public safety and protect resources adjacent to motorized trails by using restrictions and cleanup activities as needed. Safety signs would be posted. Trails would usually remain open during timber harvest, site preparation and reforestation treatments, but would be subject to temporary relocation or closure as needed. Timber harvest may be prohibited on weekends, and may be restricted to periods of low trail usage. To better define trails during site preparation, roller chopping may be excluded from a 35 foot-wide strip along the trails. 16. Promote public information and education; such as placing kiosks and signs in key locations, public education programs, outreach, and website development, to interpret large scrub openings and scrub-jay management. Some large openings may require leaving visual buffers of young scrub oaks in key locations to partially screen portions of openings from view. 17. Promote scenic goals along paved roads, by using a 100-foot slash treatment zone at the east end of Compartment 10, Stand 16. 18. Cut material (excluding timber products) generated from timber harvesting and roller-chopping would be used to block unauthorized travel routes that occur in or adjacent to the treatment areas. 19. The action alternatives would decommission some Level 1 (closed) roads from the transportation system. These road segments are no longer needed for resource management, and were not selected to remain open to the public during the route designation process. Many of these roads are already physically closed on the ground, but some would require closure by moving debris, felling trees, or placing posts or mounds of dirt. Natural rehabilitation of the closed segments would be allowed to take place through non-use, but some areas may require active restoration based on site-specific conditions.

Monitoring ______

Monitoring would take place to answer the following questions:

1. How is management affecting the Florida scrub-jay? * 2. Was sand pine regeneration adequate? The silviculturist would direct surveys to determine the distribution and stocking level of sand pine regeneration. 3. Were planned pond and lake buffers effective? The silviculturist would monitor the effects of treatments at four locations: C1-S23 (Alt. C only), C32-S17, C35-S30, and C100-S4.

* See pages 56-58 (Forest Plan monitoring question 1.5) of the 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Report for a detailed description of the history and status of monitoring scrub-jay populations and their habitat on the ONF.

Comparison of Alternatives ______

Table 6. Summary of Activities and Outputs Alternative B Alternative C Activity or Output No Action Proposed More Contiguous Action Scrub Habitat Harvest Harvest Crookedwood 0 3,412 ac. 3,425 ac. Harvest Sand Pine by Clearcutting (includes one off-site sand pine stand) 0 3,006 ac. 3,135 ac. Harvest Sand Pine by Clearcutting (includes one off-site sand pine stand) 0 37,600 CCF 39,855 CCF Treatments Prescribe Burn and/or Roller Chop Scrub 0 3,412 ac. 3,425 ac. Natural Regeneration or Row Seed Sand Pine 0 3,337 ac. 3,350 ac. Restore Sandhill - Site Prepare with Hexazinone Herbicide, Prescribe Burn, Plant Longleaf 0 15 ac. 15 ac. Pine, and Release Seedlings and Saplings from Competition Using Hand Tools Economics Total Revenues (short-term existing stand) 0 $ 1,344,162 $ 1,417,238 Total Costs (short-term existing stand) 0 $ 767,505 $ 800,099 Financial Present Net Value (short-term existing stand) 0 $ 576,658 $ 617,139 Benefit / Cost Ratio (short-term existing stand) 0 1.75 1.77 Transportation Road Reconstruction 0 4.1 mi. 4.1 mi. Road Maintenance 0 32.27 mi. 31.21 mi. Use and Obliterate Temporary Roads 0 0.86 mi. 0.86 mi. Decommission Level 1 (closed) Roads from the Transportation System 0 60.7 mi. 60.7 mi. Re-designate Level 1 (closed) Roads as Level 2 Roads (Administrative Use Only) 0 21.7 mi. 21.7 mi. Results Increase the Amount of Early Successional Scrub Habitat 0 3,412 ac. 3,425 ac. Increase the Average Opening Size in the Scrub Ecosystem No Yes Yes Average Size of New Scrub Openings 2012 0 106.6 ac. 142.7 ac. Average Size of Total New Scrub Openings 2012 (includes all adjacent stands 0-6 years) 0 183.4 ac. 260.6 ac. Reduce Hazardous Fuels and Mimic the Effects of Fire on the Ecosystem in Support of the 0 3,427 ac. 3,440 ac. National Fire Plan Forest Plan Help Achieve Forest-wide Goals 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 19 No Yes Yes Help Achieve Forest-wide Objectives 7, 9, 19 and 21 No Yes Yes

Table 7. Summary of Significance Criteria to Support a Finding of No Significant Impact Criteria No Action Alternatives B and C Affect public health and No - No actions would take place which No - S&Gs and project design features provide protection. safety? could affect public health and safety. Unique characteristics? No - No actions would take place which No - S&Gs and project design features provide protection. SHPO could affect unique characteristics. concurrence. Tribal consultation complete. Effects likely to be highly No No - Effects from treatments are similar to previous projects and are controversial? not controversial. Effects highly uncertain or No No - The effects of the timber harvest and connected actions are involve unique or unknown similar to those of previous projects. risks? Precedent established for No - Future projects would be analyzed on No - The Proposed Action is consistent with the Forest Plan and does future actions? their own merit. not establish a precedent. Cumulatively significant? No No Loss or destruction of No No - S&Gs and design features provide protection. SHPO significant scientific, cultural concurrence. Tribal consultation complete. or historical resources? Adversely affect T&E species Yes - Opportunity to provide suitable No - S&Gs, project design features and monitoring provide or habitat? habitat on these stands would be lost for protection. Project is in accord with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife some time. Service's Biological Opinion on the LRMP. Consistent with Federal, State Yes Yes - Forest Plan consistency determined. S&Gs, project design or local laws for the features, and monitoring would be followed. BMPs assure Clean protection of the Water Act consistency. Plans for prescribed burning and state environment? burning authorization assure consistency with Clean Air Act. Beneficial and adverse effects Both beneficial and adverse effects are Both beneficial and adverse effects are disclosed. Adverse effects disclosed. Adverse effects have not been have been reduced or eliminated by S&Gs, project design features, reduced or eliminated. and monitoring.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The resource analysis area included about 29,110 forested acres in 16 compartments: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 31, 32 and 35. Additionally, an opportunity was identified in scrub in adjacent compartment 100, and an opportunity to restore a small off-site sand pine stand to longleaf pine was identified in nearby compartment 22 on Riverside Island.

The forest cover of the analysis area is predominantly sand pine and scrub oak, but areas of slash pine, longleaf pine, pond pine, laurel oak, live oak, sweet bay, and bald cypress are also present. The Proposed Action detailed above (Tables 2 and 3) is located within 17 compartments. Alternative C detailed above (Tables 4 and 5) is located within 15 compartments.

Over the last 10 years resource activities within the analysis area have included: hurricane salvage, timber harvesting, prescribed burning, site preparation, sand pine reforestation, scrub oak regeneration, road reconstruction and maintenance, road designation, road closures, maintenance of non-motorized trails, and establishment and maintenance of motorized trails. Spatial and temporal bounds were established for the effects analysis of each resource, by estimating how far away and how long effects may persist. The alternatives were considered for their potential to directly and/or indirectly affect resources. Direct effects occur at the same time and place as an action. Indirect effects occur at a later time and/or at a different location. The cumulative effects analysis evaluated direct and indirect effects that may overlap within this project, as well as those that may overlap with the effects of other projects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable) within the same spatial and temporal bounds. This EA and the appended Biological Evaluations (BEs) were based on a review of relevant scientific information in order to consider the best available science. This section summarizes the anticipated effects. Additional information and analysis is included in the project file.

Physical Components ______

Air

Affected Environment

Air quality in the forest is affected slightly by industry, motorized vehicle use, weather, and smoke from prescribed fire, wildfire, and debris burning by forest residents. The Forest Service works with state and federal regulatory agencies to assure air quality meets the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by EPA. The state of Florida responded to the Clean Air Act with regulations that assure prescribed burning is in compliance with air quality standards. See the Forest Plan FEIS (pp. 3-5 and 3-6), and the NFF 2009 Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report for information on air quality. See (Long, 1999) and (Monroe, 1999) for information on prescribed burning and air quality. The spatial scale for the air quality analysis was set as the north-central Florida counties of Lake, Marion, Putnam, and Volusia. The temporal scale was set at three years, because the actions that affect air quality would take place within this period.

Effects of Alternative A - No Action

No impacts on air quality are anticipated.

Effects of Alternatives B and C

Air quality would be temporarily reduced by dust in the immediate vicinity of heavy equipment harvesting timber, pulling a roller chopper or row seeder, or reconstructing and maintaining a road. During dry weather conditions these activities would further reduce air quality by increasing dust. Dust generated during these activities may only be present at each site for a few days or up to one week with each treatment, and would be localized, probably extending only to adjacent stands. Smoke from prescribed burning could adversely affect air quality in the north-central Florida counties of Marion, Lake, Putnam, and Volusia. However, this effect would be limited in duration. The vast majority of smoke from prescribed burning often disperses within a few hours, but small amounts may still be present locally for several days or up to a week. The Florida Division of Forestry prescribed burning authorization process assures that conditions are favorable to protect air quality. Abiding by S&G WA-9 would reduce the potential for adverse effects on air quality. Based on many years of experience with similar actions, only minimal effects on air quality are anticipated. All air quality standards would be met.

Soils

Affected Environment

The vast majority of the analysis area has soil in the Astatula series. This soil is low in fertility, clay and organic matter, and is excessively drained, and not prone to compaction. Soils are described in the FEIS (p. 3-6). A comparison of soil loss and sediment yield rates with tolerable soil loss rates shows that soil loss from NFF lands falls within acceptable limits. The spatial scale for the soil analysis was set as the stands of the action alternatives, as well as the haul roads and adjacent few feet. The temporal scale was set at three years, because most of the actions that affect soils would take place within this period.

Effects of Alternative A - No Action

No impacts on soils are anticipated.

Effects of Alternatives B and C

All stands in the action alternatives have soil in the Astatula series. Areas of Paola soil, also excessively drained, are located in C6-S2, C32-S17, and C35-S30. Small areas of Candler soil, which is also excessively drained, are located in C4-S1, C6- S7, and C13-S4. Small areas of Orsino soil, which is moderately drained, are located in C35-S30.

Timber harvest, site preparation and reforestation treatments would have a beneficial effect on nutrient cycling, but may cause short-term, localized soil disturbance and minute reductions in soil fertility. Disturbance would be limited to the vegetative litter. Minor soil movement may occur, but none is expected out of the treated areas. Log landings or skid trails are localized areas of intensive soil disturbance. Harvest time on a given site would be about one week. Areas would establish ground cover quickly, usually within a few months following treatments, except in bare sandy patches. It would take one or two years to harvest all the stands proposed in either of the action alternatives.

The effects of prescribed burning on soil are discussed in the VMEIS (Volume I, pp. IV-80 through IV-85). The overall risk of prescribed burning to soil productivity would be minimal to low.

Site preparation by soil spot treatment with hexazinone is proposed for one 15 acre stand. Hexazinone is soil active, readily absorbed through the roots, and translocates upward. It is most effective during periods of rapid plant growth and frequent rainfall. It is mobile in soil, especially porous soil, and is broken down by soil microbes, with a half-life of 1 to 6 months, typically about 90 days. Hexazinone is frequently used for site preparation and release in pine management. It has no known effect on the physical or chemical properties of soil, or on soil biota at the proposed rate. The effects of herbicides on soil are discussed further in the VMEIS (Volume I, pp. IV-57 through IV-64).

Road surfacing material may move a few feet during heavy rains. However, the deep sandy soils of the ONF reduce erosion potential by rapidly absorbing rainfall. Native sandy clay from within the forest is normally used for road maintenance to enable logging equipment to access the harvest site. Road maintenance would have a long-term beneficial effect of erosion prevention. Roads to be decommissioned would be closed by moving debris, felling trees, or placing posts or mounds of dirt. There may be movement of soil or debris within a few feet of placement.

Soil productivity would be maintained by minimizing erosion, compaction, and rutting during timber sale administration. Use of Best Management Practices (S&G WA-1) would reduce the risk of erosion to a negligible amount. Other S&Gs that apply to this project to protect soils are: FI-7, FI-8, WA-2, and VG-14. Based on many years of experience with similar actions on similar soils, no permanent impairment of site productivity is expected.

Water

Affected Environment

All streams and lakes on the ONF that have been monitored meet State and Federal water quality standards. They are usually clear, very soft, acidic, and low in phosphorus. The ONF is bounded by the St. Johns and Ocklawaha rivers and has over 600 lakes and ponds. Sinkhole ponds are common. This project falls within two watersheds: Upper St. Johns (Hydrologic Unit Code 03080101) and Ocklawaha (HUC 03080102). Compartments 1, 2, 3, 14 and 15 are located near Lake Ocklawaha. Compartments 1, 6, 10 and 100 are located near the Ocklawaha River. Compartments 10, 11, 21 and 22 are located near Lake Delancy. Compartment 35 is located near Lake George. Compartments 21, 31 and 32 are located near Lake Kerr. Numerous small ponds are located in Compartment 35. Compartment 31 is located northeast of Lake Kerr, and northwest of Salt Springs. Most of the stands in this analysis are far from water. Water is described in the FEIS (pp. 3-7 through 3-15). The spatial scale for the water quality analysis was set as the stands of the action alternatives and nearby adjacent water bodies, as well as the haul roads and adjacent few feet. The temporal scale was set at three years.

Effects of Alternative A - No Action

No impacts on water are anticipated, since no actions are proposed.

Effects of Alternatives B and C

Sediment may be produced during timber harvest, site preparation, and reforestation treatments, but since most stands are far from water, no erosion into streams, lakes or ponds would be likely. Three locations are near water or wetlands: C1-S23 (Alt. C only), C35-S30, and C100-S4. One location has a small pond within the stand: C32-S17. Water and wetlands would be protected by a buffer of at least 35 feet (design feature 2). Harvesting timber and reducing forest vegetation by site preparation would reduce evapotranspiration and increase water yield (FEIS, p. 3-11).

Light severity prescribed burning would cause little or no erosion. Moderate severity burning is capable of causing minor erosion, but soil movement out of the burned areas to water is not expected.

Road surfacing material may be moved within the immediate construction area, but would not likely contribute sediment to wetlands or waterways due to the distance from the roads. Road maintenance would have a long-term beneficial effect of erosion prevention.

Water resources would be protected by design feature 2, monitoring item 3, and the following S&Gs: FI-7, FI-8, WA-1, and WA-2. Water quality standards would be met. Based on many years of experience with similar actions on similar sites, no adverse effects on water resources are expected.

Biological Components ______

Vegetation

Plant Communities

Affected Environment

The sand pine scrub ecosystem is described in the BE (Biological Evaluation) for plants (Appendix E) and in the FEIS (pp. 3- 15 through 3-65). Table 1 compares the current and desired sand pine age class distribution in the analysis area. The spatial scale for the vegetation analysis was set as the distribution of the scrub ecosystem on the ONF. The temporal scale was set at 10 years, because that is roughly when sand pine canopy closure begins. Table 8 demonstrates the trend toward increasing opening sizes in this ecosystem. Cogon grass and Japanese climbing fern are present in the project area, and would be treated prior to timber harvest. Design feature 10 would minimize the potential for introduction and spread of NNIS species.

Table 8. Trend Analysis of Scrub Opening Size on the Lake George Ranger District Average Range of Number Scrub Number Number Number Openings Decision Project Opening Opening Openings Acreage Stands Openings 100 to 149ac. Size (ac.) Size (ac.) ≥ 150 ac. 9/1999 Eco. Mgt. Sand Pine Scrub 2,409 60 54 44.6 13 to 137 1 0 5/2003 Scrub-jay 02-00-02 4,941 97 84 58.8 7 to 160 10 2 Hurricane Salvage 11/2004 3,257 72 61 53.4 7 to 201 4 3 (some Seminole RD areas) 2/2007 Scrub-jay FY-2004 2,199 37 33 66.6 14 to 160 7 1 9/2008 Scrub-jay Pipeline 3,087 44 37 83.4 15 to 157 6 7 n/a Hog Valley Scrub Alt. B 3,412 40 32 106.6 10 to 257 4 12 n/a Hog Valley Scrub Alt. C 3,425 36 24 142.7 21 to 257 5 13

Effects of Alternative A - No Action

No progress would be made toward the desired sand pine age class distribution. Vegetative composition and structure would change only as a result of natural processes. As the sand pine canopy dies it would be replaced by understory scrub oaks. Plant composition would change by succession to xeric oak hammock. Plant species that are intolerant of fire would dominate. Many scrub species that require and tolerate fire would eventually be absent in these stands.

Effects of Alternative B - Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would move 40 mature stands into 32 openings of young habitat, representing less than 2 % of the sand pine scrub ecosystem on the ONF. Similar actions over the last 10 years have modified about 12 % of this ecosystem. The

primary effect would be changes in plant community structure corresponding to stand age. The location of older stands would move over time as they are regenerated and younger stands age into the older age classes (FEIS, p. 3-65). The current understory of woody shrubs would change to an opening of re-sprouting shrubs, bare sand, and herbaceous plants. Early seral stage scrub plants would respond by flowering and setting seed.

Clearcutting is proposed as the harvest method for sand pine, because experience has shown it to be the optimum harvest method. It provides early successional habitat that is essential for most scrub endemics, both plants and animals. In addition, it is the most successful harvest method to support both artificial and natural regeneration in the sand pine scrub. Artificial regeneration is more successful than natural regeneration due to the closed nature of sand pine cones, and the limited season that seedlings can germinate and survive the high soil surface temperatures of the scrub environment. Post-harvest prescribed burning consumes woody debris and reduces the density of woody shrubs allowing better growth of other non-woody species and sand pine, though it does reduce sand pine natural regeneration. It simulates the same type of disturbance that naturally occurred on these sites from infrequent catastrophic wildfires, although prescribed fire produces a much cooler fire than a catastrophic wildfire.

Site preparation by soil spot treatment with hexazinone is proposed for one 15 acre off-site sand pine stand to be restored to longleaf pine sandhill. Hexazinone is generally selective, controlling most woody species that compete with longleaf pine seedlings for moisture and nutrients. The treatment would result in a vegetative cover that has more grasses, sedges, and forbs. Wiregrass and other herbaceous species would have a positive growth response following treatment.

Vegetation would not be affected by road reconstruction, maintenance, or decommissioning activities, because vegetation is not normally present in the roadway. Vegetation would be periodically affected by administrative travel on unauthorized roads selected to be added to the transportation plan for administrative use only.

Plant communities would be protected in a variety of ways by S&Gs, design features, and monitoring. Based on many years of experience with similar actions on similar sites, the long-term beneficial effects that result from the establishment of young scrub openings greatly outweigh the short-term disturbance of vegetation being cut, crushed and/or burned.

Effects of Alternative C - More Contiguous Scrub Habitat

Alternative C would move 36 mature stands into 24 openings of young habitat, representing less than 2 % of the sand pine scrub ecosystem on the ONF. Similar projects over the last 10 years have modified about 12 % of this ecosystem. Alternative C would produce a much larger average opening size than Alternative B. Other effects of Alternative C on vegetation would be similar to those described for Alternative B.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants

Affected Environment

The affected environment is described in the FEIS (pp. 3-15 through 3-66), the BE for the LRMP (FEIS, Appendix F), and the Plant BE for this project (Appendix E). One endangered species (Lewton's polygala), two threatened species (Florida bonamia, and scrub buckwheat), and nine sensitive species (Pinewoods bluestem, Mohr's threeawn, Curtis milkweed, Ashe's savory, Southern bogbutton, nodding pinweed, scrub bay, tough bully, and showy dawnflower) occur or are likely to occur in the project area. The LRMP included Florida bonamia, scrub buckwheat, and Lewton's polygala as Management Indicator Species (MIS) for scrub. See the 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Report for population and trend data on MIS. The spatial scale for the analysis of TES plant species was set as the distribution of the scrub ecosystem on the ONF. The temporal scale was set at 10 years, because that is about when sand pine canopy closure begins.

Effects of Alternative A - No Action

TES plant species would be adversely affected, because plant community structure and rare plant species composition would not be maintained in the project stands as they aged and became xeric hardwood hammocks. Low light situations would prevent these species from flowering and setting seed. The BE determination for federally listed endangered and threatened species is: likely to adversely affect. The BE determination for sensitive species is: may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

Effects of Alternatives B and C

Alternative B would provide about 3,412 acres of young open sunny scrub that TES plant species of this ecosystem favor, and Alternative C would provide about 3,425 acres. Even though a few individual plants may be crushed and/or burned, they are most often absent from mature stands, because of shading by the canopy.

Log skid trails and landings are small intensively disturbed areas, where individual TES plants may be killed. It is unlikely that this would result in adverse impacts at the local population level. Design feature 3 would reduce the risk to individual TES plants at log landings.

Post-harvest prescribed burning would stimulate germination of TES plants by scarifying seed in the soil seed bank and releasing a flush of nutrients. Many TES plants quickly re-sprout from rootstock following a fire.

Sites that are naturally regenerated without site preparation would initially have more scrub oaks than areas that are artificially regenerated. Scrub oaks and sand pines compete with TES plants for space, light, and nutrients. Due to the effects of roller chopping, artificially regenerated openings would provide more sandy patches and have less woody debris than naturally regenerated sites. Sites with lower sand pine stocking levels would provide better habitat conditions than areas of higher stocking, because these scrub TES plants typically flower better and persist longer in open sunny areas.

The BE determination for federally listed endangered and threatened species is: not likely to adversely affect. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with this effects determination (letter 10/5/2010).

The BE determination for sensitive species is: may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.

Based on many years of experience with similar actions on similar sites, the long-term benefits resulting from the establishment of young scrub openings greatly outweigh any short-term disturbance or individual mortality.

Wildlife

Wildlife Communities and Habitat

Affected Environment

The world's largest area of sand pine scrub ecosystem is located in the ONF. The analysis area for this project is primarily sand pine scrub. Wildlife communities and habitat are described in the FEIS for the 1999 Revised LRMP (pp. 3-66 through 3-98). The particular mix of wildlife species that use scrub in a given area depends on the length of time since disturbance. A diversity of scrub age classes is needed to sustain a diversity of wildlife populations. The existing condition within the project compartments is shown in Table 1.

Many wildlife species typical of sand pine scrub require or prefer young regenerating vegetation, and cannot inhabit mature sand pine forest with a closed canopy. Other species use young and mature scrub along with other habitats. Many wildlife species of young scrub are common in the ONF, but are rare elsewhere. Acorn production is maximized between the ages of one and seven years, and is essential to many wildlife species, especially the white-tailed deer, which is the most popular game animal in the ONF.

The species that inhabit mature scrub are common in the ONF and in other undeveloped areas of central Florida. No species of wildlife are restricted to mature scrub with a closed canopy.

Effects of Alternative A - No Action

The No Action alternative would forego an opportunity to increase diversity of habitat. Current conditions and trends would continue for awhile, but plant composition would change by succession to xeric oak hammock causing a change in the wildlife composition. Generalists and hardwood forest species such as blue jays, gray squirrels, flying squirrels, golden mice, and ground skinks would occupy the areas. The resulting oak hammock would be less suitable for pileated woodpeckers, kestrels, and other pine forest species, but would be more suitable for resident and migratory birds that favor hardwoods, such as tufted titmice, and black and white warblers. As the hammock canopy matured and closed, mast production would diminish and understory vegetation would be shaded, producing fewer seeds and berries. Loss of these food resources would reduce the abundance of wildlife species such as rabbits, squirrels, quail, dove, turkey, songbirds, and deer. Reduction in herbivore abundance would also lead to a lowered carrying capacity for omnivores and carnivores.

Effects of Alternative B - Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would move 40 mature stands into 32 openings of young habitat, representing less than 2 % of the sand pine scrub ecosystem on the ONF. The average opening size would be 106.6 acres. Similar actions over the last 10 years have modified about 12 % of this ecosystem.

Immediately following sand pine harvest, the pine seeds that are exposed would provide food for small mammals and ground-foraging birds, such as quail, turkey, and dove. Within a year after project completion the sites would provide browse plants and soft mast. After two years the sites would also provide highly abundant, seasonally persistent hard mast to benefit herbivorous and omnivorous wildlife species. As the oak height increased the scrub would be valued as bedding sites by deer, nesting sites for shrub-dwelling birds such as common yellowthroats, and cover and den habitat for more secretive species such as bobcat and Florida black bear.

Removal of mature sand pine forest would reduce nesting and foraging habitat for some species of migratory birds, such as great-crested flycatchers, American robins, and yellow-rumped warblers, but would increase nesting and foraging for other species, such as ovenbirds and southeastern kestrels. The standard practices of snag retention in clearcuts and installation of nest boxes for southeastern kestrels alleviate some of the impacts of tree removal on cavity nesting birds.

Harvest areas would provide herpetofauna that require early successional scrub with habitat from 1-2 years after project completion, until reduction of basking sites from increasing tree growth forces them to relocate (about 5-10 years).

Site preparation by soil spot treatment with hexazinone is proposed for one 15 acre off-site sand pine stand to be restored to longleaf pine sandhill. Hexazinone has a low toxicity to humans and wildlife, and does not bio-accumulate. Wildlife would not be adversely affected. Animals move away from human activity, and would not be sprayed directly with herbicide. Wildlife habitat would improve as the woody understory is replaced by herbaceous groundcover.

Decommissioning roads would reduce road system density, and benefit wildlife by reducing access by humans.

Based on many years of experience with similar actions on similar sites, the long-term beneficial effects that result from the establishment of early successional scrub habitat greatly outweigh the short-term adverse effects of disturbance, displacement, or mortality.

Effects of Alternative C - More Contiguous Scrub Habitat

Alternative C would move 36 mature stands into 24 openings of young habitat, representing less than 2 % of the sand pine scrub ecosystem on the ONF. The average opening size would be 142.7 acres. Similar actions over the last 10 years have modified about 12 % of this ecosystem. The effects of this alternative would be similar to those described for Alternative B, except that Alternative C was designed to provide larger openings and more immediate contiguous scrub habitat.

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife

Affected Environment

The affected environment is described in the BA (Biological Assessment) and BE for wildlife (Appendix C and D), and the BE for the LRMP (FEIS, Appendix F). The ONF provides early successional scrub openings which are habitat for the world's largest populations of Florida scrub lizards and Florida scrub-jays. Amendment 8 was prepared for the LRMP. This amendment will benefit scrub-jays by allowing larger openings, thereby increasing the total number of territories that can occupy each opening. In addition, more scrub-jay territories will be able to occupy the interior of openings. A greater number of interior territories should increase scrub-jay survival and productivity. Three threatened species (Florida scrub- jay, eastern indigo snake, and sand skink), and eight sensitive species (Florida mouse, Sherman's fox squirrel, Florida black bear, gopher tortoise, Florida pine snake, scrub lizard, short-tailed snake, and striped newt) occur or are likely to occur in the project area. The LRMP included the Florida scrub-jay and sand skink as MIS for scrub (LRMP Table 5.2, p. 5-9). See the 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Report for population and trend data on MIS.

Effects of Alternative A - No Action

The present opportunity to provide suitable habitat for TES species on these areas would be lost for some time as they develop into xeric hammock. Few scrub endemics and TES species would be able to inhabit these areas. The stands would not provide habitat for the Florida scrub-jay, Florida mouse, Florida scrub lizard, or gopher tortoise. Gopher tortoise burrows, essential refugia for eastern indigo snakes, would be much less abundant. Short-tailed snakes may be able to thrive in xeric oak forest, but the lack of understory cover may make it inhospitable for striped newts. Heavy shading in oak forests would make them unsuitable for sand skinks, which prefer patches of open sand and shrubby vegetation. The BA and BE for wildlife include effects discussions and rationales for the determinations.

The BA determination for federally listed species is: likely to adversely affect the Florida scrub-jay, eastern indigo snake, and sand skink.

The BE determinations for sensitive species are: likely to adversely impact the scrub lizard; may impact individuals, but not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for the Florida mouse, Florida black bear, gopher tortoise, Florida pine snake, and short-tailed snake; and no impact on the Sherman's fox squirrel, and striped newt.

Effects of Alternatives B and C

The action alternatives would provide important early successional scrub habitat for many Florida endemics, TES, and MIS wildlife species. TES wildlife would be protected by S&Gs, design features, and monitoring items.

The BA determinations for federally listed species are: likely to adversely affect the eastern indigo snake, and sand skink; and not be likely to adversely affect the Florida scrub-jay. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with these effects determinations (letter 10/5/2010). Even though habitat diversity would be improved, the determination of likely to adversely affect the eastern indigo snake was made, because there is some potential for individuals to be directly impacted by heavy machinery during harvest and site preparation activities. Even though habitat quality would be improved after harvest, the determination of likely to adversely affect the sand skink was made, because there is a small risk of mortality. These likely to adversely affect determinations parallel the determinations made in the Biological Opinion for the LRMP.

The BE determinations for sensitive species are: may impact individuals, but would not be likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for the scrub lizard, short-tailed snake, Sherman's fox squirrel, and striped newt; and beneficial impact on the Florida mouse, gopher tortoise, Florida black bear, and Florida pine snake.

Based on many years of experience with similar actions on similar sites, the long-term beneficial effects on TES wildlife that would result from the establishment of early successional scrub habitat would greatly outweigh any short-term adverse effects from disturbance, displacement or mortality.

The effects of the action alternatives would be similar, except that Alternative C was designed to provide larger average opening sizes and more immediate contiguous scrub habitat.

Socioeconomic Components ______

Economics

Affected Environment

The socioeconomic environment is described in the FEIS for the 1999 Revised LRMP (pp. 3-189 through 3-225). See references in Appendix B for internet links to profiles of Marion and Putnam counties.

The spatial scale for the economic analysis was set as Marion and Putnam counties, because the Proposed Action would result in tangible benefits mostly to companies and individuals in those areas. The temporal scale was set at three years following harvest, because the actions that affect economics would take place within that period.

Effects of Alternative A - No Action

The No Action alternative was not analyzed for financial efficiency, because there would be no associated dollar revenues or costs. This alternative would not measurably change employment, income or population in and around the ONF. No effects on the socioeconomic environment are anticipated.

Effects of Alternative B and C

A financial efficiency analysis of the action alternatives is summarized below. This analysis compared estimated expenditures with financial returns, and followed guidelines in the Forest Service Timber Sale Preparation Handbook (FSH 2409.18_30).

Table 9. Summary of Financial Efficiency Analysis - Alternative B Discounted Discounted Long-Term Benefit/Cost Category Short-Term Both Stands Regeneration Existing Stand Stand REVENUE Timber Sales 1,344,162 396,582 1,740,744 TOTAL REVENUES 1,344,162 396,582 1,740,744 FINANCIAL COSTS Analysis (NEPA) 9,018 2,132 11,150 Other Resource Support 9,018 3,156 12,174 Sale Preparation 87,371 27,500 114,871 Sale Administration 100,812 27,500 128,312 Road Work 78,511 0 78,511 Reforestation 482,775 109,524 592,299 TOTAL COSTS 767,505 169,812 937,317 Financial Present Net Value $ 576,658 $ 226,771 $ 803,427 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.75 2.34 1.86

Table 10. Summary of Financial Efficiency Analysis - Alternative C Discounted Discounted Long-Term Benefit/Cost Category Short-Term Both Stands Regeneration Existing Stand Stand REVENUE Timber sales 1,417,238 418,386 1,835,624 TOTAL REVENUES 1,417,238 418,386 1,835,624 FINANCIAL COSTS Analysis (NEPA) 9,405 2,140 11,545 Other Resource Support 9,405 3,168 12,573 Sale Preparation 92,120 29,012 121,132 Sale Administration 106,293 29,012 135,305 Road Work 79,425 0 79,425 Reforestation 503,450 109,941 613,391 TOTAL COSTS 800,099 173,273 973,372 Financial Present Net Value $ 617,139 $ 245,113 $ 862,252 Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.77 2.41 1.89

The action alternatives are financially very similar. Both alternatives would contribute beneficial effects from revenues and payments to contractors, but would not measurably change employment, income or population in and around the ONF. Based on many years of experience with similar actions, no adverse effects on the socioeconomic environment are anticipated.

Recreation and Scenery

Affected Environment

The affected environment is described in the FEIS for the 1999 Revised LRMP (pp. 3-133 through 3-143, and 3-154 through 3-160). Driving for sightseeing is popular on the ONF. Sand pine scrub is the most frequently seen ecosystem. All ages of scrub are visible from roads and trails, providing opportunities to view a variety of landscapes and wildlife. Visual quality meets LRMP standards, and complaints related to visual quality are very rare.

The Florida National Scenic Trail (FNST) is located in compartments 1 and 22. Motorized trails are located in compartments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21 and 22. Lake Delancy Campground is south of compartment 11. Salt Springs Campground is south of compartments 31 and 32. Little Lake George Wilderness is adjacent to the eastern portion of compartment 100.

The spatial scale for the analysis of recreation, scenery and safety was set as the stands of the action alternatives, adjacent stands, and the haul roads and adjacent few feet. The temporal scale was set at three years following harvest, because the actions that affect these resources would take place within that period.

Effects of Alternative A - No Action

Recreational opportunities would not be adversely affected, except that open vistas would not be created by timber harvests. The current scenery would remain, but trees would age until natural events (insects, disease, wind, fire, or succession) alter the landscape.

Effects of Alternatives B and C

Table 11. Scenery Analysis Treatment Acreage by VQO Treatment Acreage by VQO Opening Viewed From Alternative C - More Contiguous Alternative B - Proposed Action Location Scrub Habitat (Cmpt-Stand) New New Road Traffic Paved Motorized FNST MM M PR Opening MM M PR Opening Service Level Road Trail Size 2012* Size 2012* C1-S3 C, D - - Y - - 10 10 - - 10 - C1-S23 C, D - Y Y ------36 67 C1-S26 C, D - - Y - - 21 21 - - 21 - C2-S8 - - - - 75 - - 75 75 - - 75 C3-S17 D - - Y 168 - - 168 168 - - 168 C3-S29 D - - Y 164 - - 164 164 - - 164 C3-S32 - - - - 31 - - 31 31 - - 31 C4-S1 C - - - 33 - - 33 33 - - 33 C4-S18 C, D - - Y - - 168 168 - - 168 168 C4-S33 C, D - - Y 171 - - 197 171 - - 197 C4-S34 D - - Y 26 - - - 26 - - - C6-S2 C, D - - - - - 129 129 - - 129 129 C6-S7 D - - Y - - 70 172 - - 70 172 C6-S9 D - - Y - - 76 - - - 76 - C6-S24 D - - Y - - 26 - - - 26 - C10-S16 C Y - Y - - 233 233 - - 233 233 C11-S3 D - - Y - - 204 204 - - 204 204 C13-S4 D - - Y 110 - - 152 110 - - 152 C13-S10 - - - Y 25 - - 25 - - - - C13-S16 D - - Y 42 - - - 42 - - - C13-S17 D - - Y 21 - - 21 - - - - C13-S28 C - - Y 21 - - 21 21 - - 21 C15-S4 D - - Y 156 - - 216 156 - - 216 C15-S22 C - - Y - - - - 82 - - 112 C15-S39 C - - Y 30 - - 30 30 - - - C16-S4 D - - Y 24 - - - 24 - - - C16-S17 C - - - 18 - - 18 18 - - - C16-S19 C - - - 77 - - 77 163 - - 181 C16-S22 D - - - 32 - - 32 - - - - C16-S31 D - - Y 36 - - - 36 - - - C17-S16 C - - Y 10 - - 10 - - - - C21-S7 D - - Y - - 164 188 - - 164 188 C21-S8 D - - Y - 137 - 137 - 137 - 137 C21-S20 D - - Y - - 38 38 - - - - C21-S22 D - - Y - - 24 - - - 24 - C22-S40 C - - - - - 15 15 - - 15 15 C31-S8 D - - - - - 65 65 - - - - C32-S13 C - - - - - 135 135 - - 135 135 C32-S17 C - - - - - 184 184 - - 184 184 C32-S46 C - - - - 73 - 73 - 73 - 73 C35-S30 D - - - - - 257 257 - - 257 257 C100-S1 C - - Y - - 69 128 - - 69 128 C100-S4 C - - - - - 59 - - - 59 -

Totals 1,270 210 1,947 3,427 1,350 210 1,880 3,440

* To create larger openings several stands are located adjacent to additional stands VQO = Visual Quality Objective MM = Maximum Modification, M = Modification, PR = Partial Retention

Recreation and scenic resources are protected in a variety of ways by S&Gs and design features. The action alternatives would benefit the recreational activities of hiking, driving for sightseeing, wildlife viewing, and hunting by improving wildlife and game habitat in the affected stands. No effects on fishing are anticipated.

Smoke from prescribed burning may adversely affect visibility on roads and trails, causing a temporary safety hazard. Abiding by design feature 12 and S&Gs FI-1 and FI-4 would reduce this risk. The decreased visibility and increased particulate matter in the atmosphere would generally be limited in both duration and area.

The scenic and environmental goals of the FNST would be promoted by using trail protection measures at Compartment 1, Stand 23. (Alternative C, design feature 14)

Design feature 15 would promote public safety and resource protection along motorized trails.

Public information and education about scrub-jay management would be promoted as described in design feature 16. Some large openings may require leaving visual buffers of young scrub oaks in key locations to partially screen portions of openings from view.

Timber harvest and the connected activities of this project may cause temporary inconvenience to forest users and residents in the vicinity due to logging traffic, dust, and noise. Activities are visible to the greatest number of people along paved roads. Design feature 17 would promote scenic goals along a paved road by using a 100-foot slash treatment zone.

How and where visitors access the ONF is very important to the management of the National Forests in Florida. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines AC-1, IN-1, IN-2, and IN-3 provide guidance for access and road management infrastructure. The action alternatives are consistent with the Access Designation FEIS/ROD and the EA/DN for Route Designation in the Sand Pine Scrub Ecosystem for the ONF. Design feature 18 would block unauthorized travel routes, and ensure that management activities do not result in creation of new unauthorized access routes.

The action alternatives would decommission about 60.7 miles of road from the transportation system. These road segments are no longer needed for resource management, and were not selected to remain open to the public during the route designation process. Many of these roads are already physically closed on the ground, but some would require closure by moving debris, felling trees, or placing posts or mounds of dirt. Natural rehabilitation of the closed segments would be allowed to take place through non-use, but some areas may require active restoration based on site-specific conditions. (Design feature 19)

Blocking decommissioned roads by moving debris, felling trees, or placing posts or mounds of dirt would cause a short-term adverse impact on visual quality. Long-term visual quality would be improved as the natural appearance of the restored former road takes place.

Based on many years of experience with similar actions on similar sites, the action alternatives are likely to contribute adverse short-term effects (up to a few months) by temporary inconvenience, reduced visual quality, and reduced safety from smoke on roads from prescribed burning. Long-term beneficial effects (3-15 years) are expected from the creation of visually pleasing open vistas, improved wildlife and game habitat, and reduction of hazardous fuels.

Heritage Resources

Affected Environment

The sand pine scrub environment is considered the very lowest potential for archeological or historical sites on the ONF. This is primarily due to the extremely arid conditions of this environment. The stands proposed for this project are primarily located within the desert-like conditions of the deep sand pine scrub ecosystem of the ONF. Spatial and temporal effects scales were not established for the heritage resource, because no direct or indirect effects are anticipated. Heritage resources are described in the FEIS (pp. 3-101 through 3-105).

Effects of Alternative A - No Action

No impacts on heritage resources are anticipated.

Effects of Alternatives B and C

Findings are located in FY-11 Heritage Resources Status Report 1, Lake George Ranger District, Ocala NF, ACC# LKGF00430, which was prepared by the Ocala NF Archeologist and is administratively confidential. During the heritage resource survey, a total of 12 heritage resources were identified (eight archeological sites and four minor archeological occurrences). Four of the archeological sites are Class II potentially significant resources, and would be avoided during project implementation. The remaining archeological sites and archeological occurrences are Class III non-significant resources, and would not require avoidance during project implementation. The action alternatives would have no adverse effects on known heritage resources.

The State Historic Preservation Officer and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Seminole Tribe of Florida reviewed the heritage resources report and concurred with the findings. Consultation is complete.

Travel Management

Travel Management direction is located in 36 CFR 212.5, FSM 7700, as well as Forest-wide S&Gs IN-2 and IN-3. The interdisciplinary team used the travel analysis process (FSH 7709.55, Chapter 20) to evaluate the current needs, status, and impacts of roads in the project area. A minimum road system was identified.

The analysis determined that about 60.7 miles of Level 1 (closed) road are no longer needed for resource management and could be decommissioned from the transportation system. These roads were not selected to remain open to the public during the route designation process, but have remained on the transportation system pending a closer analysis. Many of the roads to be decommissioned are physically closed on the ground, but some would require closure by moving debris, felling trees, or placing posts or mounds of dirt. Natural rehabilitation of the closed segments would be allowed to take place through non- use, but some areas may require active restoration based on site-specific conditions.

The analysis also determined that about 21.7 miles of Level 1 (closed) roads could be re-designated as Level 2 roads that would remain closed to the public, but would be open for administrative use only.

These determinations were incorporated into the action alternatives (B and C), and design feature 19 was developed.

Environmental Justice and Civil Rights

No disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impact on minority populations, low income populations, or Indian tribe is likely to result from the selection of any of the alternatives. None of the alternatives are expected to have negative effects on the civil rights of citizens of Marion and Putnam counties or the surrounding area. No minorities would be discriminated against. No groups of people would be disproportionably affected. All labor contracts prepared to implement either of the action alternatives would have clauses that prohibit discrimination. There are no foreseeable changes in the management of the forest or surrounding private lands that would adversely affect the civil rights of people in the future.

Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity

The short-term uses (actions) of Alternatives B and C would sustain or increase long-term ecosystem productivity. Mature stands of sand pine scrub would be regenerated through timber harvest and connected treatments. Species diversity and high productivity would be maintained as early successional stages are established.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Effects of Alternative A - No Action

The No Action alternative would result in the loss of timber volume offered for wood processing as the damaged mature trees are recycled by wildfire, or death and decay. While this would be an irretrievable commitment (lost for a period of time), it is not irreversible (one-way) since the areas may become naturally restocked or could be prescribe burned, site prepared and seeded by a future project.

Effects of Alternatives B and C

The action alternatives would result in the harvest of crookedwood and sand pine, followed by prescribed burning, site preparation and natural or artificial regeneration. Some other existing trees and vegetation would be burned and/or crushed. Some localized soil disturbance may occur, but would be well within the parameters established in the Forest Plan. These alternatives would result in an irretrievable commitment of resources (lost for a period of time), but the result would not be irreversible (one-way), since much of the vegetation would re-sprout, and the areas would be regenerated.

Cumulative Effects ______

One aspect of cumulative effects is the potential for direct and indirect effects of the separate actions of a project to incrementally accumulate on a particular resource (Table 12).

Table 12. Potential Contribution of Effects

Net Resource Effects Using Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and Project Design Features

a a

Separate Actions of

the Proposed

Action

Scenery

Air Soil Water Vegetation Plants TES Wildlife Wildlife TES Economics Recreation and Heritage Harvest Sand Pine 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + 0 and Crookedwood Roller Chop 0 0 0 Mixed Mixed + + - + 0 Prescribed Burn - 0 0 + + + + - - 0 Seed Sand Pine 0 0 0 + - - - + 0 0 Restore Longleaf 0 0 0 + + + + + + 0 Sandhill Road Reconstruction and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 Maintenance Decommission Level 1 (closed) + + + + + + + + + 0 Roads Re-designate Level 1 Roads to Level 2 0 0 0 - - - - 0 0 0 for Admin. Use Summary of Effects that could Mixed + + Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed 0 Accumulate 0 No Effect, - Adverse Effect, + Beneficial Effect

Cumulative effects may also result from the contribution of effects of the project to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (with overlapping spatial and temporal effects scales) regardless of land ownership (Table 13).

Table 13. Effects of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions and Disturbances

Estimate of Effects with Spatial and Temporal Overlap with the Proposed Action

Actions and

Disturbances

Scenery

Air Soil Water Vegetation Plants TES Wildlife Wildlife TES Economics Recreation and Heritage Adverse Projects on ------+ 0 0 Private Lands Projects on State - 0 0 Mixed Mixed + + Mixed + 0 and County Lands Prescribed Burning - 0 0 + + + + - + 0 on ONF Wildfires on ONF - Mixed 0 + + + + - + 0 Hurricanes and - 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - 0 Wind Storms Pine Timber 0 Mixed 0 + Mixed + + + + 0 Harvest on ONF Motorized Vehicle - - 0 0 0 - - + + 0 Access Designation

Summary of Effects of other Actions - Mixed - Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed 0 and Disturbances 0 No Effect, - Adverse Effect, + Beneficial Effect

The potential for the action alternatives to contribute resource effects that may accumulate with, compensate for, or interact with the effects of other actions and disturbances (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable) on all ownerships within the same resource specific spatial and temporal scales is summarized in Table 14 below.

Table 14. Potential Cumulative Effects

Resource Effects with Potential to Contribute to Cumulative Effects

Actions and

Disturbances

Scenery Scenery

conomics

eritage

egetation ecreation

Air Soil Water V Plants TES Wildlife Wildlife TES R and H

Potential Contribution of Mixed + + Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed 0 Effects (See Table 12) Effects of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable - Mixed - Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed Mixed 0 Actions and Disturbances (See Table 13) Potential Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Cumulative Effects 0 No Effect, - Adverse Effect, + Beneficial Effect

Magnitude of Effects of Alternatives B and C

The action alternatives would modify about 3,400 acres of the sand pine scrub ecosystem by timber harvest and connected actions over about two years. This amounts to less than 2 % of this ecosystem on the ONF. Similar actions over the last 10 years have modified about 12 % of this ecosystem. The action alternatives are equivalent to about 13 % of these similar past actions. Reasonably foreseeable actions over the next 10 years are estimated to modify between 14 and 18 % of this ecosystem in a similar manner. Either of the action alternatives would be about 8 to 11 % of those reasonably foreseeable actions.

Based on many years of experience, reasonably foreseeable actions and disturbances are likely to contribute effects similar in type, magnitude, and significance to those identified above for past and present actions and disturbances. Adverse cumulative effects are expected to be negligible or non-existent. No significant adverse cumulative effects have been documented for similar previous projects, and none are anticipated from either of the action alternatives.

AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED

The Forest Service consulted with the following agencies, tribes, organizations and individuals during the development of this environmental assessment:

Table 15. Agencies and Persons Consulted Interdisciplinary Team Jim Beeler, Clay Electric Cooperative, Salt Springs, FL Margie Beiling, Ft. McCoy, FL Jerry Boyer, Engineering, ONF, NFF Deb Blick, FTA, Gainesville, FL Frank Brandt, NEPA Team Leader, ONF, NFF John Boyd, CFDHA, Ocklawaha, FL William Carromero, Botany, ONF, NFF Jim Buckner, Silver Springs, FL Jay Garcia, Wildlife Biology, ONF, NFF Andy Caldwell, Umatilla, FL Janet Hinchee, Silviculture, ONF, NFF Gary Cary, Alltel Florida Inc., Alachua, FL Robert Macon, Engineering, ONF, NFF Les Cockram, FL Gas Transmission Co., Silver Springs, FL Ray Willis, Archeology, ONF, NFF Randall David, Woodbury, TN Eckerd Family Youth Alternatives, Inc., Silver Springs, FL Federal, State and Local Agencies Sandra Fehring, Ocklawaha, FL FL Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL Michael Abbott, FWC, Ocala, FL Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Hawthorne, FL

Scott Berish, FWC, Ocala, FL Katie Gill, Audubon of Florida, Maitland, FL Andrea Boliek, FWC, Palatka, FL Phil Gornicki, FL Forestry Assoc., Tallahassee, FL Mike Brooks, FWC, Tallahassee, FL Francine Grady, Wiersdale, FL David Buchanan, DEP, Div. of Recreation and Parks, Tallahassee, FL Paul Gray, The Wildlife Society, Lorida, FL Dennis David, FWC, Ocala, FL Mike Hauptkorn, Wildwood, FL Craig Faulhaber, FWC, Ocala, FL Jennifer Hawkins, FL Four Wheel Drive Assoc., Fernandina Beach, FL Kipp Frohlich, FWC, Tallahassee, FL Joan Hobson, FTA, Minneola, FL James Gragg, FWC, Ocala, FL Breck Johnson, Astor, FL David Hankla, USDI, FWS, Jacksonville, FL Paul Johnson, Crawfordville, FL David Harris, Forest Planner, NFF Mike Jones, CFDHA, Clermont, FL Lake County Board of Commissioners, Tavares, FL Jason Kawaja, FL Four Wheel Drive Assoc., Newberry, FL Marion County Board of Commissioners, Ocala, FL Glen Knight, Knight Forest Products, Tallahassee, FL Lauren Milligan, DEP, FL State Clearinghouse, Tallahassee, FL Nick Krupa, Astor, FL Ken Outcalt, USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA Robert Lee, Hillsborough, NC Putnam County Board of Commissioners, Palatka, FL Robin Lewis, Save Our Big Scrub Inc., Salt Springs, FL Ben West, U.S. EPA, Atlanta, GA Laurie MacDonald, Defenders of Wildlife, St. Petersburg, FL Nick Wiley, FWC, Tallahassee, FL Guy Marwick, Silver Springs, FL Laurie Milam, Florida Native Nursery Inc., Plant City, FL Tribes Jack Miller, Astor, FL Joe Murphy, Sierra Club, St. Petersburg, FL Colley Billie, Chairman, Miccosukee Indian Tribe, Miami, FL Brett Paben, WildLaw Florida Office, Orlando, FL Mitchell Cypress, Chairman, Seminole Tribe of Florida, Hollywood, FL Bob Simons, Gainesville, FL A. D. Ellis, Principal Chief, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Okmulgee, OK William Sloup, DeBary, FL Leonard Harjo, Principal Chief, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Christine Small, Defenders of Wildlife, Tallahassee, FL Wetumka, OK Deborah Stewart-Kent, FTA, Gainesville, FL Tiger Hobia, Town King, Kialegee Tribal Town, Wetumka, OK Sandra Tydings, Silver Springs, FL Buford Rolin, Chairman, Poarch Creek Indians, Atmore, AL UF, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Gainesville, FL Tarpie Yargee, Chief, Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Wetumka, OK Van Wagner Timber Inc., Citra, FL Kent Wimmer, FTA, Tallahassee, FL Organizations and Individuals Brian Zielinski, National Wild Turkey Federation, Deland, FL

Guy Anglin, Tallahassee, FL Richard Artley, Grangeville, ID

Appendix A

Maps

Appendix B

References

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Florida‟s Wildlife Legacy Initiative. Florida‟s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Habitat subchapter: Scrub. Tallahassee, FL http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_Scrub.pdf

Long, A.L. 1999. Prescribed Burning Regulations in Florida, FOR 67. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, IFAS Extension, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FR055

Marion County Profile http://www.eflorida.com/profiles/CountyReport.asp?CountyID=66&Display=all

Monroe, M.C. 1999. Where There‟s Fire, There‟s Smoke: Air Quality and Prescribed Burning in Florida, FOR 62. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, IFAS Extension, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/FR058

Putnam County Profile http://www.eflorida.com/profiles/CountyReport.asp?CountyID=35&Display=all

Silviculture Best Management Practices. 2000. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Tallahassee, FL. http://www.fl-dof.com/forest_management/bmp/index.html

State of Florida. 2007. Rule Chapter: 68A-27 Rules Relating to Endangered or Threatened Species. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome.asp?Chapter=68A-27

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final EIS for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region. Atlanta, GA. http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/planning/documents/vegmgmt/coastal/

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management, Agriculture Handbook Number 701. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Florida, Management Bulletin R8-MB-83A; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL. http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/florida/projects/documents/forest_plan/forest_plan.shtml

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Roads Analysis Report, Ocala National Forest, Forest-Scale Road Analysis, FSM 7712.13b. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Final EIS for Access Designation in Restricted Areas on the Ocala National Forest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL. http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/florida/projects/documents/nepa/OcalaFEIS.shtml

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Environmental Assessment for Ocala National Forest Prescribed Burning. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Environmental Assessment for Florida Scrub-jay Project FY-2004. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Environmental Assessment for Route Designation in the Sand Pine Scrub Ecosystem of the Ocala National Forest. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL. http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/florida/projects/documents/nepa/ocala/phase2/ocala_ea_12_07.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Environmental Assessment for Florida Scrub-jay Pipeline. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL.

USDA Forest Service. 2008 (Updated 2009). Sand Pine/Scrub Ecosystem Landscape Scale Assessment. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Scenery Treatment Guide – Southern Regional National Forests. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Atlanta, GA. ftp://ftp2.fs.fed.us/incoming/r8/Florida/amendment_9/Scenery_Treatment_Guide_April08.doc

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment 8 Updating Gopher Tortoise, Bald Eagle, Flatwoods Salamander and Florida Scrub-jay Direction. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL. http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/florida/documents/forest_plan/amend8-fonsi-dn.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2010. 2009 Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report National Forests in Florida. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL. http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/florida/documents/2009_forest_monitoring.pdf

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf

Willis, R.F., 2010. FY-11 Heritage Resources Status Report 1, Lake George Ranger District, Ocala NF, ACC# LKGF00430. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, (administratively confidential).

Also see the literature cited in Appendix C - Biological Assessment (Wildlife), Appendix D - Biological Evaluation (Wildlife), and Appendix E - Biological Evaluation (Plants).

Appendix C

Biological Assessment (Wildlife)

Clarification / correction –

The last action item listed for alternatives B and C in this BA states: “Add about 27.8 miles of existing unauthorized roads to the minimum road system.”

The new wording matches the action item for alternatives B and C listed in the EA: “Re-designate about 21.7 miles of Level 1 (closed) roads as Level 2 roads that would remain closed to the public, but would be open for administrative use only.

Biological Assessment (Wildlife) for the Hog Valley Scrub Project

On the Ocala National Forest

Marion County, Florida September 14, 2010

Prepared by: __/s/ Jay Garcia______Date: 9/14/2010 Jay Garcia Wildlife Biologist Ocala National Forest

Signed by: __/s/Carolyn Sekerak______Date: __9/14/2010 Carrie Sekerak Zone Wildlife Biologist Ocala National Forest

USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service Ocala National Forest Ocala National Forest Seminole Ranger District Lake George Ranger District 40929 State Road 19 17147 East Highway 40 Umatilla, FL 32784 Silver Springs, FL 34488 (352) 669-3153 (352) 625-2520

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Biological Assessment (BA) documents the analysis and rationale for the potential effects of a specific planned Forest Service activity on federally threatened, endangered, or proposed wildlife species. The BA serves to: ensure that proposed actions do not contribute to loss of viability or a trend towards Federal listing for any threatened, endangered, or proposed species; comply with requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, in which actions of Federal agencies shall not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat of listed species; and provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered, and proposed species receive full consideration in the decision making process.

This BA considers the potential effects of the Hog Valley Scrub Project (USDA Forest Service 2009) on federally threatened, endangered, or proposed wildlife species. The best available science was used for this analysis of potential effects, including recent scientific literature, correspondence with knowledgeable individuals in scientific/land management professions, field surveys, and personal observation. Scientific literature used in the document is included in the references section.

The wildlife species addressed in this document were selected from the Florida Federal Species List from the USFWS (Table 1). Although not federally listed, the bald eagle was included in the analysis to communicate compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Appendix I contains three listed species that may occur in or near the Ocala National Forest (ONF) but have no detailed effects analysis because the project area does not contain suitable habitat or is outside the known range of the species.

Table 1. Wildlife Species Included in Analysis Taxa Scientific Name Common Name Bird Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida Scrub-Jay Bird Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Reptile Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern Indigo Snake Reptile Neoseps reynoldsi Sand Skink

2.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and pursuant to Section 7 of said act, formal consultation on the Biological Assessment for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests in Florida was requested by the Regional Forester in a letter dated September 18, 1998 (USDA Forest Service 1999). On December 18, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Biological Opinion on the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan.

The Biological Opinion concurred with the Forest Service’s “not likely to affect” determination for 13 federally listed species, and provided terms and conditions for incidental take for five wildlife species that received a “may affect” determination. The Biological Opinion also stated that the “level of anticipated take [was] not likely to result in jeopardy to the species” for the Florida Scrub-Jay, Red- cockaded Woodpecker, Eastern Indigo Snake, Sand Skink, Flatwoods Salamander, and Flatwoods Salamander critical habitat (USDA Forest Service 1999). Issuance of the Biological Opinion concluded all formal consultation on the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests in Florida.

3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

The Ocala National Forest is proposing to implement the Hog Valley Scrub project (see Maps 1 – 4). The project includes wildlife, fuels, forest products, and timber management activities along with prescribed burning for site preparation in some harvested units. Two management action alternatives have been developed. These two alternatives and a no action alternative are described below and evaluated with regard to their potential effects on federally listed species.

All aspects of the proposed project, with the exception of one timber stand, occur within Management Area (MA) 8.2 (Sand Pine, Mixed Regeneration, Moderate Openings) as described on page 4-46 in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the National Forests in Florida (USDA Forest Service 1999). Note that changes in the desired condition for MA 8.2 and two guidelines (8.2-3 and 8.2-7) have been implemented under LRMP Amendment 8. Also refer to the Amendment 8 Replacement Pages for the changes to the Desired Future Conditions (available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/florida/ocala/resources/planning.php?p=1.1.6.1). One stand (2240) is within Management Area 7.1 (Longleaf/Slash Pine, Adaptive Management, RCW Management), which is described on page 4-39 in the LRMP.

The goals of the Hog Valley Scrub Project are to perpetuate the sand pine scrub ecosystem and provide early successional scrub habitat for the Florida Scrub-Jay, Sand Skink, Indigo Snake, and other species dependent on this habitat. Detailed descriptions of goals for this habitat are in the Desired Future Conditions section for Management Area 8.2 in the LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1999).

3.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative

The “No Action” alternative (Alternative A) provides a baseline by which to compare the proposed management alternatives. Under Alternative A, proposed activities in the project area would not be carried out. No vegetation or wildlife management would take place, and no timber harvests would occur. Changes to vegetative structure and composition would occur only as the result of natural processes. Current uses of the area would continue. No progress would be made towards the desired age class distribution of early successional sand pine scrub habitat as described in the Revised LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1999). Ongoing Forest Service permitted and approved activities would continue in the project area. 3.2 Alternative B: Management Action Alternative (Proposed Action)

The activities described for Alternative B are proposed for an area located on National Forest lands in Marion County, Florida and involve a total of 3,412 acres in 41 stands within 17 compartments on the Lake George Ranger District. (Note that some stands may have more than one proposed action occurring within their boundaries.)

The proposed actions are: Harvest crookedwood on 3,412 acres prior to sand pine harvest. Clear-cut (harvest) merchantable sand pines on 2,991 acres over the next two years. Prescribe burn and/or roller-chop 3,412 acres of harvested sand pine habitat for site preparation over the next two years. Reforest 3,337 acres of sand pine via natural regeneration or row seeding over the next two years. Convert one 33-acre sandhill stand by removing about 15 acres of off-site sand pine, performing site preparation and then planting longleaf pine. Reconstruct 4.1 miles of Forest Service roads necessary for contractor access to project stands. Maintain 32.3 miles of existing Forest Service roads. Use then obliterate 0.9 miles of administrative-use only roads from the road system. Decommission 60.7 miles of roads from the transportation system. Add 27.8 miles of existing unauthorized roads to the minimum road system.

Proposed Actions in Detail Harvest 2,991 acres of merchantable sand pine. Stands scheduled for harvest would be sold in fiscal year 2010 and/or 2011, and harvest activities must occur within three years of sale. Crooked wood (Lyonia ferruginea) harvests may be conducted in project stands prior to harvest via permit. During crookedwood harvest activities, the trunks of the crookedwood plant are cut at the base. The rhizomatous trunks grow back after cutting. Crookedwood harvests are possible on 3,412 acres of Forest lands within this project.

Roller-chop and prescribe burn 3,412 acres of harvested sand pine habitat for site preparation. Roller-chopping uses large drums with 0.75 to 1.0 inch long blades that are spaced 12 to 18 inches apart. Chopper blades sink 8 to 10 inches into the soil and typically disturb 90% of vegetation less than 6 inches in diameter. Chopping breaks down post-harvest logging debris, prepares the seed bed, and moderates oak resprouting. A roller-chopping layout that leaves intermittent areas of undisturbed vegetation (i.e., the “sloppy chop”) is encouraged to promote small-scale habitat variability. Roller- chopping treatments would be performed within 12 months of harvest. Prescribed burning may also be carried out as a method of site preparation when conditions allow. The effects of prescribed burning

on TES species are also addressed in the Biological Evaluation of the Effects of Prescribed Burning on Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Wildlife Species (USDA 2006). Prescribed burning prepares the seed bed by removing leaf litter and removing larger logging slash.

Reforest 3,337 acres of sand pine scrub. Regeneration activities (seeding) would be carried out within 12 to 15 months of harvest and would occur after roller-chopping or prescribed burning activities. Seeding uses a farm tractor with attachments that drop sand pine seeds in an arrangement providing 6’ x 8’ spacing throughout the stand. Cables on the front and back of the tractor prepare the soil and cover up the seed after it is dropped. In stands that appear to have sufficient natural regeneration, every other row is seeded.

Convert one 33-acre sandhill stand back to longleaf pine. Stand 2240 will have off-site sand pines removed via harvest. The stand will undergo site preparation by the application of hexazinone and/or prescribed burning. Longleaf seedlings will later be hand-planted and released from competition using hand tools if necessary.

Reconstruct 4.1 miles of Forest Service roads. Road reconstruction involves re-pulling/re-shaping ditches and possibly the addition of clay or rock where necessary to support logging trucks. Maintain 32.3 miles of Forest Service road. Road maintenance involves clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control. Use and obliterate 0.9 miles of Forest Service administrative roads. Road obliteration involves closing former roads by felling large trees or otherwise preventing continued use of the travelway. Decommission 60.7 miles of Forest Service roads. Decommissioning removes Forest Service roads that are no longer needed for management purposes from the transportation system. Add 27.8 miles of existing unauthorized roads to the minimum road system. These roads would be open for administrative use only. No roads are physically being created. This action involves simply keeping previously-closed roads available for administrative use.

Table 1 displays the compartments, stands, and acreages of proposed treatments for Alternative B. Acreages are approximate.

3.3 Alternative C: Deferral of Small, Isolated Timber Stands

The activities described for Alternative C are located on National Forest System lands in Marion County, Florida and involve a total of 3,425 acres in 37 stands within 15 compartments on the Lake George Ranger District. (Note that some stands may have more than one proposed action occurring within their boundaries.)

Early comments expressed a concern that some of the openings to be created in the proposed action would be too small to be effective as quality habitat for Florida Scrub-Jays. Alternative C addresses this issue by not treating six smaller stands and roughly maintaining the same harvest level through the addition of three stands that lie adjacent to other proposed harvest stands.

Convert one 33-acre sandhill stand by removing off-site sand pine, performing site preparation and then planting longleaf pine. Maintain 31.2 miles of existing Forest Service roads. All other road-related actions (reconstruction, use/obliteration, decommission, addition) are identical to Alternative B.

Proposed Actions in Detail The details of the proposed actions are the same as described above for Alternative B. Table 2 displays the compartment, stand, and acreages of proposed treatments for Alternative C. Acreages are approximate.

3.4 Summary of differences between Alternatives B and C

The only differences between Alternatives B and C are the distribution and composition of proposed treatments across the landscape. Alternative B proposes to cut six smaller stands, each no larger than 65 acres (Stands 1310, 1317, 1622, 1716, 2120, and 3108) scattered across the project area. Four of the six stands were regeneration failures and will not undergo timber extraction. Alternative B also harvests stand 1619 as a split 77-acre stand. Instead of the six small stands in Alternative B, Alternative C includes fewer, larger scrub stands closer to other proposed treatment stands. Alternative C also harvests Stand 1619 as a single 163-acre opening that connects with a nearby stand, creating a larger 181-acre total opening.

The overall result is that Alternative C provides more immediate contiguous scrub habitat. Although some treatments in Alternative B are smaller, the regeneration of these smaller stands are part of the process of “cleaning up” scattered merchantable scrub stands and combining them into larger contiguous openings of suitable scrub-jay habitat. Future projects will treat nearby stands to create larger openings. Eventually, multiple stands will be synchronized so that they can be combined and treated as one larger unit. Harvesting these stands in their current context is the first step towards achieving a landscape of larger habitat blocks.

All proposed actions in the current project are consistent with and do not exceed the scope of activities described within the Revised LRMP and subsequent amendments.

Table 1. Details of Alternative B Treatment Harvest Prescribe Natural New Scrub Total Scrub Harvest Convert Stand Sand Burn and/or Regeneration Opening Opening Size 2012 Crookedwood Stand to (Compartment- Pine Roller Chop or Row Seed Size 2012 (all adjacent stands (ac.) Longleaf Stand) (ac.) (ac.) (ac.) (ac.) 0-6 yrs of age, ac.) C1-S3 10 10 10 10 10 10 - C1-S26 21 21 21 21 21 21 - C2-S8 75 - 75 - 75 172 - C3-S17 168 168 168 168 168 168 - C3-S29 164 164 164 164 164 336 - C3-S32 31 10 31 31 31 - - C4-S1 33 - 33 33 33 33 - C4-S18 168 168 168 168 168 328 - C4-S33 171 171 171 171 197 545 - C4-S34 26 - 26 26 - - - C6-S2 129 129 129 129 129 - - C6-S7 70 70 70 70 172 478 - C6-S9 76 76 76 76 - - - C6-S24 26 5 26 26 - - - C10-S16 233 233 233 233 233 233 - C11-S3 204 204 204 204 204 204 - C13-S4 110 110 110 110 152 412 - C13-S10 25 - 25 25 25 - - C13-S16 42 - 42 42 - - - C13-S17 21 - 21 21 21 21 - C13-S28 21 - 21 21 21 - - C15-S4 156 156 156 156 216 216 - C15-S39 30 30 30 30 30 30 - C16-S4 24 - 24 24 - - - C16-S17 18 - 18 18 18 18 - C16-S19 77 77 77 77 77 77 - C16-S22 32 - 32 32 32 32 - C16-S31 36 36 36 36 - - - C17-S16 10 10 10 10 10 10 - C21-S7 164 164 164 164 188 - - C21-S8 137 137 137 137 137 441 - C21-S20 38 - 38 38 38 38 - C21-S22 24 - 24 24 - - - C22-S40 - 15 - - N/A N/A 15 C31-S8 65 65 65 65 65 - - C32-S13 135 135 135 135 135 135 - C32-S17 184 184 184 184 184 279 - C32-S46 73 73 73 73 73 104 - C35-S30 257 257 257 257 257 257 - C100-S1 69 69 69 69 128 171 - C100-S4 59 59 59 59 - - - Totals 3412 3006 3412 3337 3412 4769 15

Table 2. Details of Alternative C Treatment Harvest Prescribe Natural New Scrub Total Scrub Convert Harvest Stand Sand Burn and/or Regeneration Opening Opening Size 2012 Stand to Crookedwoo (Compartment Pine Roller Chop or Row Seed Size 2012 (all adjacent stands Longlea d (ac.) -Stand) (ac.) (ac.) (ac.) (ac.) 0-6 yrs of age, ac.) f C1-S3 10 10 10 10 - - - C1-S23 36 36 36 36 67 612 - C1-S26 21 21 21 21 - - - C2-S8 75 - 75 - 75 172 - C3-S17 168 168 168 168 168 168 - C3-S29 164 164 164 164 164 336 - C3-S32 31 10 31 31 31 - - C4-S1 33 - 33 33 33 33 - C4-S18 168 168 168 168 168 328 - C4-S33 171 171 171 171 197 - - C4-S34 26 - 26 26 - - - C6-S2 129 129 129 129 129 - - C6-S7 70 70 70 70 172 478 - C6-S9 76 76 76 76 - - - C6-S24 26 5 26 26 - - - C10-S16 233 233 233 233 233 233 - C11-S3 204 204 204 204 204 204 - C13-S4 110 110 110 110 152 387 - C13-S16 42 - 42 42 - - - C13-S28 21 - 21 21 21 - - C15-S4 156 156 156 156 216 216 - C15-S22 82 82 82 82 112 216 C15-S39 30 30 30 30 - - - C16-S4 24 - 24 24 - - - C16-S17 18 - 18 18 - - - C16-S19 163 163 163 163 181 181 - C16-S31 36 36 36 36 - - - C21-S7 164 164 164 164 188 441 - C21-S8 137 137 137 137 137 - - C21-S22 24 - 24 24 - - - C22-S40 - 15 - - N/A N/A 15 C32-S13 135 135 135 135 135 135 - C32-S17 184 184 184 184 184 279 - C32-S46 73 73 73 73 73 104 - C35-S30 257 257 257 257 257 257 - C100-S1 69 69 69 69 128 171 - C100-S4 59 59 59 59 - - - Totals 3425 3135 3425 3350 3425 4951 15

3.5 Design Criteria

Design criteria are included to minimize or eliminate potential negative effects of proposed actions. Criteria listed below are from the Forestwide Standards & Guidelines section of the LRMP and are applicable for the current project. Other criteria are specific to this project or suggest a stricter application of an existing Standard or Guideline.

Timber Production Measures If herbicides are used for site preparation, use only spot grid or strip application or individual stem or directed foliar spray. (LRMP 3-20 VG-19)

Use the following restocking level as guides in conjunction with professional judgment to determine acceptable restocking based on the likelihood that additional efforts will greatly increase stocking, site capability for timber production, and ecosystem health objectives. Sand pine: 200 (lower level) – 1,500 (upper level); Longleaf pine (for stand 2240): 200 (lower level) – 1,200 (upper level). (LRMP 3-20 VG- 21)

Use clearcut as the preferred method of final harvest in sand pine. Use all other silvicultural practices to meet site-specific needs. (LRMP 3-20 VG-25)

During sand pine harvesting, leave as many standing snags as possible. If an average of one snag per acre is not present, leave live trees to bring the total to one per acre. Where possible, to enhance visual quality, leave clumps of up to 4 trees. (LRMP 3-20 VG-26)

Decide, on a case-by-case basis, to protect oak scrub stands or convert them to sand pine stands. Scrub- jay habitat suitability is one of the considerations in the decision. (LRMP 3-20 VG-27)

Watershed and Air Clearcut harvesting will not occur within 35 feet of lakes and ponds 2 acres or larger, seasonal lakes and ponds, and all sinkholes that open to the Florida aquifer, as set forth in the Revised 2000 Silviculture Best Management Practices Manual. (LRMP 3-24 WA-2 and WA-3)

During prescribed burning operations, suppressant foam will not be applied within wetland ecotones when wetlands are holding water, and foaming agent containers will not be rinsed in wetlands. (Prescribed Burning BE)

Wildlife Protection Measures Protect bald eagle breeding areas by meeting the guidelines established in the most recent version of the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (see project specific design criteria below). (Forest Plan Amendment #8)

Indigo snakes and gopher tortoises will be moved out of harm’s way or otherwise protected from harm when encountered by personnel, cooperators, or contractors engaged in activities that endanger individual specimens. (LRMP 3-29 WL-10)

Timber contractors undergo an educational program that includes information on the physical characteristics of the snake, life history, and types of habitats where the snake is found. Contractors are

also instructed to comply with Standards and Guidelines WL-10-12. This measure is as put forth in the Biological Opinion for the Revised LRMP.

Every gopher tortoise burrow will have 15-foot radius marked around its entrance and heavy equipment will stay out of this marked zone during harvesting and regeneration. (LRMP 3-29 WL-11)

Project Specific Harvest or site preparation activities will occur in Compartment 35, Stand 30 only after bald eagle chicks from the nearby nest have fledged or breeding activity has otherwise stopped. Determination would be based on forthcoming survey results from the state wildlife agency, or treatment would be deferred until after April 1, 2011 based on status data from the December 2010 nest surveys.

No roller-chopping activities will occur from May to August to prevent destruction of the eggs or young of ground-nesting birds and herpetofauna.

If actively occupied striped newt ponds are discovered within or adjacent to the project area, the potential habitat of any terrestrial striped newts would be protected from roller-chopping with a 700- foot radius buffer from the occupied wetland margin.

4.0 FEDERALLY ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE SPECIES

4.1 Species Not Considered Potential effects on three endangered species are not considered because treatment area is outside the established range of the species or does not contain habitat associated with the species. The proposed actions will have no effect on these species. A list of species not considered and short explanations are in Appendix I.

4.2 Florida Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) Effects of Alternative A: No Action The no action alternative would be likely to adversely affect (LAA) the Florida Scrub-Jay because deferring management action would leave regeneration of early successional habitat solely to the effects of natural processes.

Deferring management would indirectly adversely impact the Florida Scrub-Jay by retaining mature merchantable sand pine stands which are unsuitable habitat for the species. The main natural process that regenerates sand pine scrub is high-intensity wildfire. The proximity of roads, communities, and schools in the area dictate that any wildfires in the area be suppressed. This would increase the probability that the amount of young sand pine scrub on the ONF would fall below the level described in the Habitat Association Objectives in the LRMP. These objectives were set to ensure that adequate early successional habitat was provided for the Florida Scrub-Jay in order to maintain or improve population trends. Without using sand pine timber management, the Forest would be unable to consistently ensure adequate habitat availability.

Effects Common to Alternatives B and C Direct and indirect effects Harvest operations would only occur in mature stands and thus would not directly impact any Florida Scrub-Jays. Noise and traffic from harvest operations and road reconstruction may create minor temporary disturbances for scrub-jays with nearby territories. Chopping, prescribed burning and reforestation activities would occur post-harvest but prior to the age that habitat is suitable for scrub-

jays. Road obliteration would not create any significant direct effects because the larger trees used to block old roads are not used for nesting.

Harvest operations indirectly benefit scrub-jays by creating early successional sand pine scrub habitat. Harvested areas could be used by scrub-jays immediately after timber removal as feeding grounds. The habitat becomes suitable for pairs establishing territories after about three years post-harvest. Chopping and prescribed burning provide indirect beneficial effects by reducing coarse woody debris and stimulating vegetative growth, which can trigger increases of prey species such as arthropods and small vertebrates. Road obliteration would have a beneficial indirect effect on scrub-jays by slightly increasing potential suitable habitat. Road reconstruction would have no indirect effects because extant roads would be refurbished and not created.

Reforestation activities could potentially decrease the time habitat remains suitable for scrub-jays by promoting sand pine density. However, even naturally regenerated stands can have high pine densities due to factors that influence sand pine seed germination like weather and topography. The transitory nature of early successional scrub and the variety of species that inhabit the scrub dictates that this ecosystem be managed by maintaining a desired level of scrub habitat in certain age classes. This is achieved by harvesting mature stands as others become unsuitable. Reforestation allows managers to reach these desired levels by ensuring sand pine timber stands reach a merchantable age with appropriate stocking levels so harvest treatments remain feasible.

Cumulative effects The proposed actions, when considered along with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, will benefit the Florida Scrub-Jay by allowing land managers to treat needed acreages of habitat that cannot be maintained solely with fire or other means. Stands harvested in this project are part of the long-term Forest-wide process of managing the scrub landscape. No concurrent or future projects are anticipated to create additional effects or amplify effects already identified.

Effects of Alternative B: Management Action Alternative (Proposed Action) Two of the six smaller stands exclusive to Alternative B are smaller than the average space requirement recommended for a Florida scrub-jay territory (25 acres; Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). Thus the likelihood of a scrub-jay establishing a territory in these areas is small. Territories smaller than 15 acres are usually unstable and “often disappear” (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996). Compared to fewer, larger stands with equal acreage, the six smaller stands in Alternative B could potentially have lower scrub-jay territory densities and slightly increased predation pressures from forest-dwelling birds of prey.

Nonetheless, the effects of harvesting smaller stands in Alternative B versus the larger stands in Alternative C are minor. The stands are unlikely to be occupied and their harvest is part of the process of merging smaller scattered merchantable scrub stands into larger units. Future projects would treat neighboring stands and synchronize treatment, thereby creating larger openings of suitable scrub-jay habitat. Continued deferral of the smaller scrub blocks only ensures their marginal configuration for a variety of wildlife species.

Effects of Alternative C: Deferral of Small, Isolated Timber Stands As described in Section 3.4, Alternative C provides slight immediate benefit by providing more contiguous scrub habitat in the short-term and on a small scale for scrub-jays, but neglects some smaller scrub stands that would eventually be merged with other stands. Otherwise, no additional direct or indirect effects occur due to Alternative C’s arrangement.

Alternatives B and C are not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) the Florida Scrub-Jay because there is insignificant risk of direct effects and the indirect effects benefit the species through the regeneration of early successional sand pine scrub habitat. This determination differs from the “may [adversely] effect” determination reached in the LRMP Biological Assessment due to the fact that no prescribed burning of suitable habitat would occur in the current project and thus no nests or juveniles would be at mortality risk.

4.3 Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) Effects of Alternative A: No Action The no action alternative would be likely to adversely affect (LAA) the eastern indigo snake by retaining sand pine scrub habitat in a state unsuitable for an important commensal species, the gopher tortoise. Gopher tortoise burrows are essential refugia for eastern Indigo snakes from temperature extremes in winter and summer and from vulnerability during shedding and egg-laying periods (May to June; Moler 1992a, USFWS 1999). Gopher tortoises inhabit early successional scrub habitat and generally do not occupy habitat with significant canopy cover.

Effects Common to Alternatives B and C Direct and indirect effects There is some potential for individuals to be harmed or killed by heavy machinery or ground penetration from harvest or site preparation activities. However, individuals are capable of temporarily leaving stands or seeking refuge in a gopher tortoise burrow. If design criteria (marking and avoiding burrows, moving individuals from harm’s way) are followed, these activities would be unlikely to cause direct mortality. Snakes may temporarily leave a stand during treatment, but the large activity range of the species (125-250 ac; Moler 1992a) and its ability to use different habitats (USFWS 1999) mitigate the negative effects of temporary disturbance.

Freshly harvested stands would indirectly benefit the indigo snake by creating a variety of microhabitats that would attract prey species and assist in body temperature regulation. Chopping and prescribed burning stimulate ground cover abundance and diversity and increase habitat quality for gopher tortoises. Increased tortoise abundance would indirectly benefit the eastern indigo snake by providing refugia and egg-laying sites. Although eastern indigo snake eggs not laid in gopher tortoise burrows may be exposed to direct impacts via chopping, design criteria (no chopping May – August; removal of individuals in harm’s way by operators) decrease the chances of direct impact. Seeding would not create any direct effects since the activity creates little disturbance and indigo snakes can easily escape a farm tractor. Reforestation does not introduce any indirect effects to the eastern indigo snake since the species uses a variety of habitats. Home ranges would likely shift as project stands mature and nearby stands are harvested or otherwise set back to early successional states.

Road obliteration and road reconstruction would not create any direct effects since obliteration would not create any effects that could impact individuals or eggs, and road reconstruction would not introduce any new traffic patterns or other elements that could serve as barriers for movement. Road obliteration would indirectly benefit the eastern indigo snake by creating a small net increase in available habitat. Road reconstruction would not have indirect effects since the road would not change in character with regard to indigo snake behavior or ecology.

Cumulative effects The proposed actions, when considered along with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, would cumulatively benefit the eastern indigo snake by creating habitat suitable for gopher tortoises which create burrows important for indigo snakes. Continued scrub management would perpetuate the

landscape-scale diversity that is important to species with large activity ranges such as the indigo snake. No concurrent or future projects are anticipated to create additional effects or amplify effects already identified.

Effects of Alternative B: Management Action Alternative (Proposed Action) Indigo snakes use diverse habitats over large enough pieces of the landscape that cutting the six smaller scrub stands exclusive to Alternative B would have no unique effects on the species.

Effects of Alternative C: Deferral of Small, Isolated Timber Stands The more contiguous nature of Alternative C’s composition creates no additional significant impacts to the indigo snake. Indigo snakes use diverse habitats over large enough pieces of the landscape that deferring the smaller scrub stands in Alternative B would have no unique effects on the species.

Alternative B and C would likely adversely affect (LAA) the eastern indigo snake. There exists some potential for individuals to be directly impacted by heavy machinery during harvest and site preparation activities. This potential is minimized by the inclusion of design criteria and the ability of individuals to escape harm by leaving the stand or seeking refuge in protected gopher tortoise burrows. The management actions would improve habitat diversity and promote gopher tortoise use, increasing available refugia for indigo snakes. This effect determination simply parallels the “may [adversely] effect” determination in the LRMP. All activities in the two alternatives are analyzed in the LRMP and are covered under the Biological Opinion for the LRMP.

4.4 Sand Skink (Neoseps reynoldsi) Effects of Alternative A: No Action The no action alternative would likely adversely affect (LAA) the sand skink because deferring management action would retain sand pine scrub habitat in a mature state and indirectly adversely impact the species by failing to provide habitat features (patches of open sand and shrubby vegetation; McCoy et al. 1999) thought to represent quality sand skink habitat. Sand skinks are not known to use mature sand pine stands.

Effects Common to Alternatives B and C Direct and indirect effects Harvest and roller-chopping operations introduce a very small risk of direct impact via mortality to sand skinks from ground-disturbing machinery. Harvest operations hold a small probability of impact because merchantable sand pine stands are unlikely to be occupied by sand skinks. Chopping operations pose some mortality risk from chopper blades due to the fact that sand skinks are fossorial and spend most of their time 1-8” under the soil (Christman 1992). Since chopping would occur within 12 months of harvest, chopped stands would have a relatively low probability of occupancy due to low shrub occurrence. Harvest operations would indirectly benefit sand skinks by creating sandy early successional habitat. Chopping would indirectly benefit sand skinks by stimulating oak shrub regrowth and reducing coarse woody debris, thus increasing the number of feeding sites and prey. Prescribed burning and the overall management regime would indirectly benefit sand skinks by promoting increased bare ground coverage and providing scattered shrub cover, conditions that may be potential key habitat factors for the sand skink (McCoy et al. 1999).

Seeding would not create any direct effects since the activity creates little disturbance and the attachments on the seeding tractor only disturb the top inch of soil – not deep enough to directly affect the sand skink. While reforestation may indirectly impact the sand skink in much the same way as it does the Florida scrub-jay (by shortening the length of time the habitat is suitable), the overall impact is

beneficial because the practice allows land managers to treat needed acreages of habitat that cannot be maintained with fire or other means.

Road obliteration and road reconstruction would not create any direct effects since obliteration would not create any effects that could impact individuals or eggs, and road reconstruction would not introduce any new traffic patterns that could serve as barriers for movement. Road obliteration would indirectly benefit the sand skink by creating a small net increase in available habitat. Road reconstruction would not introduce any indirect effects since the road area would not change in character with regard to sand skink behavior or ecology.

Cumulative effects Harvest and reforestation activities would provide a cumulative benefit by allowing land managers to treat needed acreages of habitat that cannot be maintained with fire or other means. Stands harvested in this project and other similar projects are part of the Forest-wide process of managing the scrub landscape. Current projects are planned to coincide with and compliment current and future projects to provide diversity and consistent early-successional habitat over the Forest landscape. No concurrent or future projects are anticipated to create additional effects or amplify effects already identified.

Effects of Alternative B: Management Action Alternative (Proposed Action) The relatively low number of small, isolated stands in Alternative B create no additional significant impacts to the sand skink. Their activity range is limited enough that even small stands could contain individuals.

Effects of Alternative C: Deferral of Small, Isolated Timber Stands The more contiguous nature of Alternative C’s composition creates no additional significant impacts to the sand skink. Their activity range is small enough that large stands would not create different effects.

Alternatives B and C would likely adversely affect (LAA) the sand skink because there is a small risk of mortality, but habitat quality would improve after treatment. Over time, the habitat would again become unsuitable, but forest-wide objectives for maintaining early successional sand pine scrub on the landscape would ensure that no net loss of suitable sand skink habitat. This effect determination simply parallels the “may [adversely] effect” determination in the LRMP. All activities in the two alternatives are analyzed in the LRMP and are covered under the Biological Opinion for the LRMP.

4.5 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Impacts of Alternative A: No Action The no action alternative would have no impact on the bald eagle. Deferring treatment would only remove temporary disturbance from one active nest, and treatments are not directly impacting habitat used for feeding or roosting purposes.

Impacts Common to Alternatives B and C Direct and indirect impacts Based on the latest flight survey data, there is only one nest within 0.5 miles of a project stand. If the project specific design criteria are adhered to, there should be no direct or indirect impacts to bald eagles. The proposed actions do not directly impact habitat essential for bald eagle reproduction or survival, since mature sand pines do not provide the characteristics common for bald eagle nest sites.

The minor differences in composition between Alternatives B and C have no impact on the bald eagle. Some smaller stands in Alternative B are near water, but they are not near any active nests or areas that

have high potential for nesting use. If design criteria are followed, the management alternative would have no impact on the bald eagle.

5.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

Based on the preceding analysis of the effects on federally listed threatened and endangered species and Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, I make the following determinations that the proposed actions:

5.1 Alternative A: No Action Would be likely to adversely affect the Florida scrub-jay, eastern indigo snake and sand skink. Would have no impact on the bald eagle.

5.2 Alternative B: Management Action Would be likely to adversely affect the indigo snake and sand skink. Overall, the impacts would be beneficial. Would not be likely to adversely affect the Florida scrub-jay. Overall, the impacts would be beneficial. Would have no impact on the bald eagle.

5.3 Alternative C: Deferral of Small, Isolated Timber Stands Would be likely to adversely affect the indigo snake and sand skink. Overall, the impacts would be beneficial. Would not be likely to adversely affect the Florida scrub-jay. Overall, the impacts would be beneficial. Would have no impact on the bald eagle.

6.0 REFERENCES

Christman, S. P. 1992. Sand Skink (Neoseps reynoldsi). Pages 135 – 140 in P. E. Moler, ed. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. III, Amphibians and Reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Diemer-Berish, J. E. and C. T. Moore. 1993. Gopher tortoise response to large-scale clearcutting in northern Florida. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47: 419 – 427.

Diemer, J. E. 1986. The ecology and management of the Gopher Tortoise in the southeastern United States. Herpetologica 42: 125 – 133.

Fitzpatrick, J. W., G. E. Woolfenden, and M. T. Kopeny. 1991. Ecology and development-related habitat requirements of the Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens). Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report #8. Office of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. 49 pp.

Greenberg, C. H., D. G. Neary, and L. D. Harris. 1994. Effect of high-intensity wildfire and silvicultural treatments on reptile communities in sand-pine scrub. Conservation Biology 8: 1047-1057.

McCoy, E. D., P. E. Sutton, and H. R. Mushinsky. 1999. The role of guesswork in conserving the threatened sand skink. Conservation Biology 13: 190 – 194.

Moler, P. E. 1992a. Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi). Pages 181 – 186 in P. E. Moler, ed. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. III, Amphibians and Reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Myers, R. L. 1990. Scrub and high pine. Pages 150 – 193 in Ecosystems of Florida. R.L. Myers and J. J. Ewel, eds. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, FL.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests in Florida. National Forests in Florida, Tallahassee, FL. Management Bulletin R8-MB-83A

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Hog Valley Scrub Project Environmental Assessment. Seminole Ranger District, Ocala National Forest, Umatilla, FL.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Florida Scrub-Jay Recovery Plan. Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 29 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi). Pages 4-567 – 4-581 in South Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida. Also available at http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/ eisn.pdf.

Woolfenden, G. E. and J. W. Fitzpatrick. 1996. Florida Scrub-Jay in The Birds of North America, No. 228. (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA; The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D. C.

Appendix I. Threatened and Endangered Species Not Present 1.1 Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus) The Florida Manatee is an aquatic mammal that occurs in rivers, canals, estuaries, lagoons, and bays throughout central and southern Florida. No proposed activities occur in or near any of the listed bodies of water.

1.2 Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) The wood stork is a large wading bird that occurs in wetland areas throughout Florida. Wood storks breed colonially in flooded freshwater and estuarine forested habitats. There are no flooded freshwater or estuarine forested habitats within the project area and therefore no proposed activities will impact the wood stork.

1.3 Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) occupies open woodlands with little to no hardwoods in the midstory or overstory and builds cavities in large, old, live pine trees. While Stand 2240 is categorized as “longleaf pine” in FS records, the site has such a significant amount of sand pine that the longleaf pine- wiregrass habitat is poor. Thus sandhills-associated species such as the RCW would be unlikely to use sandhills habitat in its present form.

Appendix D

Biological Evaluation (Wildlife)

Clarification / correction –

The last action item listed for alternatives B and C in this BE states: “Add about 27.8 miles of existing unauthorized roads to the minimum road system.”

Biological Evaluation (Wildlife) Hog Valley Scrub Project

On the Ocala National Forest

Marion County, Florida October 26, 2010

Prepared by: Date: Jay Garcia Wildlife Biologist Seminole Ranger District

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Biological Evaluation documents the analysis and rationale for the potential effects of a specific planned Forest Service (FS) activity on sensitive wildlife species. This document serves as a supplement to the Biological Assessment, which addresses federally listed species (note that the analysis for the Bald Eagle is included in the Biological Assessment). The Biological Evaluation serves to: ensure that FS actions do not contribute to loss of viability or a trend towards Federal listing for any Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species; comply with requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) in which actions of Federal agencies not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat of listed species; and provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision making process.

This Biological Evaluation (BE) considers the potential effects of the Hog Valley Scrub Project (USDA Forest Service 2009) on sensitive wildlife species. The best available science on sensitive wildlife species was used to document this consideration of potential effects, including recent scientific literature, correspondence with knowledgeable individuals in scientific/land management professions, field surveys, and personal observation. Scientific literature used in the document is included in the references section.

Species addressed in the BE were selected from the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (Table 1). Appendix I contains a list of sensitive species that may occur in or near the Ocala National Forest (ONF) but have no detailed effects analysis in the current document because the project area does not contain suitable habitat or is outside the known range of the species.

Table 1. Sensitive Wildlife Species Taxa Scientific Name Common Name Mammal Podomys floridanus Florida Mouse Mammal Sciurus niger shermani Sherman’s Fox Squirrel Mammal Ursus americanus floridanus Florida Black Bear Reptile Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise Reptile Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Florida Pine Snake Reptile Sceloporous woodi Scrub Lizard Reptile Stilostoma extennatum Short-Tailed Snake Amphibian Notophthalmus perstriatus Striped Newt

2.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY

The Biological Opinion concurred with the Forest Service’s “not likely to affect” determination for 13 federally listed species, and provided terms and conditions for incidental take for five wildlife species that received a “may affect” determination. The Biological Opinion also stated that the “level of anticipated take [was] not likely to result in jeopardy to the species” for the Florida Scrub-Jay, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Eastern Indigo Snake, Sand Skink, Flatwoods Salamander, and Flatwoods Salamander critical habitat

(USDA Forest Service 1999). Issuance of the Biological Opinion concluded all formal consultation on the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests in Florida.

3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

3.1 Alternative A: No Action Alternative

Roller-chop and prescribe burn 3,412 acres of harvested sand pine habitat for site preparation. Roller- chopping uses large drums with 0.75 to 1.0 inch long blades that are spaced 12 to 18 inches apart. Chopper blades sink 8 to 10 inches into the soil and typically disturb 90% of vegetation less than 6 inches in diameter. Chopping breaks down post-harvest logging debris, prepares the seed bed, and moderates oak resprouting. A roller-chopping layout that leaves intermittent areas of undisturbed vegetation (i.e., the “sloppy chop”) is encouraged to promote small scale habitat variability. Roller-chopping treatments would be performed within 12 months of harvest. Prescribed burning may also be carried out as a method of site preparation when conditions allow. The effects of prescribed burning on TES species are also addressed in the Biological Evaluation of the Effects of Prescribed Burning on Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Wildlife Species (USDA 2006). Prescribed burning prepares the seed bed by removing leaf litter and removing larger logging slash.

Table 1 displays the compartments, stands, and acreages of proposed treatments for Alternative B. Acreages are approximate.

3.3 Alternative C: Deferral of Small, Isolated Timber Stands

The proposed actions are: Harvest crookedwood on 3,425 acres prior to sand pine harvest. Clear-cut (harvest) merchantable sand pines on 3,135 acres over the next two years. Prescribe burn and/or roller-chop 3,425 acres of harvested sand pine habitat for site preparation over the next two years. Reforest 3,350 acres of sand pine via regeneration or row seeding over the next two years. Convert one 33-acre sandhill stand by removing off-site sand pine, performing site preparation and then planting longleaf pine. Maintain 31.2 miles of existing Forest Service roads. All other road-related actions (reconstruction, use/obliteration, decommission, addition) are identical to Alternative B.

3.4 Summary of differences between Alternatives B and C

All proposed actions in the current project are consistent with and do not exceed the scope of activities described within the Revised LRMP and subsequent amendments.

Table 2. Details of Alternative C Treatment Harvest Prescribe Natural New Scrub Total Scrub Harvest Convert Stand Sand Burn and/or Regeneration Opening Opening Size 2012 Crookedwood Stand to (Compartment- Pine Roller Chop or Row Seed Size 2012 (all adjacent stands (ac.) Longleaf Stand) (ac.) (ac.) (ac.) (ac.) 0-6 yrs of age, ac.) C1-S3 10 10 10 10 - - - C1-S23 36 36 36 36 67 612 - C1-S26 21 21 21 21 - - - C2-S8 75 - 75 - 75 172 - C3-S17 168 168 168 168 168 168 - C3-S29 164 164 164 164 164 336 - C3-S32 31 10 31 31 31 - - C4-S1 33 - 33 33 33 33 - C4-S18 168 168 168 168 168 328 - C4-S33 171 171 171 171 197 - - C4-S34 26 - 26 26 - - - C6-S2 129 129 129 129 129 - - C6-S7 70 70 70 70 172 478 - C6-S9 76 76 76 76 - - - C6-S24 26 5 26 26 - - - C10-S16 233 233 233 233 233 233 - C11-S3 204 204 204 204 204 204 - C13-S4 110 110 110 110 152 387 - C13-S16 42 - 42 42 - - - C13-S28 21 - 21 21 21 - - C15-S4 156 156 156 156 216 216 - C15-S22 82 82 82 82 112 216 C15-S39 30 30 30 30 - - - C16-S4 24 - 24 24 - - - C16-S17 18 - 18 18 - - - C16-S19 163 163 163 163 181 181 - C16-S31 36 36 36 36 - - - C21-S7 164 164 164 164 188 441 - C21-S8 137 137 137 137 137 - - C21-S22 24 - 24 24 - - - C22-S40 - 15 - - N/A N/A 15 C32-S13 135 135 135 135 135 135 - C32-S17 184 184 184 184 184 279 - C32-S46 73 73 73 73 73 104 - C35-S30 257 257 257 257 257 257 - C100-S1 69 69 69 69 128 171 - C100-S4 59 59 59 59 - - - Totals 3425 3135 3425 3350 3425 4951 15

3.5 Design Criteria Design criteria are included to minimize or eliminate potential negative effects of proposed actions. Criteria listed below are from the Forestwide Standards & Guidelines section of the LRMP and are applicable for the current project. Other criteria are specific to this project or suggest a stricter application of an existing Standard or Guideline.

Timber Production Measures If herbicides are used for site preparation, use only spot grid or strip application or individual stem or directed foliar spray. (LRMP 3-20 VG-19)

Use clearcut as the preferred method of final harvest in sand pine. Use all other silvicultural practices to meet site-specific needs. (LRMP 3-20 VG-25)

Decide, on a case-by-case basis, to protect oak scrub stands or convert them to sand pine stands. Scrub-jay habitat suitability is one of the considerations in the decision. (LRMP 3-20 VG-27)

Timber contractors undergo an educational program that includes information on the physical characteristics of the snake, life history, and types of habitats where the snake is found. Contractors are also instructed to comply with Standards and Guidelines WL-10-12. This measure is as put forth in the Biological Opinion for the Revised LRMP.

Every gopher tortoise burrow will have 15-foot radius marked around its entrance and heavy equipment will stay out of this marked zone during harvesting and regeneration. (LRMP 3-29 WL-11)

No roller-chopping activities will occur from May to August to prevent destruction of the eggs or young of ground-nesting birds and herpetofauna.

If actively occupied striped newt ponds are discovered within or adjacent to the project area, the potential habitat of any terrestrial striped newts would be protected from roller-chopping with a 700-foot radius buffer from the occupied wetland margin.

4.0 REGIONAL FORESTER’S SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES

4.1 Species Not Considered Potential effects on eleven sensitive species are not considered because treatment areas are outside the established range of the species or does not contain habitat associated with the species. The proposed actions will have no effect on these species. A list of species not considered and short explanations are in Appendix I.

4.2 Florida Mouse (Podomys floridanus) Impacts of Alternative A: No Action The no action alternative may impact individuals, but would not be likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or a loss of viability. Keeping proposed stands in a mature state would not provide the features (gopher tortoise burrows, oak cover) that represent quality Florida mouse habitat. However, the extent of the project is not large enough to impact the species.

Impacts Common to Alternatives B and C Direct and indirect impacts Mature sand pine stands scheduled for harvest would not be likely to be occupied, since canopy closure can reduce or eliminate habitat for the Florida mouse (Myers 1990). Chopping and prescribed burning would be unlikely to directly impact Florida mice inhabiting stand post-harvest since they could escape to tortoise burrows or areas left undisturbed. Harvesting, chopping, and burning activities indirectly benefit the Florida mouse by creating an open canopy and sustaining oak species within an age range that provides mast. Gopher tortoises would also benefit from these treatments, and the Florida mouse shares a close association with this species’ burrows (Layne 1992). Seeding will not create any direct effects due to its low disturbance. Reforestation may indirectly impact the Florida mouse as project stands mature and achieve canopy closure thereby impacting gopher tortoise habitat quality and lowering oak densities. However, the overall impact is beneficial because the practice allows land managers to treat needed acreages of habitat that cannot be maintained with fire or other means.

Cumulative impacts The management action, when considered with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future land management, would provide a beneficial cumulative impact on the Florida mouse. Early successional habitat will be generated and maintained in a mosaic of different ages across the landscape. Connected and future actions benefiting the gopher tortoise will also benefit the Florida mouse.

Impacts of Alternative B: Management Action Alternative (Proposed Action)

The slightly more contiguous nature of Alternative C’s composition creates no additional significant impacts to the Florida mouse. The home range of the species is small enough that the composition of stands in Alternative C does not create a significantly different set of impacts versus Alternative B.

Impacts of Alternative C: Deferral of Small, Isolated Timber Stands The more contiguous nature of Alternative C’s composition creates no additional significant impacts to the Florida mouse due to their relatively small home ranges.

Alternatives B and C provide a beneficial impact to the Florida mouse by providing favorable habitat conditions. While these conditions will wane over time as the sand pine matures and canopy closure occurs, habitat association objectives in the LRMP aim to maintain a significant portion of scrub in younger age classes, ensuring adequate quality habitat for the Florida mouse over the landscape.

4.3 Sherman’s Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) Impacts of Alternative A: No Action The no action alternative would have no impact on the Sherman’s fox squirrel. Nesting or other uses of the scrub would not be impacted. Fox squirrel use of this habitat type is low and any benefits produced by lack of disturbance would be minor.

Impacts Common to Alternatives B and C Direct and indirect impacts Harvest activities may directly impact squirrel young if mature sand pine trees with nests are removed. Adults with territories within harvest boundaries may have a brief negative indirect impact by increased exposure to predation while establishing a new territory. Harvested stands may indirectly benefit squirrels in nearby stands by providing additional mast sources when oaks resprout and begin producing mast (approx. three years post-harvest). Roller-chopping, prescribed burning, and reforestation activities would not cause any direct impacts because newly harvested stands would only be used for occasional foraging. These activities would provide indirect benefit by promoting oak growth and acorn production in the short term and sand pine seed in the long term.

Cumulative impacts The management action, when considered with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future land management, would provide a minor beneficial impact to the Sherman’s fox squirrel, in particular individuals occupying sandhills habitat adjacent to sand pine scrub habitat. Continued management will provide a consistent regeneration of younger, more mast-productive scrub habitat balanced with older habitat suitable for nesting.

Impacts of Alternative B: Management Action Alternative (Proposed Action) The relatively low number of small, isolated stands in Alternative B creates no additional significant impacts to the Sherman’s fox squirrel. The home range of the species is small enough that the composition of stands in Alternative B does not create a significantly different set of impacts versus Alternative C.

Impacts of Alternative C: Deferral of Small, Isolated Timber Stands The slightly more contiguous nature of Alternative C’s composition creates no additional significant impacts to the Sherman’s fox squirrel. The home range of the species is small enough that the composition of stands in Alternative C does not create a significantly different set of impacts versus Alternative B.

Alternatives B and C may impact individuals but would not be likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability. Treatment may disturb or displace individuals in project stands, but

species’ use of this habitat is relatively low and impacts would not be significant. Treatment of the project area helps to provide additional mast sources and mature habitat over the landscape.

4.4 Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) Effects of Alternative A: No Action The no action alternative may impact individuals but would not be likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability. The direct impacts would be beneficial because disturbance of denning or nursing mother bears would not occur. Over time, individuals could be indirectly impacted by the disappearance of travel corridors and mast sources. Since large-scale management would still occur, there would be enough landscape-scale habitat diversity to prevent significant impacts to the species.

Impacts Common to Alternatives B and C Direct and indirect impacts Harvest operations may directly impact pregnant or nursing sows denning in dense sand pine stands. Sows in such areas may have to move or potentially abandon cubs. Harvest activities will indirectly benefit black bears by providing mast sources while the stand is young, and by providing escape cover and denning sites as the stand matures. Chopping, prescribed burning, and reforestation activities will not directly impact black bears because open areas with little cover are not used significantly. Chopping and burning will provide minor indirect growth by stimulating oak growth and mast production. Sand pine regeneration may indirectly impact black bears by decreasing oak growth and mast production when the stand reaches canopy closure. This impact will be offset by the presence of escape and denning cover. Newly harvested stands nearby could provide mast.

Cumulative impacts The management action, when considered with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future land management, would provide a beneficial impact to the Florida black bear by continuing to provide a mosaic of oak scrub habitat in different age classes. Black bears require habitat of varied ages to satisfy natural history requirements throughout their life span (i.e., food, escape cover, denning cover, travel corridors). Impacts of Alternative B: Management Action Alternative (Proposed Action) The relatively low number of small, isolated stands in Alternative B create no additional significant impacts to the Florida black bear. The activity range of the species is large enough that the differences in stand composition between the two alternatives is insignificant.

Alternatives B and C would provide beneficial impact to the Florida black bear by continuing to maintain the landscape in a mosaic of habitats and age classes that provide for all the natural history requirements of the species.

4.5 Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Effects of Alternative A: No Action The no action alternative would have adverse impacts on gopher tortoise individuals, but would not be likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or a loss of viability. Gopher tortoises inhabit early successional scrub habitat and generally do not occupy habitat with high canopy cover. Deferring management action would create indirectly negatively impact by retaining habitat with high canopy cover and inadequate ground cover for food.

Effects Common to Alternatives B and C

Direct and indirect impacts Harvest activities will not directly impact the gopher tortoise because mature sand pine stands have too much canopy cover to support tortoises. Stands designated for post-harvest chopping and prescribed burning treatments may be occupied by gopher tortoises, but tortoises can retreat to their burrows and their burrows will be marked and avoided per the design criteria. Gopher tortoises would indirectly benefit from harvest activity due to creation of new habitat and an increase in ground cover. Studies have shown increases in clutch size, growth rate, and rate of mass gain in gopher tortoises after clearcutting, probably in response to food increases (Diemer-Berish and Moore 1993). Chopping and prescribed burning also provide indirect benefit by stimulating new palatable vegetative growth in forage species.

Seeding will not create any direct effects due to its low disturbance and the avoidance of burrows. Reforestation may indirectly impact the gopher tortoise as project stands mature and achieve canopy closure. The overall impact is beneficial because it allows land managers to treat needed acreages of habitat that cannot be maintained with fire or other means.

Cumulative impacts The management action, when considered with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future land management, would provide a beneficial impact to the gopher tortoise by allowing land managers to treat needed acreages of habitat that cannot be maintained with fire or other means. This management scheme provides a consistent influx of young habitat for the gopher tortoise.

Effects of Alternative B: Management Action Alternative (Proposed Action) The low number of small, isolated stands in Alternative B creates no additional impacts to the gopher tortoise. There is enough landscape diversity that tortoises would be able to disperse to any of the stands proposed. The species’ home range is small enough that the stand composition in Alternative B does not create a significantly different set of impacts versus Alternative C.

Effects of Alternative C: Deferral of Small, Isolated Timber Stands The slightly more contiguous nature of Alternative C’s composition creates no additional significant impacts to the gopher tortoise. The home range of the species is small enough that the composition of stands in Alternative C does not create a significantly different set of impacts versus Alternative B.

Alternatives B and C would provide beneficial impacts to the gopher tortoise by continuing to regenerate early successional scrub thereby increasing food availability and creating/maintaining an open habitat structure.

4.6 Florida Pine Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) Impacts of Alternative A: No Action The no action alternative would have adverse impacts on Florida pine snake individuals, but would not be likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or a loss of viability. Locally, Florida pine snakes would be indirectly impacted by the retention of habitat features unsuitable for the pocket gopher, an important prey species, and the gopher tortoise, an important commensal species.

Impacts Common to Alternatives B and C Direct and indirect impacts Harvest activities would be an unlikely mortality risk for Florida pine snakes since mature sand pine stands have too much cover to support associated species (pocket gophers, gopher tortoises). Any individual present prior to harvest can easily leave the stand. Florida pine snakes can also avoid direct impacts from harvest, chopping, or burning operations by leaving the stand or taking refuge in gopher tortoise burrows or undisturbed habitat. Harvest, chopping, and burning activities provide indirect benefit by creating habitat

conditions (open canopy, areas of open bare ground, coarse woody debris) beneficial to major prey items such as pocket gophers and other rodents. These conditions also benefit gopher tortoises, whose burrows would provide refuge from predators and temperature extremes. The activities would also create a mix of exposed and shaded areas for pine snakes to thermoregulate.

Reforestation activities would not create any significant negative long-term indirect impacts. There could be intermediate periods where a seeded stand could become dense enough to preclude use by the Florida pine snake or its associated species, but eventually the canopy would open enough to provide suitable conditions. Since Florida pine snakes have large home ranges (up to several hundred acres), they use a variety of habitats and age classes throughout their daily and life cycles. Current management provides for a variety of age classes across the landscape.

Cumulative impacts The management action, when considered with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future land management, would provide a cumulative beneficial impact to Florida pine snakes by sustainably providing a mosaic of age classes within sand pine scrub habitat. A patchwork of different age classes provides for the various life history needs of a species with a large home range such as the Florida pine snake.

Impacts of Alternative B: Management Action Alternative (Proposed Action) The relatively low number of small, isolated stands in Alternative B creates no additional significant impacts to the Florida pine snake. There exists enough landscape diversity that Florida pine snakes would be able to disperse to any of the stands proposed. Due to the species’ use of a variety of habitats, Alternative B does not create a significantly different set of impacts versus Alternative C.

Impacts of Alternative C: Deferral of Small, Isolated Timber Stands The slightly more contiguous nature of Alternative C’s composition creates no additional significant impacts to the Florida pine snake. Due to the species’ use of a variety of habitats, Alternative C does not create a significantly different set of impacts versus Alternative B.

Alternatives B and C would provide beneficial impacts to the Florida pine snake because harvest treatments will increase habitat quality for an important prey species (the pocket gopher) over the short term, and over the long term provide a variety of age classes within sand pine scrub habitat.

4.7 Scrub Lizard (Sceloporous woodi) Impacts of Alternative A: No Action The no action alternative would adversely affect the scrub lizard because the sand pine scrub habitat involved would remain in an unsuitable state. Keeping proposed stands in a mature state would indirectly adversely impact the species by failing to provide habitat features (bare sand, open canopy; Enge et al. 1986) that represent quality scrub lizard habitat.

Impacts Common to Alternatives B and C Direct and indirect impacts Harvest activities would not directly impact scrub lizards because they do not inhabit mature pine stands. Scrub lizards are quick enough to evade machinery used in harvest and roller-chopping treatments, and thus a significant impact from mortality would not be expected from these activities. Some risk of egg destruction exists, but the indirect benefits of treatment outweigh potential egg loss. Scrub lizards could also escape or use burrows for protection from prescribed burn operations. Harvest activities would provide an indirect beneficial impact by increasing habitat quality (e.g., areas of bare sand for basking and feeding) immediately after harvest. Studies have shown an increase in scrub lizard relative abundance in

harvested, chopped, and broadcast seeded stands versus mature forest (Greenberg et al. 1994). Roller- chopping and prescribed burning would provide indirect benefits by reducing shrub and leaf litter layers, creating open bare ground and reducing coarse woody debris.

Seeding would not directly impact the scrub lizard because individuals can easily avoid the farm tractor and soil disturbance only affects the top inch of soil. Reforestation could indirectly negatively impact the species by decreasing the amount of time a harvested stand would remain suitable for scrub lizards. However, the overall impact is beneficial because the practice allows land managers to treat needed acreages of habitat that cannot be maintained with fire or other means.

Cumulative impacts The management action, when considered with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future land management, would provide a beneficial impact to the scrub lizard by providing a consistent level of early successional scrub habitat on the landscape.

Impacts of Alternative B: Management Action Alternative (Proposed Action) Some stands in Alternative B may be too isolated to receive dispersing lizards, but this would not occur on a significant scale. The home range of the species is small enough that the composition of stands in Alternative B does not create a significantly different set of impacts versus Alternative C.

Impacts of Alternative C: Deferral of Small, Isolated Timber Stands The slightly more contiguous nature of Alternative C’s composition creates no additional significant impacts to the scrub lizard. The home range of the species is small enough that the composition of stands in Alternative C does not create a significantly different set of impacts versus Alternative B.

Alternatives B and C may impact individuals but would not be likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability. Treatment may create minor disturbance, but ultimately will be beneficial by improving habitat quality over the short term, and over the long term provide a variety of age classes within sand pine scrub habitat.

4.8 Short-tailed Snake (Stilosoma extenuatum) Impacts of Alternative A: No Action The no action alternative may have minor impacts on short-tailed snake individuals, but would not be likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or a loss of viability. Keeping proposed stands in a mature state would indirectly adversely impact the species by failing to provide habitat features that would promote easy fossorial locomotion that may represent quality short-tailed snake habitat. Impacts would not be likely to occur on a scale to affect the species.

Impacts Common to Alternatives B and C Direct and indirect impacts Although the short-tailed snake is primarily associated with longleaf pine-turkey oak habitat, it is “occasionally” found in sand pine scrub habitat adjacent to its primary habitat (Moler 1992b). Harvest activities could impact individuals or eggs residing beneath the soil surface or surface debris by direct mortality or increased exposure of individuals forced to leave harvest stands. However, the species’ ecology is not well known and its fossorial nature suggests that it would be more likely to occupy younger scrub habitat versus mature scrub habitat. If such a relationship exists, harvest activities would provide an indirect benefit by regenerating early successional scrub habitat and soil conditions that promote fossorial locomotion.

Roller-chopping presents a small risk of direct mortality of individuals or eggs residing beneath debris or just under the soil surface. Since the species is seldom seem above ground, it is likely that they spend most of their lives deeper than the 8”–10” that the chopper blades impact the soil, and thus the risk of direct impact is small. Chopping would provide indirect benefit by reducing coarse woody debris and creating open areas of bare sand. Chopping would not be anticipated to significantly impact the crowned snake, a major prey species for the short-tailed snake (Moler 1992b). Prescribed burning poses little threat of direct impact due to the fact that the species’ fossorial nature would protect it from any fire treatments. Prescribed burning would indirectly benefit the short-tailed snake by reducing coarse woody debris and creating open areas of bare sand.

Reforestation activities would not directly impact the short-tailed snake because the disturbance is minor and only impacts the top inch of the soil layer. These activities may indirectly impact the short-tailed snake by decreasing the amount of time the habitat remains in suitable conditions. As a stand matures, sand pines would grow larger and hinder movement through the soil. However, as mentioned with other early successional species, reforestation allows managers to effectively maintain a mosaic of age classes across the landscape, thereby ensuring a constant influx of early successional stages for species such as the short-tailed snake.

Cumulative impacts The management action, when considered with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future land management, would provide a beneficial impact to the short-tailed snake by allowing land managers to treat needed acreages of habitat that cannot be maintained with fire or other means. This management scheme provides a consistent influx of early successional habitat for the short-tailed snake.

Impacts of Alternative C: Deferral of Small, Isolated Timber Stands The slightly more contiguous nature of Alternative C’s composition creates no additional significant impacts to the scrub lizard. The home range of the species is small enough that the composition of stands in Alternative C does not create a significantly different set of impacts versus Alternative B.

Alternatives B and C may impact individuals but would not be likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability. Treatment may create minor disturbance, but ultimately will improve habitat quality over the short term. Over the long term and landscape-level, management will provide a variety of age classes within sand pine scrub habitat.

4.9 Striped Newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus) The striped newt is a small aquatic salamander endemic to north-central Florida and southern Georgia. Striped newts breed in isolated temporary ponds in sandhills and scrub habitat. The striped newt is an opportunistic feeder on items such as frog eggs, fairy shrimp, and bottom-dwelling invertebrates (Christman and Franz 1973). Little is known about striped newt ecology outside of its breeding phase.

Adults are known to disperse from sandhills ponds into upland habitat. Dispersal from breeding ponds may average longer distances than other salamanders. Johnson (2001) estimated that at least 16% of striped newts leaving breeding ponds in a central Florida population dispersed more than 1,640 feet. However, documentation of striped newts breeding in scrub ponds indicate that individuals remain in the ponds as paedomorphic adults and do not move out into the upland scrub areas, likely due to a lack of favorable

ground conditions. Anecdotal evidence suggests that striped newt occurrence in scrub ponds is related to pond connectivity, since isolated scrub ponds have low incidences of striped newts.

Recent surveys have found ponds occupied by striped newts in same general landscape as the project area. However, no known striped newt ponds exist within 2,000 feet of any stands in the project area (for either Alternative).

Impacts of Alternative A: No Action The no action alternative would have no impacts on the striped newt. Deferring proposed actions would prevent any disturbances from occurring. In light of little evidence of the species’ occupation in project- specific stands and their probable confinement to ponds within the scrub, no impact would be anticipated.

Impacts Common to Alternatives B and C There are no known ponded scrub areas in the current project that are exclusive to one alternative. The impacts of the two alternatives will be analyzed together.

Direct and indirect impacts Any striped newts occupying mature sand pine forest within the project area could be directly impacted by harvest, roller-chopping, and prescribed burning activities. However, there is no evidence that suggests striped newts utilize mature terrestrial sand pine scrub habitat. If striped newts were present in scrub project stands, they could experience some negative indirect effects from changes in the forest stand microclimate (higher soil temperatures, decreased soil moisture) and structure (decreased leaf litter and coarse woody debris) that are unfavorable for amphibians.

Since striped newt use of scrub appears limited to ponds, existing design criteria stating that harvesting will not occur within 35 feet of lakes and ponds more than 2 acres should prevent any direct or indirect impacts from affecting striped newts occupying ponds within the project area. The existing design criteria also states that roller-chopping will not occur within 700 feet of ponds known to be occupied by striped newts. This protects paedomorphic adults within ponds and the majority of any terrestrial adults using the upland habitat (if such use occurs) from direct impacts from the roller-chopper.

Reforestation activities will not be likely to create any direct impacts since the disturbance is low and would occur in upland scrub areas. Seeding is not anticipated to introduce any indirect impacts since upland sand pine scrub habitat is not known to be used by the species.

Cumulative impacts The management action, when considered with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future land management, would provide a beneficial cumulative impact. Continued landscape-scale scrub habitat management and included design criteria will maintain wetland-upland connectivity, promote colonization of new breeding ponds, and prevent mortality in extant breeding ponds.

Alternatives B and C may impact individuals but would not be likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability. While some proposed treatments present limited risk of direct mortality, lack of direct evidence of striped newt presence, the presence of design criteria, and the need for continued sand pine scrub management indicates treatment is reasonable and does not put the species at risk.

5.0 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

Based on the preceding analysis of the effects on Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, I make the following determinations that the proposed actions:

5.1 Alternative A: No Action Sensitive Wildlife Species

Would be likely to adversely impact the scrub lizard.

May impact individuals but would not be likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for the Florida mouse, Florida black bear, gopher tortoise, Florida pine snake, and short-tailed snake.

Would have no impact on the Sherman’s fox squirrel and striped newt.

5.2 Alternative B: Management Action Sensitive Wildlife Species May impact individuals but would not be likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for the scrub lizard, short-tailed snake, Sherman’s fox squirrel, and striped newt. Net impacts would be beneficial.

Would have a beneficial impact on the Florida mouse, gopher tortoise, Florida black bear, and Florida pine snake.

5.3 Alternative C: Deferral of Small, Isolated Timber Stands Sensitive Wildlife Species May impact individuals but would not be likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability for the scrub lizard, short-tailed snake, Sherman’s fox squirrel, and striped newt. Net impacts would be beneficial.

Would have a beneficial impact on the Florida mouse, gopher tortoise, Florida black bear, and Florida pine snake.

6.0 REFERENCES

Chapman, B. R. 2007. Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii). Pages 134 – 139 in M. K. Trani, W. M. Ford, and B. R. Chapman, eds. The Land Manager’s Guide to Mammals of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Durham, NC.

Christman, S. P. and L. R. Franz. 1973. Feeding habits of the striped newt, Notophthalmus peristriatus. J. Herpetology 7: 133-135.

Diemer, J. E. 1986. The ecology and management of the Gopher Tortoise in the southeastern United States. Herpetologica 42: 125 – 133.

Enge, K. M., M. M. Bentzien, and H. F. Percival. 1986. Florida Scrub Lizard status survey. Technical Report No. 26. Fla. Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res. Unit, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 72 pp.

Franz, R. 1992. Florida Pine Snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus). Pages 254 – 258 in P. E. Moler, ed. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. III, Amphibians and Reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Greenberg, C. H., D. G. Neary, and L. D. Harris. 1994. Effect of high-intensity wildfire and silvicultural treatments on reptile communities in sand-pine scrub. Conservation Biology 8: 1047-1057.

Humphrey, S. R. 1992. Goff’s pocket gopher (Geomys pinetis goffi). Pages 11 – 18 in S. R. Humphrey, ed. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. I, Mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Johnson, S. A. 2001. Life history, ecology, and conservation genetics of the Striped Newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus). PhD dissertation, University of Florida. 156 pp.

Kantola, A. T. 1992. Sherman’s Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani). Pages 234 – 241 in S. R. Humphrey, ed. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. I, Mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Layne, J. N. 1992. Florida Mouse (Podomys floridanus). Pages 250 – 264 in S. R. Humphrey, ed. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. I, Mammals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

McCown, W., P. Kubilis, T. Eason, and B. Scheick. 2004. Black bear movements and habitat use relative to roads in Ocala National Forest. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Final Report Contract BD-016. 118 pp.

McCoy, E. D., P. E. Sutton, and H. R. Mushinsky. 1999. The role of guesswork in conserving the threatened sand skink. Conservation Biology 13: 190 – 194.

Moler, P. E. 1992b. Short-tailed Snake (Stilosoma extenuatum). Pages 150 – 153 in P. E. Moler, ed. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. III, Amphibians and Reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Myers, R. L. 1990. Scrub and high pine. Pages 150 – 193 in Ecosystems of Florida. R.L. Myers and J. J. Ewel, eds. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, FL.

Trani, M. K. and B. R. Chapman. 2007. American Black Bear (Ursus americanus). Pages 518 – 525 in M. K. Trani, W. M. Ford, and B. R. Chapman, eds. The Land Manager’s Guide to Mammals of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Durham, NC.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests in Florida. National Forests in Florida, Tallahassee, FL. Management Bulletin R8-MB-83A

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Hog Valley Scrub Project Environmental Assessment. Seminole Ranger District, Ocala National Forest, Umatilla, FL.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Florida Scrub-Jay Recovery Plan. Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. 29 pp.

Appendix I. Sensitive Species Not Present 1.1 Dense Hydrobe (Aphaostracon pycnus) The dense hydrobe is a small brown snail confined to the Alexander Springs Run on the Ocala National Forest. No proposed activities occur on or near the Alexander Springs Run.

1.2 Seminole Spring Siltsnail (Cincinnatia vanhyningi) The Seminole Spring Siltsnail is a small snail confined to Seminole Springs in Lake County, Florida. No proposed activities occur in or near Seminole Springs.

1.3 Silver Glen Springs Cave Crayfish (Procambarus attigus) The Silver Glen Springs Cave Crayfish is an albinistic crayfish known only to occur in Silver Glen Springs cave. No proposed activities occur in or near Silver Glen Springs cave.

1.4 Big-cheeked Cave Crayfish (Procambarus delicatus) The Big-cheeked Cave Crayfish is an albinistic crayfish known only from Alexander Springs on the Ocala National Forest. No proposed activities occur on or near the Alexander Springs.

1.5 Hobbs’ Cave Amphipod (Crangonyx hobbsi) The Hobbs’ Cave Amphipod is a small freshwater amphipod that is confined to groundwater habitats in caves. It has not been confirmed to occur in the aquatic caves of the ONF. No proposed activities occur in or near caves.

1.6 Arogos Skipper (Atrytone arogos arogos) The Arogos Skipper is a small yellow butterfly with a scattered distribution of isolated populations throughout the eastern United States. Populations were known in the Lake Delancy area of the Ocala

National Forest, but are no longer considered to be extant. No proposed activities occur in or near the Lake Delancy area.

1.7 Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhinchus oxyrhinchus) The Atlantic Sturgeon is a long-lived anadromous fish species that occurs in the rivers, estuaries, and of Florida. It has not been confirmed to occur in the rivers within or bounding the ONF. The proposed actions do not occur near any rivers, estuaries, or oceans.

1.8 Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat is a medium-sized, long-eared bat that is considered rare throughout its entire range. Individuals have been documented in pine flatwoods and hardwood hammocks in Florida and have been observed roosting in large, hollow old-growth trees in bottomland hardwood forests (Chapman 2007). The project area does not contain large, old-growth hardwood trees or other potential roost sites for Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat. Based on the absence of potential roosting sites and general consensus that sandhills habitat in Florida is not foraging or roosting habitat, the project will have no impact on Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat.

1.9 Round-tailed Muskrat (Neofiber alleni) The Round-tailed Muskrat is a moderately large rodent associated with shallow marshes with dense emergent vegetation. There are no shallow marsh areas within the project area and therefore no proposed activities will impact the round-tailed muskrat.

1.10 Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) The Florida Sandhill Crane is a large, non-migratory subspecies of sandhill crane that occurs in pastures, prairies, and wetlands in Florida. While there are some ponds within the project area, there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts other than minor disturbances from machinery working in the area.

1.11 Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophilia aestivalis) The Bachman’s sparrow is a small, plain sparrow strongly associated with open pine woodlands in the southeastern United States. There are no open pine woodlands within the project area and therefore no proposed activities will impact the Bachman’s sparrow. While Stand 2240 is categorized as “longleaf pine” in FS records, the site has such a significant amount of sand pine that the longleaf pine-wiregrass habitat is poor. Thus open pine woodland-associated species such as the Bachman’s Sparrow would be unlikely to use the habitat in its present form.

Appendix E

Biological Evaluation (Plants)

Biological Evaluation of the Effects of Sand Pine Harvest and Related Actions on Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plant Species

Hog Valley Scrub EA

Lake George Ranger District Marion and Putnam Counties, Florida

INTRODUCTION

This report documents the findings of a biological evaluation (BE) of the proposed action on plant species that are endangered or threatened, as determined by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and sensitive plant species, as determined by the USDA Forest Service, Region 8. The project would consist of harvesting sand pine, natural or artificial regeneration, site prep by chopping and / or burning, removing off site sand pine, road work, and planting longleaf pine.

The purpose of this BE are: - To evaluate and describe the probable effects of the proposed actions of endangered, threatened and sensitive plant species and their habitats. - To ensure that the proposed actions would not likely jeopardize the continued existence or cause adverse modification of habitat for listed species. - To ensure that any adverse effects of the proposed actions would be minimal to sensitive species, and do not contribute significantly to their being listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). - To ensure that the proposed action would not cause the decline of these species resulting in listing under ESA.

Only those endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species known or likely to occur within the area of the proposed project are included in this report.

Conclusions are based on data and information collected by: - Reviewing endangered, threatened, and sensitive plant species lists and habitat requirements, - Reviewing the records of Lake George Ranger District and Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), - Conducting field surveys, and - Reviewing similar projects / treatments and relevant literature.

Field surveys were conducted on July 2009 to locate listed plant species of the scrub habitat. Woods roads through the area were surveyed, because rare plant species frequently inhabit these generally open areas. Large portions of the stand interior were also surveyed. These surveys resulted in no detection of Bonamia grandiflora, Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium or Polygala lewtonii in the area proposed for timber harvest, and on woods roads. Imperata cylindrica (cogon grass) and Lygodium japonicum (Japanese climbing fern) were found in several locations within the proposed project area. All locations shall be treated before harvesting occurs.

SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL SCALES

For the purpose of this BE the spatial scale for TES was set to the range distribution within the ONF boundaries and the access roads. The boundary for the access roads will include five feet from the edge of the road towards the forest interior on either side of the road. The spatial scale was set as the range distribution within the ONF boundaries to establish the effect of the action with respect to TES populations in ONF. The time scale was set from five months to ten years. Most direct and indirect effects should occur within the first three years. However, cumulative effects should occur at a scale up to ten years.

SPECIES REVIEWED

The following table lists those endangered, threatened, and sensitive species that are known or are likely to occur in the proposed timber management area, and their US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), State of Florida (FL), USDA Forest Service (FS), and Nature Conservancy (NC) status.

Table I. PETS occurring or likely to occur in the proposed area and their status. Common Name Scientific Name Conservation Status FWS G RNK S RNK FS Pinewoods bluestem Andropogon arctatus N 3 3 S Mohr's threeawn Aristida mohrii N 1 3 S Curtiss milkweed Asclepias curtissii N 3 3 S Florida bonamia Bonamia grandiflora T 3 3 T Ashe‟s savory Calamintha ashei N 3 3 S Scrub buckwheat Eriogonum longifolium T 3 3 T var. gnaphalifolium Southern bogbutton Lachnocaulon beyrichianum N 4 2/3 S Nodding pinweed Lechea cernua N 3 3 S Scrub bay Persea humilis N 3 3 S Lewton‟s polygala Polygala lewtonii E 2 2 E Tough bully Sideroxylon tenax N 3? NR S Showy dawnflower Stylisma abdita N 3 3 S

E = endangered; T = threatened; S = sensitive; N = no status; G1 = Nature Serve (NS) ranking very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer ocurrences), very steep declines, or other factors. G2 = NS ranking: imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (typically 6-20 occurrences, 1000-3000 individuals or few remaining acres) or because of some factor (s) making it very vulnerable to extinction throughout the range; G3 = NS ranking: rare or uncommon (21-100 occurrences or 3000-10000 individuals) throughout its range; or found locally, even abundantly, in a restricted range; or vulnerable to extinction throughout its range because of specific factors.

PLANT COMMUNITY WITHIN THE PROPOSED TIMBER MANAGEMENT AREA

The proposed ecosystem management actions affect the sand pine community. Sand pine scrub is a hot, dry, and harsh environment with low soil fertility and excessively drained sandy soils. The fairly open to closed canopy component of mature sand pine scrub is Pinus clausa (sand pine). The average density of sand pine is 200 trees per acre in a mature stand.

These sand pine forests would decline from heart rot or fungal rot diseases at about the age of 50 to 55 years were it not for periodic catastrophic crown fires. Historically, these fires originated in the longleaf pine/wiregrass/turkey oak forests primarily from lightning strikes. When conditions were favorable (e.g. low humidity and high winds), these fires would spread into the adjacent scrub. This community is adapted to periodic setback by these stand-replacing fires. Renewal comes from seed or other soil propagules, resprouting by most woody species, and air borne seeds or spores from adjacent unburned areas.

PLANT SPECIES COMMON TO SAND PINE SCRUB COMMUNITY

Lyonia ferruginea and Vaccinium arboreum, and in certain areas of the Forest, Carya floridana, Ilex opaca var. arenicola, and Persea humilis are dominant midstory trees. Several evergreen oak species (Quercus chapmanii, Q. geminata, Q. myrtifolia, and Q. laevis), two palms (Sabal etonia and Serenoa repens), and Ceratiola ericoides comprise the dominant shrub layer. Other common sand pine scrub understory species include Vaccinium myrsinitis, V. darrowii, Garberia heterophilla, Asimina obovata, Hypericum hypericoides, Erythrina herbacea, and Bumelia tenax. The herbaceous ground cover includes perennials, grasses, sedges, mosses, liverworts, and lichens. Some of the common species are Galactia elliottii, G. regularis, Pityopsis graminifolia, Smilax auriculata, S. pumila, Tephrosia chrysophylla, Tragia urens, Palafoxia feayi, Opuntia humifusa, Clitoria mariana, Rhyncosia sp., Stillingia sylvatica, Licania michausii, Liatris sp., Cnidoscolus stimulosus, Panicum dichotomum, Rhyncospora magalocarpa, Cyperus retrorsus, Dicranum condensatum, Leucobryum albidum, Frullania obcordata, Leucolejeunea conchifolia, Cladina evansii, C. subtenuous, and Cladonia leporina.

NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES

Non-native invasive species (NNIS) such as cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica), Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum), and Japanese mimosa (Albizia julibrism) are known to occur in the general geographic area of the proposed project. While only cogon grass and Japanese climbing fern were documented in the field surveys, it is possible for new infestations to be present at the time the project starts. Forest Service System roads are surveyed for NNIS yearly. Timber hauling routes are surveyed for NNIS prior to timber harvest. New infestations are documented followed by a control treatment.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS

Effects of No Action Without management action or any natural disturbance such as fire or wind, the age class distribution and species composition in sand pine scrub would slowly shift by natural changes over time. Scrub oaks from the understory would eventually replace sand pine as the sand pine canopy dies. Evergreen scrub oaks do not produce a seasonal leaf drop to build up a fuel layer. Without sand pine in the overstory to varnish the understory with a flammable layer of resin, this oak scrub forest usually acts as a natural firebreak. Unless oak scrub is maintained in low stature, the closed canopy of a xeric hardwood forest would develop.

Effects of Harvesting Sand Pine Sand pine harvesters utilize a feller buncher, weighing approximately 13 – 16 tons, to cut and pile trees in drags (bundles). The feller buncher has large, wide-tread tires for traction, flotation, and stability. On

the front end, there is a hydraulic powered shear head to cut the trees, and large “claws” to hold the trees while cutting and to pile them in drags.

The sawyer is a power saw that delimbs and tops the felled trees. The grapple skidder drags the trees in their bundles to the landing area. The loader puts the trees onto the log trucks to be transported as round wood, or in a full tree chipper to be shipped as chipper wood. Ideally, sand pine harvesters want the skid trail to the log or chipper truck to be less than 1/8 to 1/4 of a mile long.

Direct Effects: Sand pine scrub has historically been exposed to such naturally occurring events as hurricanes, tornados, and windstorms that frequent Florida. Thus, catastrophic fires may not be the only environmental pressure that has contributed to the resiliency of the scrub flora. The scrub flora is perhaps more resilient to human disturbance than those floras that have not been selectively pressured to adapt to such a harsh and challenging environment as the sand pine scrub.

Rare plants species of the sand pine scrub appear to be stimulated to germinate or resprout following disturbance, whether natural or human-caused, such as sand pine harvesting. A few plants may be extirpated in areas that receive extensive ground disturbance, such as at the landing area. However, it is not likely that these harvest activities would have any significant impacts on the local population of any listed plant species. These plant species are resilient, and become reestablished in sand pine harvest areas.

Indirect / Cumulative Effects: The removal of the mature sand pine overstory would leave a very open and sunny environment with bare sand patches. The listed plant species of the sand pine scrub benefit from the loss of competition for space and light. Following the mature sand pine removal, these plants would flower and seed, which does not usually occur in the lower light and denser situation of the mature sand pine.

Effects of Natural Regeneration Once sand pine has been harvested from the site, treetops remain on site to potentially be the source of seeds to naturally regenerate the site. Another seed source is the cone seeds that had been on the ground prior to tree harvest.

Direct Effects: Depending on the density of sand pine overstory before the timber harvesting operation, time of year harvested, and weather conditions after harvest the amount of resident seed to naturally regenerate the site would vary. These sites may produce a stocking density much higher or lower than the minimum and maximum stocking (Forest Plan p. 3-20) depending on the three variables listed above.

Sites that are naturally regenerated with no site preparation (roller chopping or prescribed burning) would have more scrub oaks for the first couple of years after timber harvesting than areas that are artificially regenerated. Scrub oaks compete for space, light, and nutrients with rare plants species as well as sand pine seedlings. Eventually the pines begin to suppress the scrub oaks as they assume the canopy role in the ecosystem. The naturally regenerated sites would then have the same vegetative composition as the artificially regenerated sites.

Naturally regenerated sites would have more woody debris than artificially regenerated sites. This eliminates a lot of the bare, sandy patches that these rare plant species prefer.

Indirect / Cumulative Effects: Minimum stocking densities would probably enhance habitat conditions for rare plant species of the sand pine scrub. They typically need open, sunny areas to flower. A site with an unusually high seedling survival rate would develop a more closed canopy than a site with a lower rate. Rare plant species would persist longer in sites with a more open, patchier distribution of mature sand pine where light can penetrate to the forest floor.

Effects of Artificial Regeneration If sand pine is not naturally regenerated within a year of harvest, artificial regeneration would be done.

The spot seeder is a mechanical seedling device that is attached to a farm tractor. Once the seed is dropped, several cables that are attached to the back of the seeder cover the seed with about an inch of soil.

Direct Effects: Spot seeding minimally disturbs the soil, thus, it minimally affects the soil-disturbance adapted scrub plant species.

Indirect / Cumulative Effects: The minimum Forest Service standard for artificial regeneration of sand pine is 200 well-distributed seedlings per acre. Minimum stocking densities would probably enhance habitat conditions for listed plant species of the sand pine scrub. They typically need open, sunny areas to flower. A site with an unusually high seedling survival rate would develop a more closed canopy than a site with a lower rate. Listed scrub species would persist longer in sites with a more open, patchier distribution of mature sand pine where light can penetrate to the forest floor.

Effects of Site Preparation by Chopping Roller chopping would be performed by a double drum roller chopper pulled by a crawler tractor in a single pass. When the drums are filled with water, they weigh approximately 20,000 pounds. They are 10 feet in length with 18 blades welded horizontally along the drums. They cut woody debris up to 5" in diameter and mix it with the soil by pushing it to the ground and rolling over it. The blades penetrate the soil to maximum depth of 6"- 8", scarifying the soil surface.

Direct Effects: Roller chopping may crush plants, although many of the scrub endemics possess a hardy bulb or other underground root structure that would allow it to resprout.

Indirect/Cumulative Effects: The creation of bare, sandy openings from roller chopping seems to enhance establishment of endemic scrub plants, as observed in other sand pine harvest sites. Stands that have not been roller chopped tend to have a higher density of oaks for the first couple of years than stands that have been roller chopped.

Effects of Site Preparation by Burning A prescribed burn would reduce the fuels remaining after timber harvest. A prescribed burn would be performed if woody fuel moisture and winds are such that the fire behaves in a manner that is needed. An approximate 6 weeks window in April, May, and June usually provides this optimum condition for burning in the scrub. However, site prep burning following a timber sale does well if carried out within 6-8 weeks after the harvesting operation.

Direct Effects: A prescribed burn benefits the TES plant species, and non-listed grasses and forbs. These species are fire adapted. Typically, aboveground vegetation is burned leaving the belowground plant parts from which renewed growth occurs. These species quickly resprout after fire, and are able to begin reproduction, if it is their season to do so, before hardwoods can catch up.

A moderate intensity fire releases a flush of nutrients that is available to plants. Timber removal and burning, followed by rain, could cause minor erosion with some leaching of nutrients. Burning also provides a heat pre-germination treatment for fire-adapted plant species.

Indirect / Cumulative Effects: A site preparation burn reduces the woody fuels (slash) left on the site after the timber is harvested. Slash left on site increases the wildfire hazard.

Effects of Road Work Road work would consist of maintenance and reconstruction of travel ways open to the public and/or available for administrative use. The work may include resurfacing roads with clay or other appropriate material. Heavy equipment would be used for the delivery and spread of the material. Road work would also include decommissioning Forest Service Roads from the transportation system. These roads would not be needed to meet forest resource management objectives.

Direct Effects: Some desirable species may become affected by the use of heavy equipment. Some plants may be pushed and tramped during roadwork.

Indirect / Cumulative Effects: Surfacing material and/or equipment may be contaminated with noxious weeds. This could result in new noxious weed infestation. Disturbance associated to the use of heavy equipment could create conditions for noxious weeds establishment.

Effects of Site Preparation with Herbicides Herbicides are used as a tool to remove undesirable vegetation. Fifteen acres of off-site sand pine would be converted to longleaf pine. Herbicide can be applied to target vegetation in a spot treatment. This treatment would minimize off target vegetation damage.

Direct Effects: Some desirable species may become affected by accidental herbicide application.

Indirect / Cumulative Effects: No indirect or cumulative effects are expected from herbicide use in this project.

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

In a determination of effects, a “no effect” category means that there is literally no effect on TES plant species by the proposal. A “not likely to adversely affect” category means that there may be beneficial, insignificant, or discountable effects. A “likely to adversely affect” category refers to any adverse effect

that is not discountable, insignificant, or beneficial. (Final ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook, March 1998, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service).

Determination of Effect for Alternatives B and C

For Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species: Likely to adversely affect……...

Not likely to adversely affect….

No effect……………………….

For sensitive Species: Likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability………………… May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of X viability…………………… Beneficial impact……………...

Determination of Effect for the No Action (Alternative A)

For Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species: Likely to adversely affect……...

Not likely to adversely affect….

No effect……………………….

Beneficial impact……………...

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

Alternatives B and C are not likely to adversely affect the federally listed endangered and threatened plant species. The federally listed plant species benefit from the removal of a pine overstory and a loss of competition from hardwood shrubs and trees by flowering and setting seed. Although the possibility exists that an individual plant could be harmed, this possibility is remote due to the fact that: a) surveys were conducted on suitable areas and no individuals were detected; and b) the majority of habitat affected is unsuitable for the species analyzed. Therefore, the possibility of individual harm is extremely unlikely to occur and the effects are discountable.

Alternatives B and C may impact individual Forest Service sensitive plants but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. The sensitive plants also benefit from the removal of a pine overstory and a loss of competition from hardwood shrubs and trees by flowering and setting seed.

Alternative A (the No Action Alternative) could adversely affect all of the plants if adopted as a management over the long term in Ocala National Forest. Not managing the land in any way may adversely affect these threatened and endangered species, and would likely result in a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of the Forest Service sensitive plants cumulatively across their ranges on the Ocala National Forest. The plants would stop flowering and setting seed in a dim to no light situation of a closed canopy, become out-competed by the oak layer when the overstory pine succumb to heart rot, and a soil seed bank may not be available.

The No Action Alternative would likely adversely affect the threatened scrub buckwheat populations found in the Ocala National Forest. The 1998 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Recovery Plan for the federally threatened scrub buckwheat (Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalium) determined that the Ocala National Forest represents important habitat for this species recovery. Whereas some populations at other Florida public and private conservation lands have declined or become nonexistent for unknown reasons, this plant population has thrived under current management practices on the forest. Scrub buckwheat was listed as threatened in 1993 due to a rapid loss of viable habitat. This species occurs in habitats intermediate between sand pine scrub and high pineland. This species depends on disturbance such as fire to flower and for successful seeding establishment.

The 1998 USFWS Recovery Plan states that Florida bonamia (Bonamia grandiflora) was not listed as endangered, because of its relative security on the Ocala National Forest, but not elsewhere within its range. It is most abundant in newly harvested sand pine stands.

Lewton‟s polygala (Polygala leutonii), the federally listed endangered plant, inhabits both sand pine scrub and high pine on the Ocala National Forest, which represents much of its known locations within its range. The Ocala National Forest provides protection for its potential recovery toward downlisting. Alternative A would be detrimental to this plant by not providing early seral stage habitat that this plant requires.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING POTENTIAL EFFECTS

Should Alternative A (the No Action Alternative) be chosen as the silvicultural prescription, other areas, especially adjacent ones within the range of Polygala lewtonii must be managed to ensure the preferred habitat and existence of potential habitat for this federally endangered species.

PREPARED BY:

/s/ William Carromero 02/18/2010 William Carromero, Ph. D. Date Botanist Ocala National Forest

BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE

Best available science was considered for this document preparation. A scientific literature search was performed to consider best available science.

REFERENCES

Clewell AF 1985 Guide to the Vascular Plants of the Florida Panhandle. Florida State University Press, Tallahassee, FL. Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1988 Mapped Occurrences of PETS: Results of survey and inventory contract with USDA Forest Service, National Forest in Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Department of Natural Resources 1990 Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. Godfrey RK 1988 Trees, Shrubs, and Woody Vines of Northern Florida and Adjacent Georgia and Alabama. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. Hardin, E.D. and White, D.L. 1989. Rare and Vascular Plant Taxa Associated with Wiregrass (Aristida stricta) in the Southeastern United States. Natural Areas Journal 9: 234-245. Kral R (ed) 1983 A report on Some Rare, Threatened or Endangered Forest-Related Vascular Plants of the South, Vol. 1 and 2 USDA Forest Service Technical Publication RA-TP2, Atlanta, GA. McConnell, K. and Menges, E.S. 2002. Effects of Fire and Treatments that Mimic Fire on the Florida Endemic Scrub Buckwheat (Eriogonum longifolium Nutt. var. gnaphalifolium Gand.). Natural Areas Journal 22: 194-201. Myers, R.L. and Ewel, J.J. (eds.) 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL. Radford AE, HE Ahles, C Ritchie Bell 1968 Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Snedaker SC, AE Lugo 1972 Ecology of the Ocala National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA. US Fish and Wildlife Service 1998 Multi Species Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Endangered Species of South Florida. Atlanta, GA. Ward DB (ed) 1979 Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida Plants, Vol. 5. University presses Florida, Gainesville, FL. Wunderlin RP 1998 Guide to the Vascular Plants of Central Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Appendix F

Engineering Analysis

2009 HOG VALLEY SCRUB ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OCALA NATIONAL FOREST

2009 HOG VALLEY SCRUB ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ROAD CONSTRUCTION/RECONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE SUMMARY

C/S CCF Road Number T Miles Est. Work Preliminary Estimated Est. Road CO-OP or Category S Needed Standards Road Cost Maintenance (Miles) L Lanes Surface Recurring Deferred (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 1/3 15 TEMP-OB 0.10 1/23 360 11 C 0.70 M SL SC $113.00 0.70 1/26 30 11 C 0.70 M SL SC $9.00 0.70 3/17 2850 70-1.4 D 0.70 PM SL N $4,323.00 0.70 2850 70 C 1.39 M SL SC $3,919.00 1.39 3/29 2530 70-1.4C1 D 0.51 PM SL N $3,377.00 0.51 3/32 20 TEMP-OB 0.41 PM SL N 20 70-1.4 D 0.70 PM SL N $2,908.00 0.70 20 70-1.4A D 1.20 PM SL N $4,987.00 1.20 20 70 C 1.39 M SL SC $412.00 1.39 4/18 2650 70 C 4.10 M SL SC $4,964.00 1.39 4/33 1370 6/2 1025 74 C 2.50 M SL SC $1,476.00 2.50 6/7 1365 66-7.8A D 0.58 PM SL N $1,111.00 1365 74 C 2.95 M SL SC $2,091.00 2.95 6/9 1065 66-7.8A D 0.58 PM SL N $961.00 1065 74 C 2.95 M SL SC $1,720.00 2.95 6/24 15 66-7.8A D 0.58 PM SL N $436.00 15 74 C 2.95 M SL SC $419.00 2.95 10/16 2430 TEMP-OB 0.05 PM SL N 11/3 2965 66-7.8 D 1.36 PM SL N $2,487.00 1.36 2965 66 C 3.15 M SL SC $4,203.00 3.15 13/4 2050 66-5.9 D 0.90 PM SL N $4,751.00 0.90 2050 70 C 4.7 M SL SC $4,447.00 4.70 15/4 2088 66-2.1 D 1.23 PM SL N $6,136.00 1.23 2088 66 C 2.08 PM SL N $1,945.00 2.08 15/22 1476 66 C 0.22 M SL SC $146.00 .22 15/39 60 66 C 0.22 M SL SC $6.00 .22 16/19 1964 66 C 2.65 M SL SC $2,342.00 2.65 16/31 482 66-2.1 D 1.23 PM SL N $5,333.00 1.23 482 66 C 2.08 PM SL N $451.00 2.08 21/7 2180 11-17.3 D 1.87 PM SL N $8,832.00 1.87

2180 TEMP-OB 0.26 PM SL N 21/8 2555 11-17.3 D 1.10 PM SL N $5,832.00 1.10 2555 TEMP-OB 0.26 PM SL N 22/40 200 11 C 1.02 M SL SC $92.00 1.02 200 66 C 4.70 M SL SC $423.00 4.70 32/13 1780 62 C 1.10 M SL SC $1,222.00 1.10 32/17 2150 41 C 0.26 M SL SC $635.00 0.26 2150 62 C 1.70 M SL SC $3,690.00 1.70 32/46 990 TEMP-OB 0.04 PM SL N 990 41 C 1.04 M SL SC $832.00 1.04 990 62 C 1.70 M SL SC $1,107.00 1.70 35/30 2380 29-1.6 D 1.16 PM SL N $5,993.00 1.16 2380 29 C 1.63 PM DL SC $3,784.00 1.63 100/1 690 74 C 4.10 R SL SC $57,989.00 4.10 100/4 120 74 C 3.56 M SL SC $579.00 3.56

39855 Total 73.89 $156,483.00 46.04 17.52

NOTES ABOUT CHART: Column (1) Compartment/Stand; (2) CCF; (3) Use road number for system roads; use "TEMP- OB" category for temporary; use road number and "OB" for existing roads to be obliterated; (4) Traffic Service Level (5) Show miles; (6) Use symbols: M-Maintenance, PM-Purchaser Maintenance, C-Construction, R-Reconstruction or B-Bridge Construction/Reconstruction; (7) Use symbols: DL-Double Lane, SL-Single Lane; (8) Use symbols: P-Pavement, LR-Lime Rock, SC-Sand Clay, N-Native Soil; (9) Show project costs; (10, 11) Show miles

2009 HOG VALLEY SCRUB EA

COMPARTMENTS: 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 21, 22, 32, 35, 100

Listed below is a description of how each stand proposed for treatment should be accessed. The stand by stand summary includes the haul route from the stand to the nearest paved road.

COMPARTMENT 1

STAND 3 Temporary Road will serve as the haul route for this stand.

A Temporary Road will be used to access this stand. This route will be accomplished and maintained under Purchaser Maintenance over a haul distance of 0.10 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, minor borrow placement and erosion control. This route will be obliterated after harvest.

Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

STAND 23 Forest System Road (FSR) 11 will serve as the haul route for this stand.

FSR 11 is a Traffic Service Level (TSL) “C” road under deferred maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 0.70 miles.

Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control

STAND 26 FSR 11 will serve as the haul route for this stand.

FSR 11 is a TSL “C” road under deferred maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 0.70 miles.

Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

COMPARTMENT 3

STAND 17 FSR 70-1.4 and 70 will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 70-1.4 is a TSL “D” road under recurrent maintenance standards. This route will be maintained under Purchaser Maintenance for 0.70 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

FSR 70 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance

funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 1.39 miles.

STAND 29 FSR 70-1.4C1 will serve as the haul route for this stand.

FSR 70-1.4C1 is a TSL “D” road under recurrent maintenance standards. This route will be maintained under Purchaser Maintenance for 0.51 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

STAND 32 FSR 70-1.4A, 70-1.4, 70, and a Temporary Road will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 70-1.4A is a TSL “D” road under recurrent maintenance standards. This route will be maintained under Purchaser Maintenance for 0.5miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

FSR 70 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 1.39 miles.

A Temporary Road will be used to access this stand. This route will be accomplished and maintained under Purchaser Maintenance over a haul distance of 0.41 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, minor borrow placement and erosion control. This route will be obliterated after harvest.

Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

COMPARTMENT 4

STAND 18 FSR 70 will serve as the haul route for this stand.

FSR 70 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 4.10 miles. Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

STAND 33 Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

COMPARTMENT 6

STAND 2 FSR 74 will serve as the haul route for this stand.

FSR 74 is a TSL “B” road under recurrent maintenance standards. See Compartment 100 / Stand 1 for reconstruction costs. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 2.50 miles. Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

STAND 7 FSR 66-7.8 and 74 will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 66-7.8 is a TSL “D” road under recurrent maintenance standards. This route will be maintained under Purchaser Maintenance for 0.58 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

STAND 9 FSR 66-7.8 and 74 will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 74 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. See Compartment 100 / Stand 1 for reconstruction costs. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 2.95 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

STAND 24 FSR 66-7.8 and 74 will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

COMPARTMENT 10

STAND 16 Temporary Road will serve as the haul route for this stand.

A Temporary Road will be used to access this stand. This route will be accomplished and maintained under Purchaser Maintenance over a haul distance of 0.05 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, minor borrow placement and erosion control. This route will be obliterated after harvest.

Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

COMPARTMENT 11

STAND 3 FSR 66 and 66-7.8 will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 66 is a TSL “C” road under deferred maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 3.15 miles.

FSR 66-7.8 is a TSL “D” road under recurrent maintenance standards. This route will be maintained under Purchaser Maintenance for 1.36 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

COMPARTMENT 13

STAND 4 FSR 66-5.9 and 70 will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 66-5.9 is a TSL “D” road under recurrent maintenance standards. This route will be maintained under Purchaser Maintenance for 0.90 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

FSR 70 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 4.7 miles.

COMPARTMENT 15

STAND 4 FSR 66-2.1 and 66 will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 66-2.1 is a TSL “D” road under recurrent maintenance standards. This route will be maintained under Purchaser Maintenance for 1.23 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

FSR 66 is a TSL “C” road under deferred maintenance standards. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 2.08 miles.

STAND 22 FSR 66 will serve as the haul route for this stand.

FSR 66 is a TSL “C” road under deferred maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 0.22 miles. Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

STAND 39 FSR 66 will serve as the haul route for this stand.

landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

COMPARTMENT 16

STAND 19 FSR 66 will serve as the haul route for this stand.

FSR 66 is a TSL “C” road under deferred maintenance standards. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 2.65 miles. Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

STAND 31 FSR 66-2.1 and 66 will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 66-2.1 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. This route will be maintained under Purchaser Maintenance for 1.23 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

FSR 66 is a TSL “C” road under deferred maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 2.65 miles.

COMPARTMENT 21

STAND 7 FSR 11-17.3 and a Temporary Road will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 11-17.3 is a TSL “D” road under recurrent maintenance standards. This route will be maintained under Purchaser Maintenance for 1.87 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

A Temporary Road will be used to access this stand. This route will be accomplished and maintained under Purchaser Maintenance over a haul distance of 0.26 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, minor borrow placement and erosion control. This route will be obliterated after harvest.

STAND 8 FSR 11-17.3 and a Temporary Road will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 11-17.3 is a TSL “D” road under recurrent maintenance standards. This route will be maintained under Purchaser Maintenance for 1.10 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

COMPARTMENT 22

STAND 40 FSR 66 and 11 will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 66 is a TSL “C” road under deferred maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 4.70 miles.

FSR 11 is a TSL “C” road under deferred maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 1.02 miles. Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

COMPARTMENT 32

STAND 13 FSR 62 will serve as the haul route for this stand.

FSR 62 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 1.10 miles. Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

STAND 17 FSR 62 and 41 will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 41 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 0.26 miles. Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

FSR 62 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 1.7 miles.

STAND 46 FSR 41, 62, and a Temporary Road will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 41 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 1.04 miles

FSR 62 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 1.7 miles.

A Temporary Road will be used to access this stand. This route will be accomplished and maintained under Purchaser Maintenance over a haul distance of 0.04 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, minor borrow placement and erosion control. This route will be obliterated after harvest.

Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

COMPARTMENT 35

STAND 30 FSR 29-1.6 and 29 will serve as the haul routes for this stand.

FSR 29-1.6 is a TSL “D” road under recurrent maintenance standards. This route will be maintained under Purchaser Maintenance for 1.16 miles. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

FSR 29 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. No reconstruction. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 1.63 miles.

COMPARTMENT 100

STAND 1 FSR 74 will serve as the haul route for this stand.

FSR 74 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. Reconstruction will include erosion control, cleaning and re-shaping ditches and resurfacing with a mixture of sand/clay for a distance of 4.10 miles and should be accomplished under Appraisal Cost Allowance. Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

STAND 4 FSR 74 will serve as the haul route for this stand.

FSR 74 is a TSL “C” road under recurrent maintenance standards. See Compartment 100 / Stand 1 for reconstruction costs. Maintenance funds for the estimated volume should be collected for 3.56 miles. Construction of a temporary approach and landing should be accomplished under Purchaser Maintenance. Purchaser Maintenance includes clearing, shaping, borrow placement and erosion control.

Note* The Road Management Objective and Road Design Standard Forms should only be filled out for roads that are being reconstructed.

ROAD MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES

Forest: Ocala National Forest District: Lake George Road Number: 74 Name: River Road Functional Class: Artery Collector Local X Length: 4.10 Miles

USER: Commercial Haul Resource Management Objectives: Immediate Sale: 4,280 CCF of timber products Future Sales: (Next 20 Years) Unknown Traffic Requirements: Immediate Sale: 12 ADT - 702 Haul round trips Future Sales: (Next 20 Years) Safety Considerations: No Special Considerations

USER: Recreation and Other Public Use Resource Management Objectives: Immediate Sale Period: Provide for Public Access Future Sales: (Next 20 Years) Provide for Public Access Traffic Requirements: Immediate Sale: 12 ADT Future Sales: (Next 20 Years) 2 ADT, No increase expected Safety Considerations: No Special Considerations

USER: Administrative Use: (Forest Service, Purchaser, and others) Resource Management Objectives: Immediate Sale Period: Provide for sale administration Future Sales: (Next 20 Years) Sale admin. post sale TSI Traffic Requirements: Immediate Sale: 4 ADT Future Sales: (Next 20 Years) 4 ADT admin, 1 ADT TSI Safety Considerations: No Special Considerations

Environmental Constraints: All streams protected by silt barriers. Physical Environmental Factors: None Design Vehicle: Curve Widening Tractor-Trailer Log Truck For Surfacing and Grade Same For Travel way Width and Turnout Same For Sight Distance: N/A Critical Vehicle: N/A Economics: (Alternatives Considered) . Traffic Service Level “C” Operation and Maintenance Criteria: Operational classification and use restrictions needed to meet resource management objectives or to protect investment: Road is classified as a constant service but access will be greatly limited by weather conditions. Traffic access for passenger cars is needed. Road Subject to Highway Safety Act: Yes, road management strategy for road that is not subject to the Highway Safety Act: Low volumes of traffic and design speed greatly reduce any chance of safety problems. Maintenance Level During Sale: Level 3 After Sale: Level 3 Special Maintenance Requirements: All maintenance during the sale is through Forest Service Road Maintenance Contract. Rational For the Selected TSL, The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) for this road is “Semi- Primitive Operational Classification, and Motorized” Maintenance Level

ROAD DESIGN STANDARDS

Forest: Ocala National Forest District: Lake George Road Number: 74 Road Name: River Road Functional Class: Artery Collector Local X Traffic Service C Level: Compartment: 6, 100 Timber Volume 4,280 CCF Length: (miles) 4.10

Standards are the same as those on the Immediate Sale, Except as Noted:

Design Item Immediate Sale Needs Maximum Road Efficiency a. Design Speed: 15-25 mph b. 249 Spec c. Gradient: Max 4% / Min 0% / Max Pitch 4% for 1,500 feet. d. Lanes: Single e. Travel Way Width 20 feet Sub-grade Width 22 feet f. Turnouts: Max spacing 1000 „ Length and Width L: 50 „ W: 24‟ Transition Length 50‟ g. Surfacing (Spot or Full) full Depth and type of surface 4 inches of sand clay h. Borrow: (Spot or Full) Spot Comments: Insure cover over culverts and stabilize roadbed. i. Curve Radius: Min. Desired 400 feet – Absolute minimum radius 100 feet. j. Curve Widening for: Design Vehicle No Critical Vehicle No k. Super elevation No l. Slough Widening No m. Slope Ratios: Fill 5:1 Cut 3:1, Vertical back slopes for ditches. n. Clearing Widths: From top of Vertical Cut 0 feet From Top of Other Cut 3 feet From Toe of Fill 1 foot o. Clearances: Vertical 16 feet - Horizontal 30 Feet p. Turnaround and type No q. Road Template (Crown, out-slope, in- 2% crown, 1.0 foot ditch depth minimum slope, ditches, dips) r. Seeding and Mulching All slopes 4 feet in length or longer and all other disturbed areas. s. Drainage & other Considerations 12” Minimum cover over culverts

Appendix G

Summary of Comments to Public Notice

No comments or other expression of interest were received during the comment period (3/8/2011 – 4/6/2011).