United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20” Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960
March 25, 2015
Kevin R. Becker Department of the Air Force Detachment 1, 23rd Wing Avon Park Air/Ground Training Complex (ACC) Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida 33825
Service CPA Code: 2013-CPA-0255 Service Consultation Code: 2013-F-0271 Date Received: September 3, 2013 Project: Avon Park AFR, JIFE Counties: Highlands and Polk
Dear Lieutenant Colonel Beeker:
This document transmits the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the U.S. Air Force’s (USAF) proposed Joint Integrated Fires Exercises (JIFE) at Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR) in Highlands and Polk Counties, Florida, and its adverse effects on the threatened eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperi) (indigo snake), threatened Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) (scrub-jay), endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW), and endangered Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) (FBB) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.).
This Biological Opinion is based on information provided in the USAF’s August 28, 2013, biological assessment (BA), conversations, and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in the South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida.
Consultation History
On May 2, 2013, the USAF requested the assistance of the Service with the review of their draft BA for the JIFE.
On May 8, 2013, the Service sent the USAF an email with comments on the draft BA.
On August 1, 2013, the Service met with the USAF and discussed details of the proposed action.
On February 14, 2014, the Service requested additional information from the USAF. On April 22, 2014, the Service requested additional information from the USAF
On November 18, 2014, the Service met with the USAF regarding potential impacts to the Florida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodrainus savannarumfioridanus) (FGSP) from the JWE exercise.
On January 29, 2015, the USAF adjusted its project description to minimize potential impact to the FGSP.
As of January 29, 2015, we have received all the information necessary for initiation of formal consultation on the indigo snake, scrub-jay, RCW, and FBB for this project, as required in the regulations governing interagency consultations (50 CFR § 402.14). The Service is providing this Biological Opinion in conclusion of formal consultation.
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The action area for this project is APAFR, the largest bombing range east of the Mississippi River. APAFR is approximately 106,000 acres located in northeastern Highlands and southeastern Polk counties, Florida. Of the 106,000 acres that make up APAFR, over 98,300 acres are undeveloped. The undeveloped areas are a mosaic of natural plant communities and pine plantations, comprised of mesic and wet flatwoods, dry and wet prairies, floodplain marsh, scrub, and seepage slopes.
The USAF proposes to conduct a JIFE at APAFR on April 6 through 16, 2015. During JIFE, small groups of soldiers, known as Tactical Air Control parties (TACPs) and Forward Observers (FOs), will be trained to coordinate ordnance delivery from aircraft and artillery on targets in simulated combat situations. The joint training exercise includes a variety of aircraft, helicopters, artillery, and ground-based troops. The emphasis of the exercise is coordinating the delivery of ordnance from aircraft and artillery by on-the-ground air controllers and FOs.
The proposed action involves two training operations: (1) Advanced Operations, which take place in the North Conventional and the North Tactical Ranges and (2) Mid-level Operations, which take place in the South Tactical Range (Figure 1). The Advanced Operations will coordinate the fire from aircraft, artillery, and mortars at targets in the north ranges. The Mid- Level Operations will coordinate fire from the same type of assets in the south range, but in less complex scenarios and without high explosive (HE) ordnance is the south ranges. The TACPs and FOs will remain on their respective ranges for training, while the aircraft, artillery, and mortar assets will be shared. Aircraft will move quickly and freely from the north and south ranges. The artillery will either relocate from one firing location to another in order to participate in the Advanced and Mid-Level Operations, or remain in the same firing location and participate in either operation by pivoting. The mortars, due to their limited range, will have to relocate closer to the north ranges or the south range to participate in the Advanced and Mid-level Operations.
2 The training scenarios could occur at any time in a 24-hour period, but since exercises must take place during both day and night conditions, the most typical scenario will have activities starting in the later afternoon and continuing until midnight.
Preparation and staging
The exercise will be broken down into stages of progression. An advance party will arrive at APAFR 2 days prior to the field exercise to prepare and ensure that infrastructure is in place, which includes lodging, food service, sanitation, communications, safety, and insuring that the airfield, airspace, impact ranges, landing zones, firing points, and road networks are available and serviceable for the proposed action. The second stage will take up to 2 days and will include organization and assembly of participating units. The fixed-wing assets (airplanes), rotary-wing assets (helicopter), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), howitzers (canons), rocket launching vehicles, mortars, TACPs, FOs, command center personnel, and support personnel will stage at APAFR. Two howitzers will have the option of being air-dropped into drop zones and staged there.
Part of staging will include assembly of supplies and weapon platforms (aircraft, howitzer, High Mobility Artillery Rocket System [HIMARS], and mortar) for the exercise, as well as the central command post located in the hanger with communications in the airfield main tower. The supplies will include fuel, ammunition, ordnance, food, water, sanitation, support vehicles, communication and technological equipment, and weaponry.
The third stage will be operations, which is the actual participation of the personnel in the exercise. The operational training will last for a minimum of 7 days and a maximum of 9 days. There will be briefings and debriefings in between operational training periods.
The fourth stage will be a final debriefing and demobilization. Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) teams will clear areas where HE fall outside of designated HE impact areas within 30 days of completion of JIFE. Three days will be allowed for debriefing and demobilization.
Assets used for the Joint Integrated Fires Exercises
The assets approved for use at APAFR and that will be used in the JIFE are categorized as air- based assets or ground-based assets. Air-based assets are further described as fixed-wing and rotary-wing assets. Fixed-wing assets are further described as fighter/attack aircraft, gunships, and bombers. The typical fixed-wing fighter/attack aircraft that will participate in the JIFE includes the F-22 Raptor, F-16 Falcon, F-l5E Strike Eagle, S-3 Viking, F/A-18 Hornet, AV-8B Harrier, and A-lU Thunderbolt. The AC-130 Specter gunship will participate in the JIFE as will the B-2 bomber. While not limited to the following, the typical rotary-wing aircraft that will participate in the JIFE includes the AH-l Cobra and the UH-lN Huey. Ground assets will include mortars (81 millimeter [mm] and 120mm), howitzers (105 mm and 155 mm), and rocket-launching vehicles launching Reduced Range Practice Rockets (RRPRs).
3 Weapons and ordnance
The types of assets with the number of maximum participating weapons platforms, personnel, and support vehicles that will participate in the JIFE are listed in Table 1. The number of ordnance expended by the proposed action over the current annual expenditures at APAFR is listed in Table 2.
Advanced operations
The Advanced Operations will place with the TACPs and FOs on static points, observation towers, and on any building within the mock village located in the north ranges (Figure 1). From these locations, the TACPs and FOs are given the training scenario via radio communication. The scenarios include the availability of air (rotary and fix-wing) and ground (artillery and mortars) assets at any given time, along with the current activity and location of hypothetical opposition forces located in the ranges. With this information, the TACPs and FOs prioritize opposition targets and coordinate the available assets to deliver ordnance to the targets.
Aircraft will expend their ordnance and munitions into the north ranges as directed by TACPs, and then travel back to the APAFR airfield, MacDill Deployment Unit Complex (DUC), or their home stations for rearmament and refueling to prepare for the next exercise. When an exercise is completed, the aircraft and associated support vehicles will be maintained at the APAFR airfield or the MacDill DUC.
The two howitzers in the Karen or Joan Drop Zones (DZ5) (Figure 2) will fire up to eight rounds each into the North Conventional Range on the first day of the operational training. After firing, they will be towed by heavy trucks from the DZs to join the rest of the howitzers in either Firing Points (FPs) 19 through 22, or FPs 8 through 12. After joining the other howitzers, the unit will continue to conduct fire as requested by the FOs. The howitzers will remain together as a unit for the rest of the exercise.
The platoon of three rocket launchers will fire RRPRs from Oscar Range into the north ranges.
All of the listed assets will be available to the TACPs and FOs for the Advanced Operations. All of the hypothetical opposition targets will be existing targets. All of the ordnance delivered by the assets to the targets have been previously used at APAFR. Ordnance delivered by asset to the north ranges during the Advanced Operations for one JIFE is listed in Table 3. The B-2 will not deliver ordnance during the JIFE, but will participate in the Advanced and Mid-level Operations in all other respects.
The North Tactical Range is designed for training with bullets and inert ordnance. There are many approved targets for the various-sized bullets and inert ordnances. The targets and attack headings by aircraft are arranged in a manner that all the expended ammunition remains within the perimeter of the range.
The North Conventional Range is designed for training with bullets and HE ordnance. High explosive ordnance includes artillery and mortar ordnance and HE ordnance from AC-130 gunship cannons, 2.75 HE rockets, and Hellfire rockets. The targets and attack headings by 4 aircraft are arranged in a manner that all fragmentation is encompassed within the HE area of the range (Figure 2). Artillery and mortars have designated targets and firing points that ensure that all fragmentation stays within the HE area. An RRPR inert rocket fired by the HIMARS is the one exception that allows inert ordnance to be fired into the North Conventional Range.
Mid-level operations
The Mid-level Operations involves TACPs and FOs in static positions, including any of the buildings or areas within a mock village and scoring towers, located in the South Tactical Range (Figure 3). The general scenario is similar to the Advanced Operations with regards to the assets and target prioritizing. The Mid-level Operations are less complex, and more restrictive in the availability of assets. An AC-130 gunship will be firing non-HE rounds, into the designated 40mm surface-danger zone (SDZ) (Figure 4). All other aircraft, both fixed- and rotary-wing, will be available for firing their respective non-HE munitions and inert ordnance at the remaining inert- only targets located in the South Tactical Range outside the 40 mm SDZ.
The mortars will fire the three different types of ordnance on targets within the 40 mm SDZ impact area from the West, East, and North Mortar Firing Areas (MFA5). Three HIMARS rocket launchers will fire from Old Bravo Road and the western end of Alpha Grade into a designated RRPR area in the South Tactical Range. The 105 and 155 mm howitzers will fire from existing firing points at targets into the 40 mm SDZ. No HE ordnance will be used in South Tactical Range.
All of the hypothetical opposition targets will be existing targets. All of the ordnance has been previously used on the South Tactical Range. The type of ordnance and assets available for the Mid-Level Operations for the South Tactical Range are listed in Table 4.
Conservation measures
In order to reduce the adverse effects of the proposed action on all federally listed species within the action area, the USAF will implement the following conservation measures:
1. The USAF will implement its Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP) to the fullest extent funding allows. The ThJRMP is a living document that operates under the philosophy of ecosystem management and utilizes an adaptive management framework to sustain natural resources. Additionally, the INRMP has a suite of conservation projects for all federally listed species within the action area and attempts to manage their populations towards recovery.
2. Prescribed fire and firebreak maintenance will be implemented prior to the spring JIFE to mitigate ordnance-ignited wildfires. Existing accessible firebreaks will be prepared around the boundaries of the impact areas. Prescribed fire will be applied to the impact areas and adjacent areas that have enough fuel to carry a fire. These activities, particularly prescribed fire, are dependent on the mission schedule, weather, and available resources and availability of burn permits issued by the Florida Forest Service.
5 3. As part of standard operating procedures, the Fire Management Officer (FMO) will advise range operations personnel of the fire danger. Missions will be reviewed to determine if adjustments can be made to mitigate the risk of ordnance-ignited wildfire. In the event of ordnance fire(s) resulting from the JIFE training, the FMO will size-up the fire(s) the following morning and develop a response action with available resources. A response action may include counter-firing andlor direct attack with engines and a tractor-plow depending on the scheduled missions, the location of the fire, environmental conditions and the weather forecast.
4. All personnel evolved in the JIFE will be briefed on the possible presence of federally listed species, and instructed to avoid all federally listed species that occur within APAFR. If any of these species are encountered, it will be avoided and allowed to leave the area on its own.
STATUS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT
Eastern indigo snake
Species description
The indigo snake, which can reach lengths of up to 8.5 feet (Moler 1992), is one of the largest North American snake species. Its color is uniformly lustrous-black, dorsally and ventrally, except for a red or cream-colored suffusion of the chin, throat, and sometimes the cheeks. Its scales are large and smooth (the central 3 to 5 scale rows are lightly keeled in adult males) in 17 scale rows at mid-body. Its anal plate is undivided. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.
Life history
In south-central Florida, limited information on the reproductive cycle suggests indigo snake breeding extends from June to January, egg laying occurs from April to July, and hatching occurs during mid-summer to early fall (Layne and Steiner 1996). Young hatch approximately 3 months after egg-laying and there is no evidence of parental care. Indigo snakes in captivity take 3 to 4 years to rcach sexual maturity (Speakc et al. 1987). Female indigo snakes can store sperm and delay fertilization of eggs. There is a single record of a captive indigo snake laying five eggs (at least one of which was fertile) after being isolated for more than 4 years (Carson 1945). However, there have been several recent reports of parthenogenetic reproduction by virginal snakes. Hence, sperm storage may not have been involved in Carson’s (1945) example (Moler 1998). There is no information on the indigo snake lifespan in the wild, although one captive individual lived 25 years, 11 months (Shaw 1959).
Indigo snakes are active and spend a great deal of time foraging for food and searching for mates. They are one of the few snake species active during the day and rest at night. The indigo snake is a generalized predator and will eat any vertebrate small enough to be overpowered. They swallow their prey alive. Food items include fish, frogs, toads, snakes (venomous, as well as non venomous), lizards, turtles, turtle eggs, small alligators, birds, and small mammals (Keegan 1944; Babis 1949; Kochman 1978; Steiner et al. 1983).
6 Population dynamics Indigo snakes use a mosaic of habitats. A study in southern Georgia found interspersion of tortoise-inhabited sandhills and wetlands improve habitat quality for the indigo snake (Landers and Speake 1980). Indigo snakes shelter in gopher tortoise burrows, hollowed root channels, hollow logs, or the burrows of rodents, armadillos, or land crabs (Lawler 1977; Moler l985a; Layne and Steiner 1996). In the milder climates of central and southern Florida, indigo snakes exist in a more stable thermal environment, where availability of thermal refugia may not be as critical to snake survival. Over most of its range in Florida, the indigo snake frequents diverse habitats such as pine flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, floodplain edges, sand ridges, dry glades, tropical hammocks, edges of freshwater marshes, muckland fields, coastal dunes, and xeric sandhill communities (Service 1999). Indigo snakes also use agricultural lands and various types of wetlands, with higher population concentrations occurring in the sandhill and pineland regions of northern and central Florida. Observations over the last 50 years made by maintenance workers in citrus groves in east-central Florida indicate indigo snakes are occasionally observed on the ground in the tree rows and more frequently near the canals, roads, and wet ditches (Zeigler 2006). In the sugar cane fields at the A-i Reservoir Project site in the Everglades Agricultural Area, indigo snakes have been observed (including one mortality) during earthmoving and other construction-related activities.
In extreme south Florida (i.e., the Everglades and Florida Keys), indigo snakes are found in tropical hardwood hammocks, pine rocklands, freshwater marshes, abandoned agricultural land, coastal prairie, mangrove swamps, and human-altered habitats. It is thought they prefer hammocks and pine forests since most observations occur there and use of these areas is disproportionate compared to the relatively small total area of these habitats (Steiner et al. 1983).
Indigo snakes range over large areas and into various habitats throughout the year, with most activity occurring in the summer and fall (Smith 1987; Moler 1985a). Adult males have larger home ranges than adult females and juveniles; their ranges average 554 acres, reducing to 390 acres in the summer (Moler i985b). In contrast, a gravid female may use from 3.5 to 106 acres (Smith 1987). In Florida, home ranges for females and males range from 5 to 371 acres and 4 to 805 acres, respectively (Smith 2003). At Archbold Biological Station, the average home range size for females was determined to be 47 acres, and overlapping male home range size determined to be 185 acres (Layne and Steiner 1996).
Status and distribution The indigo snake was listed as threatened on January 31, 1978 (43 FR 4028), due to population declines caused by habitat loss, over-collecting for the domestic and international pet trade, and mortality caused by rattlesnake (Crotalus adainanteus) collectors who gas gopher tortoise burrows to collect snakes. The indigo snake ranges from the southeastern United States to northern Argentina (Conant and Collins 1998). This species has eight recognized subspecies, two of which occur in the United States: the eastern indigo and the Texas indigo (D. c. erebennus). In the United States, the indigo snake historically occurred throughout Florida and in the coastal plain of Georgia; it has also been recorded in Alabama and Mississippi (Diemer and Speake 1983; Moler 1985b). It may have occurred in southern South Carolina, but its occurrence there cannot be confirmed. Georgia and Florida currently support the remaining
7 endemic populations of the indigo snake (Lawler 1977). The indigo snake occurs throughout most of Florida and is absent only from the Dry Tortugas and Marquesas Keys, and regions of north Florida where cold temperatures and deeper clay soils exist (Cox and Kautz 2000).
Effective law enforcement has reduced pressure on the species from the pet trade. However, because of its relatively large home range, the indigo snake is vulnerable to habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation (Lawler 1977; Moler l985a). Accordingly, the primary threat to the indigo snake is habitat loss due to development and fragmentation. Breininger et al. (2012) concluded the annual survival of adult indigo snakes decreased as habitat fragmentation increased. In the interface areas between urban and native habitats, residential housing is also a threat because it increases the likelihood of snakes being killed by property owners and domestic pets. Extensive tracts of undeveloped land are important for maintaining indigo snakes. In citrus groves, indigo snake mortality occurs from vehicular traffic and management techniques such as pesticide usage, lawn mowers, and heavy equipment usage (Zeigler 2006). Zeigler (2006) reported seeing at least 12 dead indigo snakes that were killed by heavy equipment operators in the act of clearing infected trees.
Tasks identified in the recovery plan for this species include: habitat management through controlled burning, testing experimental miniature radio transmitters for tracking juveniles, maintenance of a captive breeding colony at Auburn University, recapture of formerly released indigo snakes to confirm survival in the wild, educational lectures and field trips, and efforts to obtain landowner cooperation in conservation efforts (Service 1999).
To protect and manage this species for recovery, Breininger et al. (2004) concluded the greatest indigo snake conservation benefit would be accrued by conserving snake populations in the largest upland systems that connect to other large reserves while keeping edge and area ratios low. Management of these lands would be directed towards maintaining and enhancing the diversity of plant and animal assemblages within these properties. Where these goals are achieved, indigo snakes will directly benefit because of improved habitat conditions. Land managers are encouraged to utilize fire as a tool to maintain biodiversity in fire-dependent ecosystems. Florida scrub-jay Species description Scrub-jays are about 10 to 12 inches long and weigh about 3 ounces. They are similar in size and shape to blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata), but ditter significantly in coloration (Wooltenden and Fitzpatrick 1996a). Unlike the blue jay, the scrub-jay lacks a crest. It also lacks the conspicuous white-tipped wing and tail feathers, black barring, and bridle of the blue jay. The scrub-jay’s head, nape, wings, and tail are pale blue, and its body is pale gray on its back and belly. Its throat and upper breast are lightly striped and bordered by a pale blue-gray “bib” (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996a). Scrub-jay sexes are not distinguishable by plumage (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984), and males, on the average, are only slightly larger than females (Woolfenden 1978). The sexes may be identified by a distinct “hiccup” call made only by females (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1986). Scrub-jays that are less than about 5 months of age are easily distinguishable from adults; their plumage is smoky gray on the head and back, and they lack the blue crown and nape of adults. Molting 8 occurs between early June and late November and peaks between mid-July and late September (Bancroft and Woolfenden 1982). During late summer and early fall, when the first basic molt is nearly done, fledgling scrub-jays may be indistinguishable from adults in the field (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). The wide variety of vocalizations of scrub-jays is described in Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1996b).
Scrub-jays are in the order Passeriformes and the family Corvidae. They have been called a “superspecies complex” and described in four groups that differ in geographic distribution within the United States and Mexico: Aphelocoma calzfonzica, from southwestern Washington through Baja California; A. insularis, on Santa Cruz in the Channel Islands, California; A. woodhousii, from southeastern Oregon and the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains to Oaxaca, Mexico; and A. coerulescens in peninsular Florida (American Ornithologists’ Union [AOUJ 1983). Otherjays of the same genus include the Mexican jay or gray-breasted jay ~A. ultramarina) and the unicolored jay (A. unicolot-) of Central America and southwest North America (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b).
The Florida scrub-jay, which was originally named Corvus coerulescens by Bosc in 1795, was transferred to the genus Apheloconia in 1851 by Cabanis. In 1858, Baird made coerulescens the type species for the genus, and it has been considered a subspecies (A. c. coerulescens) for the past several decades (AOU 1957). It recently regained recognition as a full species (Florida scrub-jay, Apheloconia coerulescens) from the AOU (AOU 1995) because of genetic, morphological, and behavioral differences from other members of this group: the western scrub- jay (A. californica) and the island scrub-jay (A. insularis). The group name is retained for species in this complex; however, it is now hyphenated to “scrub-jay” (AOU 1995). From here on in the document, Florida scrub-jays will be referred to as scrub-jays.
This species account references the full species name, A. coerulescens, as listed in the Federal Register (Service 1987). No critical habitat has been designated for this species; therefore, none will be affected.
Life history
The scrub-jay has specific habitat needs. It is endemic to peninsular Florida’s ancient dune ecosystems or scrubs, which occur on well-drained to excessively well-drained sandy soils (Laessle 1958; Laessle 1968; Myers 1990). This relict oak-dominated scrub, or xeric oak scrub, is essential habitat to the scrub-jay. This community type is adapted to nutrient-poor soils, periodic drought, and frequent fires (Abrahamson 1984). Xeric (dry) oak scrub on the Lake Wales Ridge is predominantly made up of four species of stunted, low-growing oaks: sand live oak (Quercus geminata), Chapman oak, myrtle oak (Q. myrtij’olia), and scrub oak (Q. inopina) (Myers 1990). In optimal habitat for scrub-jays on the Lake Wales Ridge, these oaks are 3 to 10 feet high, interspersed with 10 to 50 percent unvegetated, sandy openings, and a sand pine canopy of less than 20 percent (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1991). Trees and dense herbaceous vegetation are rare. Other vegetation noted along with the oaks includes saw palmetto and scrub palmetto (Sabal etonia), as well as woody shrubs such as Florida rosemary and rusty lyonia.
9 Scrub-jays occupy areas with less scrub oak cover and fewer openings on the Merritt Island- Cape Canaveral Complex and in southwest Florida than is typical of xeric oak scrub habitat on the Lake Wales Ridge (Schmalzer and Hinkle 1992b; Breininger et al. 1995; Thaxton and Hingtgen 1996). The predominant communities here are oak scrub and scrubby flatwoods. Scrubby flatwoods differ from scrub by having a sparse canopy of slash pine; sand pine is rare. The shrub species mentioned above are common, except for scrub oak and scrub palmetto, which are more often found on the Lake Wales Ridge. Runner oak (Q. minima), turkey oak (Q. laevis), bluejack oak (Q. incana), and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) also have been reported. The Kennedy Space Center located in Brevard County, supports one of the largest contiguous populations of scrub-jays. Studies conducted there give good descriptions of this habitat type (Schmalzer and Hinkle 1992b). Optimal scrub-jay habitat occurs as patches with the following attributes: 1. Ten to 50 percent of the oak scrub made up of bare sand or sparse herbaceous vegetation; 2. Greater than 50 percent of the shrub layer made up of scrub oaks; 3. A mosaic of oak scrubs that occur in optimal height (4 to 6 feet) and shorter; 4. Less than 15 percent canopy cover; and 5. Greater than 984 feet from a forest (Breininger et al. 1998). Much potential scrub-jay habitat occurs as patches of oak scrub within a matrix of little-used habitat of saw palmetto and herbaceous swale marshes (Breininger et al. 1991, Breininger et al. 1995). These native matrix habitats supply prey for scrub-jays and habitat for other species of conservation concern. The flammability of native matrix habitats is important for spreading fires into oak scrub (Breininger et al. 1995; Breininger et al. 2002). Degradation or replacement of native matrix habitats with habitat fragments and industrial areas attract predators of scrub-jays, such as fish crows (Corvu.s ossifragus), that are rare in most regularly burned native matrix habitats (Breininger and Schmalzer 1990; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1991). Matrix habitats often develop into woodlands and forests when there is a disruption of fire regimes. These woodlands and forests are not suitable for scrub-jays, decrease the habitat suitability of nearby scrub, attract predators, and further disrupt fire patterns. Population dynamics Scrub-jays have a social structure that involves cooperative breeding, a trait the other North American species of scrub-jays do not show (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1990). Scrub-jays live in families ranging from two birds (a single-mated pair) to extended families of eight adults (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984) and one to four juveniles. Fledgling scrub-jays stay with the breeding pair in their natal (birth) territory as “helpers,” forming a closely-knit, cooperative family group. Prebreeding numbers are generally reduced to either a pair with no helpers or families of three or four individuals (a pair plus one or two helpers) (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996a).
Scrub-jays have a well-developed intrafamilial dominance hierarchy with breeder males most dominant, followed by helper males, breeder females, and, finally, female helpers (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1977; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). Helpers take part in sentinel duties (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984; McGowan and Woolfenden 1989), territorial defense (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984), predator-mobbing, and the feeding of both nestlings 10 (Stalicup and Woolfenden 1978) and fledglings (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984; McGowan and Woolfenden 1990). The well-developed sentinel system involves having one individual occupying an exposed perch watching for predators or territory intruders. When a predator is seen, the sentinel scrub-jay gives a distinctive warning call (McGowan and Woolfenden 1989; McGowan and Woolfenden 1990), and all family members seek cover in dense shrub vegetation (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). Scrub-jay pairs occupy year-round, multipurpose territories (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1978; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984; Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). Territory size averages 22 to 25 acres (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1990; Fitzpatrick et al. 1991), with a minimum size of about 12 acres (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984; Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). The availability of territories is a limiting factor for scrub-jay populations (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). Because of this limitation, nonbreeding adult males may stay at the natal territory as helpers for up to 6 years, waiting for either a mate or territory to become available (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). Scrub-jays may become breeders in several ways: 1. By replacing a lost breeder on a non-natal territory (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984); 2. Through “territorial budding,” where a helper male becomes a breeder in a segment of its natal territory (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1978); 3. By inheriting a natal territory following the death of a breeder; 4. By establishing a new territory between existing territories (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984); or 5. Through “adoption” of an unrelated helper by a neighboring family followed by resident mate replacement (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). Territories also can be created by restoring habitat through effective habitat management efforts in areas that are overgrown (Thaxton and Hingtgen 1994). To become a breeder, a scrub-jay must find a territory and a mate. Evidence presented by Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1984) suggests that scrub-jays are monogamous. The pair retains ownership and sole breeding privileges in its particular territory year after year. Courtship to form the pair is lengthy and ritualized and involves posturing and vocalizations made by the male to the female (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). Copulation between the pair is generally out of sight of other srriih-jayc (Wonlfende.n and Fit7patrirk 1984) These authors also reported never observing copulation between unpaired scrub-jays or courtship behavior between a female and a scrub-jay other than her mate. Age at first breeding in the scrub-jay varies from 1 to 7 years, although most individuals become breeders between 2 and 4 years of age (Fitzpatrick and Woolfenden 1988). Persistent breeding populations of scrub-jays exist only where there are scrub oaks in sufficient quantity and form to provide an ample winter acorn supply, cover from predators, and nest sites during the spring (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). Scrub-jay nests are typically constructed in shrubby oaks, at a height of 1.6 to 8.2 feet (Woolfenden 1974). Sand live oak and scrub oak are the preferred shrubs on the Lake Wales Ridge (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick l996b), and myrtle oak is favored on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge (Toland 1991) and southern Gulf coast (Thaxton 1998). In suburban areas, scrub-jays nest in the same evergreen oak species, as well as in introduced or exotic trees; however, they build their nests in a significantly higher position in these oaks than when in natural scrub habitat (Bowman et al. 1996). Scrub-jay nests are an open cup, about 7 to 8 inches outside diameter and 3 to 4 inches inside diameter. The 11 outer basket is bulky and built of course twigs from oaks and other vegetation, and the inside is lined with tightly wound palmetto or cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) fibers. There is no foreign material as may be present in a blue jay nest (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). Nesting is synchronous, normally occurring from March 1 through June 30 (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). On the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and southern Gulf coast, nesting may be protracted through the end of July. In suburban habitats, nesting is consistently started earlier (March) than in natural scrub habitat (Fleischer 1996), although the reason for this is unknown. Clutch size ranges from one to five eggs, but is typically three or four eggs (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1990). Clutch size is generally larger in suburban habitats, and the birds try to rear more broods per year (Fleischer 1996). Double brooding by as much as 20 percent has been documented on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and in suburban habitat within the southern Gulf coast, compared to about 2 percent on the Lake Wales Ridge (Thaxton 1998). Scrub-jay eggs measure 1.1 inches in length by 0.8 inch in breadth (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b), and coloration “varies from pea green to pale glaucous green... blotched and spotted with irregularly shaped markings of cinnamon rufous and vinaceous cinnamon, these being generally heaviest about the larger end” (Bendire 1895). Eggs are incubated for 17 to 19 days (Woolfenden 1974), and fledging occurs 15 to 21 days after hatching (Woolfenden 1978). Only the breeding female incubates and broods eggs and nestlings (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). Average production of young is two fledglings per pair, per year (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1990; Fitzpatrick et al. 1991), and the presence of helpers improves fledging success (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1990; Mumme 1992). Annual productivity must average at least two young fledged per pair for a population of scrub-jays to support long-term stability (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). Fledglings depend upon adults for food for about ten weeks, during which time they are fed by both breeders and helpers (Woolfenden 1975; McGowan and Woolfenden 1990). Survival of scrub-jay fledglings to yearling age class averages about 35 percent in optimal scrub; while annual survival of both adult males and females averages around 80 percent (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick l996b). Data from Archbold Biological Station, however, suggest that survival and reproductive success of scrub-jays in suboptimal habitat is lower (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1991). These data help explain why local populations inhabiting unburned, late successional habitats become extirpated. Similarly, data from Indian River County show that mean annual productivity declines significantly in suburban areas where Toland (1991) reported that productivity averaged 2.2 young fledged per pair in contiguous optimal scrub, 1.8 young fledged per pair in fragmented moderately-developed scrub, and 1.2 young per pair fledged in very fragmented suboptimal scrub. The longest observed lifespan of a scrub-jay is 15.5 years at Archbold Biological Station in Highlands County (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). Scrub-jays are nonmigratory and permanently territorial. Juveniles stay in their natal territory for up to 6 years before dispersing to become breeders (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1986). Once scrub-jays pair and become breeders, generally within two territories of their natal area, they stay on their breeding territory until death. In suitable habitat, fewer than 5 percent of scrub-jays disperse more than 5 miles (Fitzpatrick et al. unpublished data). All documented long-distance dispersals have been in unsuitable habitat such as woodland, pasture, or suburban plantations. Scrub-jay dispersal behavior is affected by the intervening land uses. Protected scrub habitats will most effectively sustain scrub-jay
12 populations if they are located within surrounding habitat types that can be used and traversed by scrub-jays. Brushy pastures, scrubby corridors along railway and road rights-of-way, and open burned flatwoods offer links for colonization among scrub-jay populations. Stith et al. (1996) believe that a dispersal distance of 5 miles is close to the biological maximum for scrub-jays. Scrub-jays forage mostly on or near the ground, often along the edges of natural or man-made openings. They visually search for food by hopping or running along the ground beneath the scrub or by jumping from shrub to shrub. Insects, particularly orthopterans (e.g., locusts, crickets, grasshoppers, beetles) and lepidopteran (e.g., butterfly and moth) larvae form most of the animal diet throughout most of the year (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). Small vertebrates are eaten when encountered, including frogs and toads ~HyIafemora1is, H. squirella, rarely Bufo quercicus, and unidentified tadpoles), lizards (Anolis carolinensis, Cnemidophorus sexlzneatus, Sceloporus woodi, Eumeces inexpectatus, Neoseps reynoidsi, Ophisaurus compressus, 0. ventralis), small snakes (Thamnophis sauritus, Opheocirys aestivus, Diadophispunctatus), small rodents (cotton rat [Sigmodon hispit/us] , Feromyscus polionotus, and black rat [Rattus rattus] young), downy chicks of the bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), and fledgling common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas). In suburban areas, scrub-jays will accept supplemental foods once the scrub-jays have learned about them (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrièk 1984). Acorns are the principal plant food (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984; Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). From August to November each year, scrub-jays may harvest and cache 6,500 to 8,000 oak (Quercus spp.) acorns throughout their territory. Acorns are typically buried beneath the surface of bare sand patches in the scrub during fall, and retrieved and consumed year round, though most are consumed in fall and winter (DeGange et al. 1989). On the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, acorns are often cached in pine trees, either in forks of branches, in distal pine boughs, under bark, or on epiphytic plants, between 1 to 30 feet in height. Other small nuts, fruits, and seeds also are eaten (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). Many scrub-jays occur in habitat conditions where their long-term persistence is doubtful, although their persistence in these areas can occur for many years (Swain et al. 1995; Stith et al. 1996; Root 1998; Breininger et al. 2001). A primary cause for scrub-jay decline is poor demographic success associated with reductions in fire frequency (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1991; Schaub et al. 1992; Stith el al. 1996; Breininger et al. 1999). The reduction in fire frequency is associated with increases in shrub height, decreases in open space, increases in tree densities, and the replacement of scrub and marshes by forests (Duncan and Breininger 1998; Schmalzer and Boyle 1998; Duncan et al. 1999). These habitat trajectories result in declines in habitat use and demographic success (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1991). As a result, mean family size declines, and eventually the number of breeding pairs can decline by 50 percent every 5 to 10 years (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1991; Breininger et al. 1999; Breininger et al. 2001). Status and distribution The scrub-jay was federally listed as threatened in 1987 primarily because of habitat fragmentation, degradation, and loss (Service 1987). Historically, oak scrub occurred as numerous isolated patches in peninsular Florida. These patches were concentrated along both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and on the central ridges of the peninsula (Davis 1967). Probably until as 13 recently as the 1 950s, scrub-jay populations occurred in the scrub habitats of 39 of the 40 counties south of, and including Levy, Gilchrist, Alachua, Clay, and Duval Counties. Historically, most of these counties would have contained hundreds or even thousands of breeding pairs (Fitzpatrick et al. 1994). Only the southernmost county, Monroe, lacked scrub-jays (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996a). Although scrub-jay numbers probably began to decline when European settlement began in Florida (Cox 1987), the decline was first noted in the literature by Byrd (1928). After 40 years of personal observation of the Etonia scrub (now known as Ocala National Forest), Webber (1935) observed many changes to the previously-undisturbed scrub habitat found there, noting “The advent of man has created a new environmental complex.”
A statewide scrub-jay census was last conducted in 1992 and 1993, at which time there were an estimated 4,000 pairs of scrub-jays left in Florida (Fitzpatrick et al. 1994). At that time, the scrub-jay was considered extirpated in ten counties (Alachua, Broward, Clay, Duval, Gilchrist, Hernando, Hendry, Pinellas, and St. Johns), and were considered functionally extinct in an additional five counties (Flagler, Hardee, Levy, Orange, and Putnam), where 10 or fewer pairs remained. Recent information indicates that there are at least 12 to 14 breeding pairs of scrub- jays located within Levy County, higher than previously thought (Miller 2004), and there is at least one breeding pair of scrub-jays remaining in Clay County (Miller 2004). A scrub-jay has been documented in St. Johns County as recently as 2003 (Miller 2003). Populations are close to becoming extirpated in Gulf coast counties (from Levy south to Collier) (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996a). In 1992 and 1993, population numbers in 21 of the counties were below 30 or fewer breeding pairs (Fitzpatrick et al. 1994). Based on the amount of destroyed scrub habitat, scrub-jay population loss along the Lake Wales Ridge is 80 percent or more since pre European settlement (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). Since the early 1980s, Fitzpatrick et al. (1994) estimated that, in the northern third of the species’ range, the scrub-jay has declined somewhere between 25 and 50 percent. The species may have declined by as much as 25 to 50 percent in the last decade alone (Stith et al. 1996).
On protected lands, scrub-jays have continued to decline due to inadequate habitat management (Stith 1999; Boughton and Bowman 2011). However, over the last several years, steps to reverse this decline have occurred, and management of scrub habitat is continuing in many areas of Florida (Hastie and EckI 1999; Stith 1999; The Nature Conservancy 2001; Turner et al. 2006). If the decline can be reversed, managed lands have the potential to support about twice the number of scrub-jays groups as in 2009-2010 (Boughton and Bowman 2011).
Stith (1999) used a spatially explicit individual-based population model developed specifically for the scrub-jay to complete a metapopulation viability analysis of the species. The species’ range was divided into 21 metapopulations demographically isolated from each other. Metapopulations are defined as collections of relatively discrete demographic populations distributed over the landscape; these populations are connected within the metapopulations through dispersal or migration (Hanski and Gilpin 1991). A series of simulations were run for each of the 21 metapopulations based on different scenarios of reserve design ranging from the minimal configuration consisting of only currently protected patches of scrub (no acquisition option) to the maximum configuration, where all remaining significant scrub patches were acquired for protection (complete acquisition option) (Stith 1999). The assumption was made that all areas that were protected were also restored and properly managed. 14 Results from Stith’s (1999) simulation model included estimates of extinction, quasi-extinction (the probability of a scrub-jay metapopulation falling below 10 pairs), and percent population decline. These were then used to rank the different statewide metapopulations by vulnerability. The model predicted that five metapopulations (Northeast Lake, Martin, Merritt Island, Ocala National Forest, and Lake Wales Ridge) have low risk of quasi-extinction. Two of the five (Martin and Northeast Lake), however, experienced significant population declines under the “no acquisition” option; the probability for survival of both of these metapopulations could be improved with more acquisitions.
Eleven of the remaining 21 metapopulations were shown to be highly vulnerable to quasi-extinction if no more habitat was acquired (Central Brevard, North Brevard, Central Charlotte, Northwest Charlotte, Citrus, Lee, Levy, Manatee, Pasco, Saint Lucie, and West Volusia). The model predicted the risk of quasi-extinction would be greatly reduced for 7 of the 11 metapopulations (Central Brevard, North Brevard, Central Charlotte, Northwest Charlotte, Levy, Saint Lucie, and West Volusia) by acquiring all or most of the remaining scrub habitat. The model predicted the remaining four metapopulations (Citrus, Lee, Manatee, and Pasco) would moderately benefit if more acquisitions were made.
Stith (1999) classified two metapopulations (South Brevard and Sarasota) as moderately vulnerable with a moderate potential for improvement; they both had one or more fairly stable subpopulations of scrub-jays under protection, but the model predicted population declines. The rest of the metapopulations could collapse without further acquisitions, making the protected subpopulations there vulnerable to epidemics or other catastrophes.
Three of the metapopulations evaluated by Stith (1999) (Flagler, Central Lake, and South Palm Beach) were classified as highly vulnerable to quasi-extinction and had low potential for improvement, since little or no habitat is available to acquire or restore.
Current threats
Research and monitoring of scrub-jays has revealed more information about threats to this species since the time the scrub-jay recovery plan was approved in 1990 (Service 1990a). The following discussion is intended to give an up-to-date analysis: habitat loss and fragmcntation
Scrub habitats have continued to decline throughout peninsular Florida since listing occurred, and habitat destruction continues to be one of the main threats to the scrub-jay. Cox (1987) noted local extirpations and major decreases in numbers of scrub-jays and attributed them to the clearing of scrub for housing and citrus groves. Eighty percent or more of the scrub habitats have been destroyed along the Lake Wales Ridge since pre-European settlement (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991; Turner et al. 2006). Fernald (1989), Fitzpatrick et al. (1991), and Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (l996a) noted habitat losses due to agriculture, silviculture, and commercial and residential development have continued to play a role in the decline in numbers of scrub-jays throughout the state. Statewide, estimates of scrub habitat loss range from 70 to 90 percent
15 (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996a). Various populations of scrub-jays within the species’ range have been monitored closely, and more precise estimates of habitat loss in these locations are available (Snodgrass et al. 1993; Thaxton and Hingtgen 1996).
Toland (1999) estimated that about 70 to 78 percent of pre-European settlement scrub habitats had been converted to other uses in Brevard County. This is due mainly to development activity and citrus conversion, which were the most important factors that contributed to the scrub-jay decline between 1940 and 1990. A total of only 10,656 acres of scrub and scrubby flatwoods remain in Brevard County (excluding Federal ownership), of which only 1,600 acres (15 percent) is in public ownership for the purposes of conservation. Less than 1,977 acres of an estimated pre-European settlement of 14,826 acres of scrubby flatwoods habitat remain in Sarasota County, mostly occurring in patches averaging less than 2.5 acres in size (Thaxton and Hingtgen 1996). Only 10,673 acres of viable coastal scrub and scrubby flatwoods remained in the Treasure Coast region of Florida (Indian River, Saint Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties) according to Fernald (1989). He estimated that 95 percent of scrub had already been destroyed for development purposes in Palm Beach County.
Habitat destruction not only reduces the amount of area scrub-jays can occupy, but may also increase fragmentation of habitat. As more scrub habitat is altered, the habitat is cut into smaller and smaller pieces, and separated from other patches by larger distances; such fragmentation increases the probability of inbreeding and genetic isolation, which is likely to increase extinction probability (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1991; Stith et al. 1996; Thaxton and Hingtgen 1996). Dispersal distances of scrub-jays in fragmented habitat are further than in optimal unfragmented habitats, and demographic success is poor (Thaxton and Hingtgen 1996; Breininger 1999).
Disease and predation
Most scrub-jay mortality probably results from predation (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). The second most frequent cause may be disease, or predation on disease-weakened scrub-jays (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick l996b). Known predators of scrub-jays are listed by Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1990), Fitzpatrick et al. (1991), Schaub et al. (1992), Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1996a, 1996b), Breininger (1999), and Miller (2004); the list includes eastern coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum, known to eat adults, nestlings, and fledglings), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi, known to eat adults and fledglings), black racer (Coluber constrictor, known to eat eggs), pine snake (Fituophis melanoleucus), and corn snake (Elaphe guttata). Mammalian predators include bobcats (Lynx rufus), raccoons (Procyon lotor), sometimes cotton rats (known to eat eggs), black rats, and domestic cats (FeUs catus, known to eat adults). Franzreb and Puschock (2004) also have documented spotted skunks (Spilogale putonus) and grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) as mammalian predators of scrub-jay nests. Fitzpatrick et al. (1991) postulated that populations of domestic cats are able to eliminate small populations of scrub-jays. Avian nest predators include the great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), eastern screech-owl (Otus asio), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), fish crow, boat-tailed grackle (Quiscalus major), common grackle (Q. quiscula), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), blue jay, and swallow-tailed kites (Elanoidesforficatus).
16 Fitzpatrick et al. (1991) reported overgrown scrub habitats are often occupied by the blue jay, which may be one factor limiting scrub-jay populations in such areas. Raptors which seem to be important predators of adult scrub-jays are merlin (Falco columbarius), sharp-shinned hawk ~Accipiter striatus), Cooper’s hawk (A. cooperii), and northern harrier. During migration and winter, these four raptor species are present in areas which contain scrub habitat, and scrub-jays may experience frequent confrontations (as many as one pursuit a day) with them (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1990). In coastal scrub, Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1996b) report that scrub-jays are vulnerable to predation by raptors in October, March, and April, when high densities of migrating accipiters and falcons are present. Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1996b) and Toland (1999) suggest that, in overgrown scrub habitats, hunting efficiency for scrub-jay predators is increased. Bowman and Averill (1993) noted scrub-jays occupying fragments of scrub found in or near housing developments were more prone to predation by free-roaming cats and competition from blue jays and mockingbirds. Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1996a, 1996b) stated proximity to housing developments (and increased exposure to free-roaming cats) needs to be taken into consideration when designing scrub preserves. Young scrub-jays are especially vulnerable to ground predators (e.g., snakes and mammals) before they are fully capable of sustained flight.
The scrub-jay hosts two protozoan blood parasites (Flasmodiuzn cathemeriuin and Haeinoproteus danilewslcyi), but incidence is low (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). Several scrub-jays sick from these two agents in March 1992 survived to become breeders. The scrub-jay carries at least three types of mosquito-borne encephalitis (Saint Louis, eastern equine, and “Highlands jay”) (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). Of particular concern is the arrival of West Nile virus (the agent of another type of encephalitis) in Florida during 2001 (Stark and Kazanis 2001); since corvids have been particularly susceptible to the disease in states north of Florida, it is expected scrub-jays will be affected (Breininger et al. 2003). Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1996b) noted three episodes of elevated mortality (especially among juveniles) in 26 years at Archbold Biological Station. Each of these incidents occurred in conjunction with elevated water levels following unusually heavy rains in the fall, although high mortality does not occur in all such years. During the most severe of these presumed epidemics (August 1979 through March 1980), all but one of the juvenile cohort and almost half of the breeding adults died (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1990). The 1979 through 1980 incident coincided with a known outbreak of eastern equine encephalitis among domestic birds in central Florida (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick, 1996b). From the fall of 1997 through the spring of 1998, the continuing population decline of scrub-jays along the Atlantic coast and in central Florida may have been augmented by an epidemic of unknown origin (Breininger 1999).
At Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Stevens and Hardesty (1999) noted a decline in juvenile survival from 60 to 70 percent in the preceding years to 22 percent in 1997 and 1998. It stayed low (only 25 percent) in 1998 and 1999 before again climbing into the mid-60 percent range. Also, adult survival dropped from 70 to 80 percent survival in the preceding years to 50 to 60 percent in 1997 and 1998. Overall, their annual surveys documented the largest one-year drop (pairs decreased by 17 percent and birds by 20 percent) in this population at the same time as the presumed statewide epidemic.
17 In the winter and summer of 1973, 15 species of intestinal parasitic fauna (including 8 nematodes, 5 trematodes, 1 cestode, and I acanthocephalan) were found in 45 scrub-jays collected in south- central Florida; the parasite load was attributed to a varied arthropod diet (Kinsella 1974). These naturally-occurring parasites are not believed to have a negative impact on scrub-jay population levels.
Larvae of the burrowing fly, Philornis pot-ten, occur irregularly on scrub-jay nestlings. The species pupates in the base of the nest; larvae locate in nasal openings, mouth flanges, bases of the flight feathers, and toes; apparently no serious effect on the scrub-jay host occurs (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). Additionally, one undescribed chewing louse (Myrsidea sp.) (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1 996b), one wing-feather mite (Fte,-odectes sp.), two chiggers (Eutnoinbicula lipovskyana), and the sticktight flea (Echidnophaga gallinacea; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b) occur on some individuals, usually at low densities. Nymphs and larvae of four ticks (A;nblyoinma atnenicanuin, A. tuberculatum, Haemaphysalis leponispalustris, and Ixodes scapulanis) are known to occur on scrub-jays, as well as the larvae of the tick A. niaculatum (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). These naturally-occurring parasites were not believed to have a negative impact on scrub-jay population levels; however, a recent study of the impact of the sticktight flea on scrub-jays indicates that low fitness and death can be caused by this parasite (Boughton et al. 2006). The host vector for this flea was a domestic dog (Canisfanzilianis) suggesting that introduction of human pets into scrub-jay areas may increase parasite loads and reduce fitness.
InadeQuacy of existing regulatory mechanisms Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1996a) state the importance of enforcing existing Federal laws on the management of Federal lands as natural ecosystems for the long-term survival of the scrub- jay. The Service consults regularly on activities on Federal lands which may affect scrub-jays and also works with private landowners through the section 10(a)(l)(B) incidental take permitting process of the Act when take is likely to occur and no Federal nexus is present. Florida’s State Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act of 1985 is administered mostly by regional and local governments. Regional Planning Councils administer the law through Development of Regional Impact reviews; at the local level, although comprehensive plans contain policy statements and natural resource protection objectives, they are only effective if counties and municipalities enact and enforce ordinances. As a general rule, counties have not enacted and enforced ordinances that are effective in protecting scrub-jays (Fernald 1989).
The Wildlife Code of the State of Florida (Chapter 68A, Florida Administrative Code) prohibits taking of individuals of threatened species, or parts thereof, or their nests or eggs, except as authorized. The statute does not prohibit clearing of habitat occupied by protected species, which limits the ability of the FWC to protect the scrub-jay and its habitat.
Other natural or anthropogenic factors
Human interference with natural fire regimes has continued to play a major part in the decline of the scrub-jay and today may exceed habitat loss as the single most important limiting factor (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1991; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996a; Fitzpatrick et al. 1994). Lightning strikes cause all naturally-occurring fires in south Florida scrub habitat (Abrahamson 18 1984; Hofstetter 1984; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1990). Fire has been noted to be important in maintenance of scrub habitat for decades (Nash 1895; Harper 1927; Webber 1935; Davis 1943; Laessle 1968; Abrahamson et al. 1984). Human efforts to prevent and control natural fires have allowed the scrub to become too dense and tall to support populations of scrub-jays, resulting in the decline of local populations of scrub-jays throughout the state (Fernald 1989; Fitzpatrick et al. 1994, Percival et al. 1995; Stith et al. 1996; Thaxton and Hingtgen 1996; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1990; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996a; Toland 1999). Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1996a) cautioned, however, that fire applied too often to scrub habitat also can result in local extirpations. Data from Archbold Biological Station show that fire-return intervals varying between 8 and 15 years are optimal for long-term maintenance of productive scrub-jay populations in central Florida (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). These intervals also correspond with those yielding healthy populations of listed scrub plants (Menges and Kohfeldt 1995; Menges and Hawkes 1998). Optimal fire-return intervals may, however, be shorter in coastal habitats (Schmalzer and Hinkle l992a; Schmalzer and Hinkle 1992b).
Stith et al. (1996) estimated at least 2,100 breeding pairs of scrub-jays were living in overgrown habitat. Toland (1999) reported most of Brevard County’s remaining scrub (estimated to be 15 percent of the original acreage) is overgrown due to fire suppression. He further suggests the overgrowth of scrub habitats reduces the number and size of sand openings which are crucial not only to scrub-jays, but also many other scrub plants and animals. Reduction in the number of potential scrub-jay nesting sites, acorn cache sites, and foraging sites presents a problem for scrub-jays. Fernald (1989) reported overgrowth of scrub results not only in the decline of species diversity and abundance but also a reduction in the percentage of open sandy patches (Fernald 1989; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). Fitzpatrick et al. (1994) believed fire suppression was just as responsible as habitat loss in the decline of the scrub-jay, especially in the northern third of its range. Likewise, the continued population decline of scrub-jays within Brevard County between 1991 and 1999 has been attributed mainly to the overgrowth of remaining habitat patches (Breininger et al. 2001). Breininger et al. (1999) concluded optimal habitat management is essential in fragmented ecosystems maintained by periodic fire, especially to lessen risks of decline and extinction resulting from epidemics and hurricanes. Fit7patrir.k @t al (1991), Fit7patrick et al. (1994), and Woolfenrien and Fitzpatrick (1996a) expressed concern for the management practices taking place on Federal lands at Ocala National Forest, Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge at the Kennedy Space Center, and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, all supporting large contiguous populations of scrub-jays. They predicted fire suppression or too frequent fires (on the latter two), and silvicultural activities involving the cultivation of sand pine on Ocala National Forest, would be responsible for declines of scrub-jays in these large contiguous areas of scrub. These areas should be those where populations are most secure because of Federal agencies’ responsibilities under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Monitoring of scrub-jay populations, demography, and nesting success is ongoing on all of these properties to assess the effectiveness of management practices in meeting scrub-jay recovery objectives.
Housing and commercial developments within scrub habitats are accompanied by the development of roads. Since scrub-jays often forage along roadsides and other openings in the scrub, they are often killed by passing cars. Research by Mumme et al. (2000) along a two-lane 19 paved road indicated that clusters of scrub-jay territories found next to the roadside represented population sinks (breeder mortality exceeds production of breeding-age recruits), which could be supported only by immigration. Since this species may be attracted to roadsides because of their open habitat characteristics, vehicular mortality presents a significant and growing management problem throughout the remaining range of the scrub-jay (Dreschel et al. 1990; Mumme et al. 2000), and proximity to high-speed, paved roads needs to be considered when designing scrub preserves (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick l996a).
Another potential problem in suburban areas supporting scrub-jays is supplemental feeding by humans (Bowman and Averill 1993; Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick l996a; Bowman 1998). The presence of additional food may allow scrub-jays to persist in fragmented habitats, but recruitment in these populations is lower than in native habitats. However, even though human feeding may postpone local extirpations, long-term survival cannot be ensured in the absence of protecting native oak scrub habitat necessary for nesting.
Scrub-jays in suburban settings often nest high in tall shrubbery. During March winds, these nests tend to be susceptible to destruction (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b; Bowman 1998). Hurricanes also pose a potential risk for scrub-jays, although the exact impact of such catastrophic events is unknown. Breininger et al. (1999) modeled the effects of epidemics and hurricanes on scrub-jay populations in varying levels of habitat quality. Small populations of scrub-jays are more vulnerable to extirpation where epidemics and hurricanes are common. Storm surge from a Category Three to Five hurricanes could inundate entire small populations of scrub-jays, and existing habitat fragmentation could prevent repopulation of affected areas. However, this model also predicted that long-term habitat degradation had greater influence on extinction risk than hurricanes or epidemics. Preliminary results of the impact of Hurricane Charley on the Charlotte County scrub-jay populations indicates that at least one member of all 20 family groups surveyed after the storm had survived (Miller 2006).
Fernald (1989) reported many of the relatively few remaining patches of scrub within the Treasure Coast region of Florida had been degraded by trails created by off-road vehicles, illegal dumping of construction debris, abandoned cars and appliances, or household waste. The invasion ot these areas by exotic species, including Brazilian pepper, white cypress-pine (Callitris glaucophylla), and Australian pine (Casuauina equisetifolia) also was a problem. Other human-induced impacts identified by Fernald (1989) include the introduction of domestic dogs aud ua~s, blauk i ais, gi eenliouse fiogs (Eleuthe, ociactylu.s pluidi u3 t, is), giant toads (~~tf° marinus), Cuban tree frogs (Osteopilus septentrionalis), brown anoles (.4nolis saguei), and other exotic animal species. These exotic species may compete with scrub-jays for space and food.
20 Red-cockaded woodpecker
Species description
The RCW measures approximately 7-8 inches in length with a wingspan of 14-15 inches. Its conspicuous white cheek patches, black cap and neck, and black and white barred back and wings distinguish the RCW.
Life history
The RCW is a territorial, non-migratory, cooperative breeding species (Lennartz et al. 1987). It is unique in that it is the only North American woodpecker that exclusively excavates its roost and nest cavities in living pines. Each group member has its own cavity, although there may be multiple cavities in a cavity tree. The aggregate of cavity trees, surrounded by a 200-foot forested buffer, is called a cluster (Walters 1990). Cavities within a cluster may be complete or under construction and either active, inactive, or abandoned. RCWs live in social units called groups. Groups usually consist of a breeding pair, the current year’s offspring and zero to four helpers (adults, normally male offspring of the breeding pair from previous years) (Walters 1990).
RCWs forage almost exclusively on live pine trees, although they will forage on recently killed pines (Franzreb 2004). Their prey consists of wood cockroaches, caterpillars, spiders, woodborer larvae, centipedes, and ants (Hanula and Horn 2004). Although they will use smaller pine trees as foraging substrate RCWs prefer pines with diameter at breast height greater than 10 inches (Hooper and Harlow 1986; Engstrom and Sanders 1997).
Population dynamics
Reproductive rates, population density, and re-colonization rates may influence RCW population variability more than mortality rates, sex ratios, and genetic variability. RCWs exhibit relatively low adult mortality rates; annual survivorship of breeding adults is high, ranging from 72 to 84 percent for males and 51 to 81 percent for females (Lennartz and Heckel 1987; Walters et al. 1988; Delotelle and Epting 1992). Two studies (Francis Marion National Forest in South Carolina and central Florida populations) reported significantly different fledgling sex ratios than 1:1 (Gowaty and Lennartz 1985); however, other populations are reported to have an unbiased sex ialiu (LaBiatitilie 1992, Haidesly e~ al. 1997). The avelage nunibei of fledglings pioduced per breeding group in central Florida is 1.0, which is lower than that of other populations in the Southeast (DeLotelle and Epting 1992).
The availability of suitable cavity trees is a limiting factor for RCW populations. Use of artificial cavities can dramatically increase RCW populations because of the birds’ ability to re colonize unoccupied habitat made suitable by this management action (Copeyon 1990; Allen 1991). Significant population expansions have been documented where artificial cavity provisioning has been employed (Gaines et al. 1995; Franzreb 1999; Carlile et al. 2004; Doresky et al. 2004; Hagan et al. 2004; Hedman et al. 2004; Marston and Morrow 2004; Stober and Jack 2003).
21 Status and distribution The Service identified the RCW as a rare and endangered species in 1968 and officially listed it as endangered in 1970 (35 FR 16047). With passage of the Act in 1973, the RCW received the protection afforded listed species under the Act. No critical habitat has been designated for the RCW. A complete discussion of the status of the species in south Florida and throughout its range can be found in the Service’s South Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan (Service 1999) and Revised Recovery Plan (Service 2003), respectively. In addition, a 5-year review was completed in 2006 resulting in no change to the status of the species (Service 2006).
The precipitous decline of the RCW was caused by an almost complete loss of habitat. Approximately 920,000 (Costa 2001) to 1.5 million (Conner et al. 2001) groups of RCW inhabited southeastern forests prior to European settlement. Fire-maintained old growth pine savannahs and woodlands that once dominated the southeast (92 million acres pre-European settlement; Frost 1993), on which the woodpeckers depend, no longer exist except in a few small patches (<3.0 million acres today; Frost 1993). Longleaf pine ecosystems, of primary importance to RCW, are now among the most endangered ecosystems on earth (Simberloff 1993; Wareetal. 1993).
The current distribution of this non-migratory, territorial species (endemic to open, mature and old growth pine ecosystems) is restricted to the remaining fragmented parcels of suitable pine forest in 11 southeastern States; it has been extirpated in New Jersey, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky (Costa 2004). As of April 2003, approximately 14,500 RCW were living in 5,800 known active clusters across 11 states (Service 2003). This is less than 3 percent of the estimated abundance at the time of European settlement.
Florida bonneted bat Species description
The FBB is a large, free-tailed bat approximately 5.1-6.5 inches in length (Timm and Genoways 2004), and it is the largest bat in Florida (NatureServe 2009). The body mass of the species averages 1.4 ounces (oz) with a range from 1.1 oz to at least 2 007 in pregnant females (Belwood 1981; Belwood 1992; Timm and Genoways 2004; NatureServe 2009). Timm and Genoways (2004) found that males and females are not significantly different in size, and there is no pattern of size-related geographic variation in this species. Fur is short and glossy with hairs sharply bicolored with a white base (Timm and Genoways 2004; NatureServe 2009). Color is highly variable from black to brown to brownish gray or cinnamon brown with ventral pelage paler than dorsal (Timm and Genoways 2004; NatureServe 2009). Leathery rounded ears are joined at the midline and project forward (NatureServe 2009).
Life history Relatively little is known of the ecology of the FBB and long-term habitat requirements are poorly understood (Robson 1989; Robson et al. 1989; Belwood 1992; Timm and Genoways 2004). Recent information on foraging habitat has been obtained largely through acoustical surveys designed to detect and record bat echolocation calls (Marks and Marks 2008a).
22 In general, open fresh water and wetlands provide prime foraging areas for bats (Marks and Marks 2008b). Bats will forage over ponds, streams, and wetlands and drink when flying over open water (Marks and Marks 2008b). During dry seasons, bats become more dependent on remaining ponds, streams, and wetland areas for foraging purposes (Marks and Marks 2008b). The presence of roosting habitat is critical for day roosts, protection from predators, and the rearing of young (Marks and Marks 2008b). For most bats, the availability of suitable roosts is an important limiting factor (Humphrey 1975). South Florida bats roost primarily in trees and manmade structures (Marks and Marks 2008a). Major habitat types where this species is known to occur include dry prairie, freshwater marsh, wet prairie, and pine flatwoods (Marks and Marks 2008a). They have been known to roost in buildings, tree cavities, outcrops, and bat houses (Marks and Marks 2008a). The discovery of an adult for which the specimen tag says “found under rocks when bull-dozing ground” suggests this species may roost in rocky crevices and outcrops on the ground (Timm and Genoways 2004). It is not known to what extent such roost sites are suitable. Robson (1989) indicated FBBs are closely associated with forested areas because of their tree-roosting habits. They roost singly or in groups of up to a few dozen individuals (NatureServe 2009). The FBB is not migratory (Timm and Genoways 2004; NatureServe 2009). However, there may be seasonal shifts in roosting sites because Belwood (1992) reported bonneted bats were found “during the winter months in people’s houses.”
FBBs feed on flying insects (e.g., Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera) (Belwood 1981; Belwood 1992; NatureServe 2009). They forage in open spaces and use echolocation to detect prey at relatively long range, roughly 10-16 feet (Belwood 1992). Based upon information from G. T. Hubbell, Belwood (1992) indicates these bats leave their roosts to forage after dark, seldom occur below 33 feet in the air, and produce loud, audible calls as they fly. Precise foraging and roosting habits and requirements are not known (Belwood 1992). Population dynamics The FBB has an extensive breeding season during summer months (Timm and Genoways 2004; NatureServe 2009). Pregnant females have been found in June through September (Marks and Marks 2008a). Timm and Gcnoways’ (2004) cxamination of limitcd data suggests that this species may be polyestrous, with a second birthing season possibly in January - February. However, the FBB has low fecundity, producing a litter size of one (NatureServe 2009). There is only one record of natural predation upon this species (Timm and Genoways 2004). A skull of one specimen was found in a regurgitated owl pellet in June 2000 at the Fakahatchee Preserve (Timm and Genoways 2004; Marks and Marks 2008a). Status and distribution The FBB is recognized in Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy as one of Florida’s species of greatest conservation need (FWC 2005b). This species is listed as endangered by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) as the Florida mastiff bat (Eumops glaucinusfioridanus) (i.e., the previously-accepted taxonomic designation). The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) and NatureServe consider the global status of the FBB to be G1, critically imperiled (FNAI 2010; NatureServe 2009). The 2009 International 23 Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species lists Eu;nops floridanus as critically endangered because “its population size is estimated to number fewer than 250 mature individuals, with no subpopulation greater than 50 individuals, and it is experiencing a continuing decline” (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008). On November 2, 2013, the Service listed the FBB as endangered. The FBB exists only in Florida (Timm and Genoways 2004; C. Marks and G. Marks, pers. comm. 2008). This species has one of the most restricted distributions of any bat species in the New World (Belwood 1992; Timm and Genoways 2004) and its global range is estimated at 40-100 mi2 (NatureServe 2009). Its current range includes Charlotte, Collier, Lee, Miami-Dade, Okeechobee, and Polk Counties (Timm and Genoways 2004; NatureServe 2009; Marks and Marks 2008c). Surveys conducted in the Kissimmee River area for the FWC recorded FBB calls at two locations (Marks and Marks 2008b; 2008c). The findings along the Kissimmee River are significant as it is the first time the species has been found north of Lake Okeechobee except in fossil records and effectively moves the known range 50 miles north (Marks and Marks 2008c). Although older literature lists Fort Lauderdale as an area where the species occurred (Belwood 1992), none of the recent specimens examined by Timm and Genoways (2004) were from Broward County. However, Hipes et al. (2001) included Broward County as part of the range. Marks and Marks (2008a) did not record any FBB calls in the Fort Lauderdale area; surveys were conducted in Long Key Park, Miramar Pinelands, and the Plantation area. No calls were recorded on the east coast of Florida north of Coral Gables (Marks and Marks 2008a). Overall, based upon all available historic and current surveys, the species exists within a very restricted range (Timm and Genoways 2004; Marks and Marks 2008a). Results of a 2006-2008 acoustical range-wide survey indicate the FBB is a rare species with limited range and low abundance (Marks and Marks 2008a). Based upon these results and an additional survey of select public lands, the species has been found at 12 locations (Marks and Marks 2008c), but the number and status of the bat at each location is unknown. Marks and Marks (2008a) state total population size may be less than a few hundred individuals owing to the small number of locations where calls were recorded, the low numbers of calls recorded at each location, and the fact that the species forms small colonies. The 2006-2008 acoustical range-wide survey recorded 5,016 calls; when these calls were later analyzed, it was determined only 79 (1.6 percent) were from FBBs (Marks and Marks 2008c). Habitat loss and alteration in forested and urban areas are substantial threats to the FBB (Belwood 1992; NatureServe 2009). In natural areas, this species may be impacted when forests are converted to other uses or when old trees with cavities are removed (Beiwood 1992; NatureServe 2009). In urban settings, this species may be impacted when buildings with suitable roosts are demolished (Robson 1989; NatureServe) or when structures are modified to exclude bats. Small population size, restricted range, low fecundity, and few and isolated occunences are considerable on-going threats. This species is also vulnerable to prolonged extreme cold weather events. The cold spell experienced in Florida in early 2010 may have caused a decline in the FBB population. A colony in Lee County once included approximately 20 to 24 individuals in two houses (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2008a, 2008b), but only 9 remained after the prolonged cold temperatures in early 2010 (5. Trokey, pers. comm. 2010a, 2010b).
24 Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to be affected The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect the eastern indigo snake, scrub-jay, RCW, and FBB within the action area. The effects of the proposed action on the aforementioned species will be considered further in the remaining sections of this Biological Opinion. Potential effects include direct injury, direct mortality, and habitat degradation. Critical habitat for these species has not been designated; therefore, the proposed action will not affect critical habitat. Other Listed Species The USAF also provided an effect determination of “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” for the endangered everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilisplumbeus), the endangered FGSP, the endangered Florida panther (Puma [=Felis] concolor coryi), the endangered wood stork (Mycteria Americana), and the threatened Audubon’s crested caracara (Caracara cheriway = Polyborus plancus audubonii) (caracara). The following pertains to those five species. Evergiade snail kite Everglade snail kites were observed at APAFR for the first time on September 5, 2013. Seventy-eight snail kites were observed foraging in a recently restored wetland in the southeast corner of APAFR (Anderson 2013). There are no target arrays within 2.5 miles of this wetland; therefore, the USAF determined the proposed action “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Everglade snail kite. The Service concurs with the USAF determination. Florida grasshopper sparrow The FGSP occurs within South Tactical Range. Implementation of the proposed action will not result in the loss of FGSP habitat and habitat modification from ordnance-ignited wildfire is unlikely because the USAF will use prescribed fire to burn all occupied FGSP habitat within 24 months of the lIFE. Additionally, the USAF will not use HE ordnance in South Tactical Range, which will further reduce the effects to discountable given the limited blast radius, short duration of the exercise, and limited numher of sparrows; therefore, the IISAF determined the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the FGSP. The Service concurs with the USAF determination for the FGSP. Florida panther Although APAFR is outside of the Panther Focus Area (Kautz et al. 2006), a male Florida panther has been documented traveling through APAFR. Adult panthers are highly mobile, and are able to avoid ordnance-ignited wildfires by moving to safe areas. Additionally, the increased traffic associated with the proposed action poses little risk to the Florida panther due to low speed limits (less than 45 mph) within the action area. There are no known panther denning sites in the action area and no known breeding panthers north of the Caloosahatchee River. Since this is a wide-ranging species with high mobility which rarely occurs at APAFR, the USAF determined the proposed action “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the Florida panther. The Service concurs with the USAF determination.
25 Wood stork The wood stork occurs within the project area. Implementation of the proposed action will not result in the loss of wood stork habitat and disturbances from human activity will be short in duration; therefore, the USAF determined the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the wood stork. The Service concurs with the USAF determination for the wood stork. Audubon’s crested caracara The caracara occurs within the project area. Implementation of the proposed action will not result in the loss of caracara habitat and disturbances from human activity will be short in duration; therefore, the USAF determined the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the caracara. The Service concurs with the USAF determination for the caracara. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE The environmental baseline is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species, its habitat, and ecosystem within the action area. It includes the impact of state or private actions, which occur simultaneously with the consultation in progress. Status of the species within the action area Eastern indigo snake Breininger et al. (2011) implanted radio transmitters in 13 indigo snakes at APAFR and monitored their home range sizes from 1998 to 2002. This study was designed to provide insight into the indigo snake’s territory size, but it also provides a record of the presence of indigo snakes on APAFR. In addition, road-killed indigo snakes are observed about every 3 years with the most recent occurrence in 2014 (Scofield 2015). Reliable survey methods for indigo snakes have not been developed; therefore, it is not easy to estimate the density of indigo snakes in the action area. The indigo snake is most commonly observed in hardwood hammocks and pinelands where they can easily find cover. However, indigo snakes also use dry prairie, edges of freshwater marshes, agricultural fields, and human-altered habitats. Because the indigo snake uses a diverse array of habitat types, it is presumed to occur throughout the action area.
Florida scrub-jay The scrub-jay occurs in xeric oak shrub-dominated habitats that are maintained by periodic fire. Biologists have been monitoring scrub-jays at APAFR since 1993. Between 1994 and 2001, the scrub-jay population declined from 85 to 51 family groups, but has since increased. The most recent surveys show the population as stable and is currently at 58 groups (Bowman et al. 2014) (Figure 5).
Red-cockaded woodpecker The RCW population at APAFR occurs in fire maintained pinelands and is an “essential support population” in the RCW recovery plan (Service 2003). The population of RCW remained relatively stable at 21 to 22 potential breeding groups from 1994 through 2002, but has since 26 increased. As of July 31, 2013, the RCW population at APAFR consisted of 28 potential breeding groups (Bowman et al. 2014) (Figure 6). Florida bonneted bat An acoustical bat survey was initiated at APAFR in 2013. Surveys were conducted at 13 locations over 119 survey nights (sunset to sunrise). Of 2,170 bat call sequences recorded and analyzed, only 9 (0.41 percent) were from the FBB. Given so few FBB calls recorded with considerable survey efforts, it is likely the FBB population at APAFR is very small. A natural FBB roost was discovered on North Tactical Range (Figure 1) in October 2013. The roost is 3,500 feet from the nearest target array. Factors affecting the species environment within the action area Military activities have occurred within the action area since the 1940s. Military actions have resulted in increased wildfire, increased traffic, and loss of habitat though the development of target arrays. Although military actions have negatively affected listed species within the action area, many of the effects have also been positive. For example, ordinance-ignited wildfires burned two scrub-jay nests in 2006, but the fire restored several hundred acres of heavily overgrown scrub habitat. The restored area is now home to the highest density of scrub-jays at APAFR.
Natural resource management at APAFR also affects listed species within the action area. A biological opinion was issued on February?, 2013, for the APAFR INRMP and incidental take was estimated to be 19 indigo snakes and 45 indigo snake nests annually, 1 scrub-jay and 1 scrub-jay nest annually, andl RCW nest annually due to implementation of the ThJRMP.
Within the action area, exotic plant invasions pose threats to listed species, with most concern coming from old world climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), cogon grass (Imperata cylindrical), and natal grass (Rhynchelytrum repens). The USAF has a plan to treat invasive exotic plants in their INRMP.
Stochastic events, such as hurricanes, are a concern due to the small population sizes of the listed species that inhabit the action area.
Climate change
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (IPCC 2007), warming of the earth’s climate is “unequivocal,” as is now evident from observations of increases in average global air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising sea level. The 2007 IPCC report describes changes in natural ecosystems with potential wide-spread effects on many organisms, including marine mammals and migratory birds. The potential for rapid climate change poses a significant challenge for fish and wildlife conservation. Species’ abundance and distribution are dynamic, relative to a variety of factors, including climate. As climate changes, the abundance and distribution of fish and wildlife will also change. Highly specialized or endemic species are likely to be most susceptible to the stresses of changing climate. Based on these findings and other similar studies, the Department of the Interior requires agencies under its direction to consider potential climate change effects as part of their long-range planning activities (Service 2007). 27 Climate change at the global level drives changes in weather at the regional level, although weather is also strongly affected by season and local effects (e.g., elevation, topography, latitude, proximity to the ocean, etc.). Temperatures are predicted to rise from 2°C to 5°C for North America by the end of this century (IPCC 2007). Other processes to be affected by this projected warming include rainfall (amount, seasonal timing and distribution), storms (frequency and intensity), and sea level rise. However, the exact magnitude, direction, and distribution of these changes at the regional level are not well understood or easy to predict. Seasonal change and local geography make prediction of the effects of climate change at any location variable. Current models offer a wide range of predicted changes.
Climatic changes in south Florida could amplify current land management challenges involving habitat fragmentation, urbanization, invasive species, disease, parasites, and water management (Pearlstine 2008). Global warming will be a particular challenge for endangered, threatened, and other “at risk” species. It is difficult to estimate, with any degree of precision, which species will be affected by climate change or exactly how they will be affected. The Service will use Strategic Habitat Conservation planning, an adaptive science-driven process that begins with explicit trust resource population objectives, as the framework for adjusting our management strategies in response to climate change (Service 2006).
EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
This section includes an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the species and the effects of any interrelated and interdependent activities. No critical habitat has been designated for the federally listed species identified in this Biological Opinion.
Direct effects are those effects that result from the proposed action and affect the species or its habitat. Indirect effects are those caused by or resulting from the proposed action, are later in time, and are reasonably certain to occur.
An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed action and depends on the proposed action for its justification. An interdependent activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the action under consultation. No interrelated or interdependent actions are expected to result from the project.
Eastern indigo snake
Factors to be considered
Potential effects to eastern indigo snakes due to the proposed action include a number of direct and indirect effects on the indigo snake and its habitat. Potential direct effects include: (1) direct injury and mortality from ordnance explosion, ordnance-ignited wildfires, and vehicular traffic; (2) harassment by the proposed action; and (3) missed foraging and breeding opportunities. Potential indirect effects include beneficial long-term improvements in habitat quality and increase in prey species.
28 Analysis for effects of the action Indigo snakes are difficult to detect and quantify for the following reasons: (1) they have a wide- ranging distribution; (2) they have a patchy distribution within suitable habitat; (3) they have limited detectability due to use of burrows or holes for shelter; (4) there is likely unoccupied suitable habitat; (5) juveniles have limited detectability due to their affinity for thick vegetation; and (6) they may use cryptic sheltering areas that may be temporarily established during construction (e.g., brush piles, equipment stockpiles, and dirt mounds). This makes the quantifiable determination of effects of the action difficult. -
The total area affected by this action is approximately 106,000 acres. The potential direct and indirect effects of the action on indigo snakes within the action area are discussed below.
Direct effects
Injury and Mortality Indigo snakes within the immediate vicinity of the ordnance impact areas have the potential to be harmed or killed by the inert/practice and HE ordnance delivery actions; however, the Service believes the risk of direct injury or mortality of indigo snakes due to explosion of ordnance is low.
Ordnance-ignited wildfires pose the greatest risk for direct mortality of indigo snakes. Although adult indigo snakes are usually able to escape injury from fire activities, some individuals may be lost. Additionally, the loss of indigo snake nests as a result of ordnance-ignited wildfires is a possibility. In south-central Florida, limited information on the reproductive cycle suggests that indigo snake breeding extends from June to January; egg laying occurs from April to July; and hatching occurs from mid-summer to early fall (Layne and Steiner 1996). JIFE activities will overlap with the indigo snake nesting season, and nests will be vulnerable and may be lost.
The proposed actives will increase vehicular traffic within the action area. Increased traffic will increase the risk of injury or death to indigo snakes from vehicular collisions. It is difficult to determine the number of indigo snakes (adults & juveniles) that may be directly subject to mortality or injury. The USAF will minimize vehicular collisions by enforcing speed limits and increasing awareness and appreciation of indigo snakes through training.
Harassment
Noise associated with the proposed action could disturb snakes where it exceeds ambient noise. Additionally, visual disturbance from personnel during the action could also affect snakes. These disturbances may result in affected individuals leaving refugia and becoming more vulnerable to predation or in missing foraging and mating opportunities. There will be increased human activity within and adjacent to indigo snake habitat as the result of the proposed action.
Breeding and Foraging Increased human presence may disturb indigo snakes to the point that they leave the immediate area. This may result in missed foraging and mating opportunities, and these individuals may be more vulnerable to predation and intraspecific aggression; however, this is difficult to estimate. 29 Indirect effects Beneficial effects
Ordnance-ignited wildfires are expected to improve prey species abundance in the re-growing vegetation. The indigo snake inhabits fire-adapted vegetation and, though the fires may result in temporary loss of habitat use or harm to a few individuals, the long-term effects of the proposed action can be beneficial.
Species’ response to the proposed action Ordnance explosions, ordnance-ignited wildfires, and increased traffic may injure or kill individual indigo snakes or destroy nests. Proposed activities may also adversely affect indigo snakes by causing them to leave the area and possibly miss foraging and mating opportunities. Individual indigo snakes fleeing the area may be more vulnerable to road hazards, predation and intraspecific aggression. The proposed actions will not result in conversion of habitat; thus, the Service expects the number of indigo snakes within the action area to be similar after the vegetation and prey species have recovered.
Florida scrub-jay
Factors to be considered
Potential effects to scrub-jay due to the proposed action include a number of direct and indirect effects on the scrub-jay and its habitat. Potential direct effects include: (1) injury and mortality of birds, destruction of nests from ordnance impact, and mortality or loss of nestlings or eggs due to ordnance-ignited wildfires; (2) harassment by the proposed action; and (3) missed foraging and breeding opportunities. Potential indirect effects include: (1) temporary reduction in food resources due to habitat alteration from ordnance-ignited wildfires and (2) temporary habitat fragmentation from reduction in cover and available nest sites due to ordnance-ignited wildfires.
Analyses for effects of the action The total area affected is approximately 6,368 acres of scrub habitat. The potential direct and indirect effects of the action on scrub-jay within the action area are discussed below.
Dircct cffccts
In jury and Mortality
Scrub-jay habitat exists within the North ranges where an increase in Hellfire missiles and routine ordnance drops will be conducted. Scrub-jay habitat also exists within and adjacent to the South Tactical Range where non-HE mortars and howitzers will fire and routine ordnance will be dropped. Birds within the immediate vicinity of the ordnance impact areas have the potential to be harmed or killed by the inert/practice and HE ordnance delivery actions; however, the Service believes the risk of direct mortality of scrub-jays due to explosion of ordnance is low.
30 Ordnance-ignited wildfires present the greatest risk for direct mortality of scrub-jays. Although adult scrub-jays are usually able to escape injury from wildfires and suppression activities, the loss of nests or fledglings as a result of the fires is a concern. For example, in the May 2006 JIFE, ordnance-ignited wildfires destroyed two scrub-jay nests containing seven eggs (Bowman et al. 2006).
The increase in vehicular traffic associated with the proposed action may result in the mortality or injury of scrub-jay. Previously, a Florida Army National Guard tracked vehicle crushed one nest containing four fledglings (USAF 2000). Additionally, in 2011 two adult scrub-jays were killed by vehicular collisions within the action area (Dent 2012).
Harassment
Noise associated with the proposed action could disturb scrub-jays where it exceeds ambient noise. Additionally, visual disturbance from personnel during the proposed action could disturb the scrub-jay. These disturbances may result in affected individuals leaving refugia and becoming more vulnerable to predation.
Breeding and Foraging Disturbance from increased human presence within the action area may also result in missed foraging and mating opportunities; however, this is difficult to estimate. Birds may be temporarily displaced from foraging, resting, singing, or incubating eggs by this activity. The disturbance is anticipated to be temporary and discountable due to the scrub-jay habituation to humans in the action area. Indirect effects Food Resources Ordnance-ignited wildfires that burn scrub habitat may result in a temporary reduction in food resources available to scrub-jays. Depending on the intensity of the burn and the extent of scrub habitat affected, acorn production may be diminished for several years following the burn. Although wildfires may temporarily reduce the foraging value of scrub habitats, .hese fires cau also improve the habitat value by maintaining lower tree densities. Fire also maintains low vegetation structure for nesting and open sandy areas for foraging.
Habitat Fragmentation
Ordnance-ignited wildfires will cause short-term habitat fragmentation. However, this fragmentation is not expected to present an impediment to movement to other habitats. Stith et al. (1996) found that habitat gaps larger than 7.5 miles represent barriers to natural dispersal and recolonization by scrub-jays. Habitat gaps of this size are not expected to result from the proposed action. Additionally, 3 to 4 years post-fire, suitable scrub vegetation grows and acorn production increases. The overall forage, cover, and nesting conditions will improve.
31 Species response to the proposed action
Implementation of the proposed action may adversely affect scrub-jay. The adverse effects range from direct mortality of eggs, nestlings, recent fledglings, or adults, to displacement of adults. Disturbance resulting from the proposed action may disrupt normal behavior, causing birds to leave the area. Burnt scrub habitat may result in reduced cover and foraging opportunities for a few years post fire. Scrub vegetation will recover and provide increased foraging and nesting opportunities for scrub-jays in the long term. Long-term negative impacts are expected to be minor.
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Factors to be considered
Potential effects to RCW due to the proposed action include a number of direct and indirect effects on the RCW and its habitat. Potential direct effects include: (1) direct mortality from ordnance ignited wildfire; (2) harassment by the proposed action; and (3) missed foraging and breeding opportunities. Potential indirect effects include loss of cavity trees.
Analyses for effects of the action
The total area affected by the action is approximately 26,685 acres of natural pine flatwoods habitat. Additionally, another 20,832 acres of pine plantations, which provide some habitat for RCW, will be affected. The potential direct and indirect effects of the action on RCW within the action area are discussed below.
Direct effects Injury and Mortality
Most of the active RCW clusters are not near targets; therefore, potential effects to RCWs from the JIFE are primarily related to ordnance-ignited wildfires. The RCW nesting season is April through June, which coincides with the proposed action. Although adult RCW are usually able to escape injury from wildfire and suppression activities, the loss of nests, fledglings, or nest trees as a result of the fires is a concern. Harassment Noise associated with the proposed action could disturb RCWs where it exceeds ambient noise. Additionally, visual disturbance from personnel during the proposed action could disturb RCWs. These disturbances may result in affected individuals leaving refugia and becoming more vulnerable to predation. Breeding and Foraging Disturbance from increased human presence within the action area may also result in missed foraging and mating opportunities; however, this is difficult to estimate._Birds may be temporarily displaced from foraging, resting, singing, or incubating eggs by this activity. The disturbance is anticipated to be temporary and discountable. 32 Indirect effects Loss of cavity trees The temporary loss of RCW cavity trees during ordnance-ignited wildfires may result in the reduction of breeding and foraging opportunities within active clusters and temporary disturbance to the birds until an artificial cavity insert can be installed. Missed breeding opportunities may lead to a decrease in overall nesting success if birds do not re-nest. However, fire is essential to maintaining suitable habitat for RCW and is expected to provide a net conservation benefit for the species over the long term. Species’ response to the proposed action Ordnance-ignited wildfires can result in injury or mortality of nestlings or eggs, and can destroy cavity trees. Loss of cavity trees from wildfire may also adversely affect birds by possibly causing them to miss foraging and mating opportunities. The proposed action will not result in conversion of habitat; thus, the Service expects the number of birds within the action area to be similar after the action. Florida bonneted bat Factors to be considered Potential effects to FBBs due to the proposed action include a number of direct and indirect effects on the bat and its habitat. Potential direct effects include: (I) direct mortality from ordnance impact and ordnance-ignited wildfire; (2) harassment by proposed action; and (3) destruction of roosting sites. Potential indirect effects include beneficial long-term improvements in habitat quality. Analysis for effects of the action The total area of habitat for the FBB affected by this action is approximately 33,053 acres. The potential direct and indirect effects of the action on FBBs within the action area are discussed below. Direct effects Injury and Mortality FBBs within the immediate vicinity of the ordnance impact areas have the potential to be harmed or killed by the inert/practice and HE ordnance delivery actions; however, the Service believes the risk of direct mortality of FBBs due to explosion of ordnance is low. Ordnance-ignited wildfires present the greatest risk for direct mortality of FBBs. Because bats roost in tree hollows and in dead palm fronds, individuals may be injured or killed during ordnance-ignited wildfires or fire-related activities. Removal of old or live trees with cavities during activities associated with fire suppression activities may inadvertently remove roost sites, if such sites are not known. Loss of an active roost or removal during critical life history stags (e.g., when females are pregnant or rearing young) can result in the loss of individuals and have severe ramifications considering the species’ low fecundity and population size.
33 Harassment
Noise associated with the proposed action could disturb bats where it exceeds ambient noise. Additionally, visual disturbance from personnel during the proposed action could disturb bats. Harvey et al. (1999) indicated disturbance to summer maternity colonies of bats is extremely detrimental. In general, maternity colonies of bats do not tolerate disturbance, especially when flightless newborns are present. Newborns or immature bats may be dropped or abandoned by adults if disturbed (Harvey et al. 1999). Disturbance to maternity colonies of the FBB may be particularly damaging because of this species’ low fecundity and low abundance.
Breeding and Foraging Disturbance from increased human presence within the action area may also result in missed foraging and mating opportunities; however, this is difficult to estimate. FBBs may be temporarily displaced from foraging, resting, or caring for young by this activity.
Indirect effects Beneficial effects
Habitat for bats will be improved because fire is an integral part of the natural processes that maintain plant communities found within the action area.
Species’ response to the proposed action
Ordnance impact and ordnance-ignited wildfires can result in injury or mortality of adults or young, and can destroy roost sites. Loss of roost sites from wildfire may also adversely affect FBBs by possibly causing them to miss foraging and mating opportunities. Disturbance resulting from the proposed action may disrupt normal behavior, causing FBBs to leave the area. The proposed action will not result in conversion of habitat; thus, the Service expects the number of FBBs within the action area to be similar after the action.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, Tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this Biological Opinion. Future Fcdcral actions that arc unrclatcd to thc proposcd action arc not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act.
Since the proposed action is located on a Federal military installation, there are no actions that may occur within the action area that would not be subject to consultation.
CONCLUSION
Eastern indigo snake After reviewing the cuntnt status of the eastern indigo snake, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s
34 biological opinion the implementation of the project as proposed is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. No critical habitat has been designated for the species; therefore, none will be affected. We anticipate limited mortality of indigo snakes and nests from ordnance-ignited wildfires and wildfire suppression activities. We also anticipate limited mortality of indigo snakes from increased vehicular traffic. Indigo snakes have some ability to move away from situations that may result in direct injury and mortality and can access adjacent habitat or underground refugia, if escape opportunities are available. The action will not substantially reduce the numbers, distribution, or reproduction of indigo snakes.
Florida scrub-jay After reviewing the current status of the scrub-jay, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion the implementation of the project as proposed is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. No critical habitat has been designated for the species; therefore, none will be affected.
We anticipate limited mortality of scrub-jay nests from ordnance-ignited wildfires and wildfire suppression activities. We also anticipate limited mortality of scrub-jay from increased vehicular traffic. The action will not substantially reduce the numbers, distribution, or reproduction of scrub-jays.
Red-cockaded woodpecker
After reviewing the current status of the RCW, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion the implementation of the project as proposed is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. No critical habitat has been designated for the species; therefore, none will be affected.
We anticipate limited mortality of RCW nests and nest trees from ordnance ignited wildfires and wildfire suppression activities. The action will not substantially reduce the numbers, distribution, or reproduction of RCW. Florida bonneted bat After reviewing the current status of the FBB, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion the implementation of the project as proposed is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. No critical habitat has been designated for the species; therefore, none will be affected.
We anticipate limited mortality of FBBs from ordnance-ignited wildfires and wildfire suppression activities. The action will not substantially reduce the numbers, distribution, or reproduction of FBBs.
35 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. “Take” is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. “Harm” is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. “Harass” is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly dismpt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking, that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action, is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.
The measures described below are nondiscretionary and must be undertaken by the USAF so they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The USAF has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the USAF fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the grant, agreement, or permit document, the protection coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. To monitor the impact of incidental take, the USAF or the applicant, must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement [50 CFR § 402. 14(i)(3)]. AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE ANTICIPATED Eastern indigo snake The indigo snake is difficult to detect and quantify for the following reasons: (I) it has a wide- ranging distribution; (2) it has a patchy distribution within suitable habitat; (3) it has limited detectability due to use of burrows or holes for shelter; (4) there is likely unoccupied suitable habitat; (5) juveniles have limited detectability due to their affinity for thick vegetation; and (6) it may use cryptic sheltering areas that may be temporarily established during construction (e.g., brush piles. equipment stockpiles, and dirt mounds). The lack of practical methods of survey, in conjunction with wide-ranging activity and use of a variety of habitat types, makes it difficult to determine the exact number of indigo snakes that will be impacted by the proposed action. We have nevertheless, used the best available science in an attempt to quantify the number of indigo snakes potentially present on the site.
The Service anticipates incidental take of the indigo snake associated with ordnance-ignited wildfires, suppression activities, and increased traffic from the proposed action. Ordnance- ignited wildfires from JIFEs burned 11,495 acres from 2006 through 2010; therefore, the Service estimates that up to (11,494/5=2299)2,299 acres will be burned from the proposed action. Juvenile indigo snakes may be more vulnerable to proposed actions because they are less likely to use underground refugia and often rely on aboveground vegetation for cover. 36 Based on the estimated average size of an indigo snake territory in central Florida of 184 acres for males and 46 acres for females (Layne and Steiner 1996), we estimated the proposed burn area could support (2299/184=12.5) 13 male indigo snakes. Assuming a 1:1 sex ratio (Moulis 1976; Parker and Plummer 2001), up to 26 indigo snakes (male and female) could occur within the action area. Assuming the presence of both sexes would also imply indigo snake nests could be present. With up to 13 females potentially present within the action area, we assume an equal number of indigo snake nests may potentially be on the sites in any given year. Each nest could have between 4 and 12 eggs or hatchlings (Moler 1992). It is unlikely all of the effected acres are occupied because indigo snake territory sizes may be larger in less suitable habitat. Furthermore, some indigo snakes will be able to escape and find refugia during wildfires; therefore, we anticipate no more than 75 percent (20 snakes [26x0.75=19.5]) of the potential snakes in the area will be harassed (disturbed), and no more than 5 percent (1 snake [26x0.05= 1.3]) of the snakes will be harmed (injured or killed). Additionally, up to 25 percent (13x0.25=3.3) of the potential indigo snake nests (three nests) in the area may be harmed (in the form of mortality) incidental to ordnance-ignited wildfires. The proposed action will also increase vehicular traffic within the action area. Since 2001, at least five indigo snakes have been incidentally killed by vehicles within the action area; therefore, the Service anticipates the harm (injured or killed) of one indigo snake from vehicular collision. Florida scrub-jay The Service anticipates incidental take of scrub-jay associated with ordnance-ignited wildfires, suppression activities, and increased traffic from the proposed action. Ordnance-ignited wildfires from JIFEs destroyed two scrub-jay nests in 2006; therefore, the Service anticipates the harm (lost through mortality) of up to two scrub-jay nests from ordnance-ignited wildfires and suppression activities. The proposed action will also increase vehicular traffic within the action area. In 2011, vehicular collisions within the action area resulted in the death of two scrub-jays. These were the first two documented road killed scrub-jays in over 10 years of monitoring; therefore, the Service anticipates the. harm (injury or killed) of one scrub-jay from vehicular collision. Red-cockaded woodpecker The Service anticipates incidental take of the RCW cavity trees associated with ordnance-ignited wildfires and suppression activities from the proposed action. Ordnance-ignited wildfires from JIFEs killed two RCW cavity trees from 2006 through 2010 (USAF 2013); therefore, the Service anticipates the harm (lost through mortality) of up to one RCW cavity tree. An RCW cavity tree could contain one nest, with up to four eggs or four chicks. Florida bonneted bat The Service anticipates incidental take of the FBB will be difficult to detect for the following reasons: (1) patchy distribution within suitable habitats; (2) suitable habitat may not be occupied; and (3) only one natural roost site location is known. This species roosts in tree hollows, palm fronds, and other structures. Where roost sites occur in natural habitat, adults and especially young may be vulnerable to fire. Roost sites may be destroyed by fire and bats may be injured or killed 37 during ordnance-ignited wildfires and suppression activities. Harassment to FBBs may occur from increased human activity and noise from the proposed action. However, it is difficult to estimate how many bats may be disturbed because little is known about their natural roost sites. Therefore, the Service anticipates one colony of bats may be injured or killed during ordnance-ignited wildfires and suppression activities. The incidental take is expected to be in the form of harm, harassment, and direct mortality and injury. EFFECT OF THE TAKE In the accompanying Biological Opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to these species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES When providing an incidental take statement, the Service is required to give reasonable and prudent measures it considers necessary or appropriate to minimize the take, along with terms and conditions that must be complied with to implement the reasonable and prudent measures. Furthermore, the Service must also specify procedures to be used to handle or dispose of any individuals taken. The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize the incidental take of the eastern indigo snake, scrub-jay, RCW, and FBB: I. Minimize disturbance and injury from vehicular, ordnance-ignited wildfires and suppression activities. 2. Reduce habitat fragmentation. 3. Increase nesting habitat. 4. Educate on-site personnel about federally listed species. 5. Monitor federally listed species. 6. Report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the Incidental Take Statement (50 CFR § 402.14(0(3)). TERMS AND CONDITIONS In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, USAF must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline the required reporting and monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary:
1. Minimization of disturbance and injury: a. To minimize impacts to the indigo snake and scrub-jay from vehicular traffic, a speed limit of no more than 35 mph will be posted for all vehicular traffic on-site. The USAF will enforce the speed limit.
b. To minimize impacts to the indigo snake, scrub-jay, RCW, and FBB from ordnance ignited wildfires and suppression activities, the USAF will implement a wildland fire program capable of responding to a wildfire within 2 hours and reducing the risk of wildfire by burning 40,000 acres per year by fiscal year (FY) 2015. 38 2. Reduce habitat fragmentation: a. The USAF will remove 468 acres of north Florida slash pine (Pinus elliottii) plantations identified in Figure 7 by FY 2017. Additionally, all north Florida slash pine regeneration within 100 feet of the identified areas will be removed by FY 2017.
b. The USAF will implement an invasive species control program on APAFR.
3. Increase nesting habitat: a. Maintain a minimum of four suitable cavity trees per active RCW cluster by installing artificial cavities when cavities are lost by FY 2015.
4. Education of on-site personnel: a. All personnel evolved in the lIFE will be briefed on the possible presence of federally listed species and to avoid all federally listed species that occur within APAFR. If any of these species are encountered, they will be avoided and allowed to leave the area on their own.
5. Monitoring: a. The USAF will annually monitor the scrub-jay population at APAFR. Monitoring will include the banding of all adults and fledglings, the approximate territory boundaries of each group, and the location and fate of every nest.
b. The USAF will annually monitor the RCW population at APAFR according to Appendix 2 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2003 Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Service 2003).
c. The USAF will annually monitor the FGSP population at APAFR according to the Draft 2004 Florida Grasshopper Sparrow Survey Protocol (Service 2004b).
d. The USAF will annually search for natural FBB roosts by visual examination of all enlarged RCW cavities with a video probe (“peeper”). All confirmed FBB roosts will be monitored annually with an emergence survey.
6. Reporting: a. The USAF will continue to provide the Service with annual population monitoring reports by December 3 l~ of each year for the scrub-jay, FGSP, and RCW.
b. Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick threatened or endangered species, initial notification must be made to the nearest Service Law Enforcement Office; Fish and Wildlife Service; 9549 Koger Boulevard, Suite 111; St. Petersburg, Florida 33702; 727-570-5398. Secondary notification should be made to the FWC; Southwest Region; 3900 Drane Field Road; Lakeland, Florida; 33811-1299; 1-800-282-8002.
Care should be taken in handling sick or injured specimens to ensure effective treatment and care or in the handling of dead specimens to preserve biological material in the best possible state for later analysis as to the cause of death. In conjunction with the care of sick or injured individuals or preservation of biological 39 materials from a dead animal, the finder has the responsibility to carry out instructions provided by Law Enforcement to ensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop ihformation. The Service is not proposing any conservation recommendations at this time.
REINITIATION NOTICE
This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in the JIFE. As provided in 50 CFR § 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.
Thank you for your cooperation in the effort to protect fish and wildlife resources. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Brian Scofield at 863-452-4213.
Sincerely ypurs,
~ Do ald Bob) Progulske Everglades Program Supervisor South Florida Ecological Services Office cc: electronic only FWC, Tallahassee, Florida (FWC-CPS, Imperiled Species) Service, Vero Beach, Florida (Marilyn Knight, Paula Halupa) USAF, Avon Park, Florida (Paul Ebersbach)
40 LITERATURE CITED
Abrahamson, W.G. 1984. Post-fire recovery of Florida Lake Wales Ridge vegetation. American Journal of Botany 7 1:9-21.
Allen, D.H. 1991. Constructing artificial red-cockaded woodpecker cavities. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report SE-73. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southeastern Forest Experimental Station; Asheville, North Carolina.
American Ornithologists’ Union. 1957. Checklist of North American Birds. 5th edition. Am. Ornithologist. Union, Washington D.C.
American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Checklist of North American Birds. 6th edition. Am. Ornithologist. Union, Washington D.C.
American Ornithologists’ Union. 1995. Fortieth supplement to the American Ornithologists Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 112:819-30.
Anderson, B. 2013. Email. South Florida Water Management District. West Palm Beach, Florida. October 10, 2013.
Babis, W.A. 1949. Notes on the food of the indigo snake. Copeia 1949 (2):147.
Bancroft, G.T. and G.E. Woolfenden. 1982. The molt of scrub-jays and blue jays in Florida. Ornithological Monograph Number 29. American Ornithologists’ Union. Washington, D.C.
Belwood, J.J. 1981. Wagner’s mastiff bat, Eumops glaucinusfioridanus (Molossidae) in southwestern Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 62:4 1 1-4 13.
Belwood, J.J. 1992. Florida mastiff bat Eumops glaucinusfioridanus. Pages 2 16-223 in SR. Humphrey (ed.), Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. I. Mammals. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.
Bendire, C. 1895. Life Histories of North American Birds from the Parrots to the Grackles, with Special Reference to their Breeding Habits and Eggs. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Birchfield, J. 2010. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Punta Gorda, Florida. March 22, 2010.
Boughton, R.K. and R. Bowman. 2011. State wide assessment of Florda scrub-jays on managed areas: A comparison of current populations to the results of the 1992-93 survey. Archbold Biological Station; Venus, Florida.
41 Boughton, R.K., J.W. Atwell, and S.J. Schoech. 2006. An introduced generalist parasite, the sticktight flea (Echidnophaga gallinacea), and its pathology in the threatened Florida scrub-jay ~Aphelocoma coerulescens). Journal of Parasitology 92(5):94l—948.
Bowman, R. 1998. Population dynamics, demography, and contributions to metapopulation dynamics by suburban populations of the Florida scrub-jay, Apheloconza coeru.lescens. Final report on Project No. NG94-032 to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida.
Bowman, R. and L. Averill. 1993. Demography of a suburban population of Florida scrub-jay. Annual progress report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cooperative agreement number 14-16-0004-91-950. December 1993.
Bowman, R., G.E. Woolfenden, A.L. Fleischer, Jr., and L.M. Walton. 1996. Nest site selection by Florida scrub-jays in natural and modified habitats. Abstract, Archbold Biological Station 1996 Symposium. 12 September 1996. Lake Placid, Florida.
Bowman, R., J. Tucker, M. Dent, and L. Gilson. 2006. Population monitoring of the Red-cockaded woodpecker (Ficoides borealis), Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), and Florida grasshopper sparrow ~Ammodranius savannarumfioridanus) at the Avon Park Air Force Range. Unpublished Quarterly Report February 1 through May 31, 2006. Archbold Biological Station; Lake Placid, Florida.
Bowman, R., G.R. Schrott, M. Dent, L. Glilson, J. Rodriguez, and B. Rolek. 2011. Population Monitoring of the Florida Scrub-Jay ~Aphelocoma coerulescens), Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and Florida Grasshopper Sparrow ~Amnzodramus savannarumfioridanus) at Avon Park Air Force Range. Quarterly Report. Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid, Florida.
Bowman, R., G.R. Schrott, M. Dent, E. Angell, E.Thompson. 2014. Population Monitoring of the Florida Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and Florida Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) at Avon Park Air Force Range. weekly Report. Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid, Florida.
Breininger, D.R. 1999. Florida Scrub-Jay demography and dispersal in a fragmented landscape. The Auk 116:520-527.
Breininger, D.R., and P. A. Schmalzer. 1990. Effects of fire and disturbance on plants and animals in a Florida oak/palmetto scrub. American Midland Naturalist 123:64—74.
Breininger, D.R., M. A. Burgman, and B. M. Stith. 1999. Influence of habitat, catastrophes, and population size on extinction risk on Florida Scrub-Jay populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:810-822.
42 Breininger D. R., B. W. Duncan, and N. J. Dominy. 2002. Relationships between fire frequency and vegetation type in pine flatwoods of east-central Florida, USA. Natural Areas Journal 22:186-193.
Breininger, D.R., M.L. Legare, and R.B. Smith. 2004. Edge effects and population viability of eastern indigo snakes in Florida. Pgs. 299-311 in: H.R. Akcakaya, M. Burgman, 0. Kindvall, P. Sjorgren-Gulve, J. Hatfield, and M. McCarthy, editors. Species Conservation and Management: Case Studies. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.
Breininger, D.R., M.J. Provancha, and R.B. Smith. 1991. Mapping Florida scrub-jay habitat for purposes of land-use management. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 57(11): 1467-1474.
Breininger, D. R., V. L. Larson, B. W. Duncan, and R. B. Smith. 1998. Linking habitat suitability to demographic success in Florida Scrub-Jays. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:118-128.
Breininger, D.R., V.L. Larson, B.W. Duncan, R.B. Smith, D.M. Oddy, and M.F. Goodchild. 1995. Landscape patterns of Florida scrub-jay habitat use and demographic success. Conservation Biology 9(6): 1442-1453
Breininger, D.R., B. Toland, D. Oddy, M. Legare, J. Elseroad, and 0. Carter. 2001. Biological criteria for the recovery of Florida scrub-jay populations on public lands in Brevard County and Indian River County. Annual Progress Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Jacksonville, Florida.
Breininger, D.R, B. Toland, D. Oddy, M. Legare, J. Elseroad, and G. Carter. 2003. Biological criteria for the recovery of Florida scrub-jay populations on public lands in Brevard County and Indian River County. Final Report to Endangered Species Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida. Dynamac Corporation, DYN-2, Kennedy Space Center, Florida.
Breininger, D.R., M.R. Bolt, M.L. Legare, J.H. Drese, and E.D. Stolen. 2011. Factors Influencing Home-Range Sizes of Eastern Indigo Snakes in Central Florida. Journal of 1-lerpetology, 45(4):484-490.
Breininger, D.R., M.J. Mazerolle, M.R. Bolt, M.L. Legare, J.H. Drese, and J.E. Hines. 2012. Habitat fragmentation effects on annual survival of the federally protected eastern indigo snake. Animal Conservation 15:361-368.
Byrd, H. 1928. Notes from correspondents: Florida jay. Florida Naturalist 1(4):87.
Carlile, L.D., T.A. Beaty, E.W. Spadgenske, L.R. Mitchell, S.E. Puder, and C. Ten Brink. 2004. An intensively managed and increasing red-cockaded woodpecker population at Fort Stewart, Georgia. Pages 134-138 in R. Costa and S.J. Daniels, editors. Red-cockaded woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blain, Washington. 43 Carson, H.L. 1945. Delayed fertilization in a captive indigo snake with note of feeding and shedding. Copeia 1945(4): 222-224.
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1998. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians Eastern and Central North America. Third Edition, Expanded. Houghton Mifflin Company; New York, New York.
Conner, R.N., D.C. Rudolph, and J.R. Walters. 2001. The red-cockaded woodpecker: surviving in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Texas Press; Austin, Texas.
Copeyon, C.K. 1990. A technique for constructing cavities for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:303-311.
Costa, R. 2001. Red-cockaded woodpecker. Pages 309-32 1 in J.G. Dickson, editor. Wildlife of southern forests: habitat and management. Hancock House Publishers; Blame, Washington.
Costa, R. 2004. State of the red-cockaded woodpecker world: highlights of the previous decade (1992-2002). Pages 39-46 in R. Costa and S.J. Daniels, editors. Red-cockaded woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers; Blain, Washington.
Cox, J.A. 1987. Status and distribution of the Florida scrub-jay. Florida Ornithological Society Special Publication Number 3. Gainesville, Florida.
Cox, J.A. and R.S. Kautz. 2000. Habitat conservation needs of rare and imperiled wildlife in Florida. Office of Environmental Services, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. 156 pp.
Davis Jr., J.H. 1967. General map of the natural vegetation of Florida. Institute Food and Agricultural Sciences Circular S-178. Agricultural Experiment Station. University of Florida; Gainesville, Florida.
DeGange, A.R., J.W. Fitzpatrick, J.N. Layne, and G.E. Woolfenden. 1989. Acorn harvesting by Florida scrub-jays. Ecology 70(2):348-356.
DeLotelle, R.S. and R.J. Epting. 1992. Reproduction of the red-cockaded woodpecker in central Florida. Wilson Bulletin 104:285-294.
Dent, M. 2012. Personal communication, Biologist. E-mail to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dated February 2012. Archbold Biological Station; Venus, Florida
Diemer, J.E., and D.W. Speake. 1983. The distribution of the eastern indigo snake, Dryinarchon corais couperi, in Georgia. Journal of Herpetology 17(3):256-264.
44 Doresky, I., M. Barron, and P. Swiderek. 2004. Landscape scale restoration and red-cockaded woodpecker recovery? Pages 127-133 in R. Costa and S.J. Daniels, editors. Red cockaded woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers; Blain, Washington.
Douglass, N. 2009. Email to stakeholders. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Lakeland, Florida. January 26, 2009.
Dreschel, T.W., R.B. Smith, and D.R. Breininger. 1990. Florida scrub-jay mortality on roadsides. Florida Field Naturalist 18: 82-83.
Duncan, B. W., and D. R. Breininger. 1998. Quantifying hab-itat change: modeling historic and current Florida scrub-jay habitat suitability. Proceedings of GIS/LIS 1998 Annual Conference. Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
Duncan, B. W., S. Boyle, D. R. Breininger, and P. A. Schmalzer. 1999. Coupling past management practice and historical landscape change on John F. Kennedy Space Center. Landscape Ecology 14:29 1—309.
Engstrom, R.T. and F.J. Sanders. 1997. Red-cockaded woodpecker foraging ecology in an old growth longleaf pine forest. Wilson Bulletin 109:203-217.
Fernald, R.T. 1989. Coastal xeric scrub communities of the Treasure Coast region, Florida: A summary of their distribution and ecology, with guidelines for their preservation and management. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report Number 6. Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005b. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative. Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tallahassee, Florida.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2010. FNAI Element Tracking Summary. Tallahassee, Florida. [Accessed: January 6, 2010. http://www.fnai.org/PDF/ Elementtrackingsummary2009 1 2.pdfj
Fitzpatrick, J.W. and G.E. Woolfenden. 1988. Components of lifetime reproductive success in the Florida scrub-jay. Pages 303-320 in T.H. Clutton-Brock, ed. Reproductive Success. University of Chicago Press; Chicago, flhinois.
Fitzpatrick, J.W., B. Pranty, and B. Stith. 1994. Florida scrub-jay statewide map 1992-93. Archbold Biological Station; Lake Placid, Florida.
Fitzpatrick, J.W., G.E. Woolfenden, and M.T. Kopeny. 1991. Ecology and development-related habitat requirements of the Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens). Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 8. Tallahassee, Florida.
45 Fleischer, A.L., Jr. 1996. Pre-breeding time budgets of female Florida scrub-jays in natural and suburban habitats. Abstract, Archbold Biological Station 1996 Symposium. 12 September 1996. Lake Placid, Florida.
Franzreb, K.E. 1999. Factors that influence translocation success in the red-cockaded woodpecker. Wilson Bulletin 111:38-45.
Franzreb, K.E. 2004. Habitat preferences of foraging red-cockaded woodpeckers at the Savannah River site, South Carolina. Pages: 553-561 in R. Costa and S.J. Daniels, editors. Red-cockaded woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blain, Washington.
Franzreb, K.E. and J. Puschock. 2004. Year 3 (FY 2003): Status, population dynamics, and habitat use of the Florida scrub-jay on the Ocala National Forest, Florida. Draft annual report 2003. Southern Region, U.S. Forest Service; Asheville, North Carolina.
Frost, C.C. 1993. Four centuries of changing landscape patterns in the longleaf pine ecosystem. Pages 17-44 in S.M. Hermann, editor. The longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, restoration, and management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 18. Tall Timbers Research Station; Tallahassee, Florida.
Gaines, G.D., K.E. Franzreb, D.H. Allen, K.S. Laves and W.L. Jarvis. 1995. Red-cockaded woodpecker management on the Savannah River Site: a management/research success story. Pages 8 1-88 in D.L. Kulhavy, R.G. Hooper, and R. Costa, editors. Red-cockaded woodpecker: recovery, ecology, and management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University; Nacogdoches, Texas.
Gowaty, P.A. and M.R. Lennartz. 1985. Sex ratios of nestling and fledgling Red-cockaded woodpeckers (Ficoides borealis) favor males. American Naturalist 126:347-353.
Hagan, G., R. Costa, and M.K. Phillips. 2004. Reintroduction of the first red-cockaded woodpeckers into unoccupied habitat: a private land and conservation success story. Pages 320-324 in R. Costa and S.J. Daniels, editors. Red-cockaded woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blain, Washington.
Hanski I. and Gilpin M. 1991: Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. In: Gilpin M. & HANSKI I. (eds.), Metapopulation dynamics: empirical and theoretical investigations. Academic Press, London, pp. 3-16.
Hanula, J. and S. Horn. 2004. Availability and abundance of prey for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Pages 633-645 in R. Costa and S.J. Daniels, editors. Red-cockaded woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers; Blain, Washington.
Hardesty, J.L., K.E. Gault, and F.P. Percival. 1997. Ecological correlates of Red-cockaded woodpecker (Ficoides borealis) foraging preference, habitat use, and home range size in northwest Florida (Eglin Air Force Base). Final Report Research Work Order 99, Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit; University of Florida; Gainesville, Florida. 46 Harper, R.M. 1927. Natural Resources of Southern Florida. Florida Department of Conservation, Florida Geological Survey Annual Report. 18:27-206.
Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach, and T.L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Asheville, North Carolina.
Hastie, K. and E. Eckl. 1999. North Florida team rallies around scrub jay. Page 28 in: Durhan, M. (ed.) Fish and Wildlife News. July/August 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Hedman, C.W., J.R. Poirier, P.E. Durfield, and M.A. Register. 2004. International Paper’s habitat conservation plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker: implementation and early success. Pages 355-360 in R. Costa and S.J. Daniels, editors. Red-cockaded woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers; Blain, Washington.
Hipes, D., D.R. Jackson, K. NeSmith, D. Printiss, and K. Brandt. 2001. Field guide to the rare animals of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Tallahassee, Florida.
Hofstetter, R.H. 1984. The effect of fire on the pineland and sawgrass communities of southern Florida. Pages 465-476 in: P.J. Gleason (ed.). Environments of South Florida: present and past II. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables, Florida.
Hooper, R.G. and R.F. Harlow. 1986. Forest stands selected by foraging red-cockaded woodpeckers. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper SE-259. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station; Asheville, North Carolina.
Humphrey, SR. 1975. Nursery roosts and community diversity of nearctic bats. Journal of Mammalogy 56(2):321-346.
International Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group Ito the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (edsj]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, and K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation.
Keegan, H.L. 1944. Indigo snakes feeding upon poisonous snakes. Copeia 1944 (l):59.
Kinsella, J.M. 1974. Helminth fauna of the Florida scrub-jay: host and ecological relationship. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington 41(2): 127-130.
47 Kochman, HI. 1978. Eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi. Pages 68-69 in R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. University Presses of Florida; Gainesville, Florida.
LaBranche, M.S. 1992. Asynchronous hatching, brood reduction and sex ratio biases in Red cockaded woodpeckers. Dissertation, North Carolina State University; Raleigh, North Carolina.
Laessle, A.M. 1958. The origin and successional relationships of sandhill vegetation and sand pine scrub. Ecological Monographs 28:361-387.
Laessle, A.M. 1968. Relationships of sand pine scrub to former shore lines. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Science 30:269-286.
Landers, J.L. and D.W. Speake. 1980. Management needs of sandhill reptiles in southern Georgia. Proceedings of the annual conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 34: 515-529.
Lawler, H.E. 1977. The status of Drymarchon corais couperi (Holbrook), the eastern indigo snake, in the southeastern U.S.A. Herpetological Review 8(3):76-79.
Layne, J.N., and T.M. Steiner. 1996. Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi): summary of research conducted on Archbold Biological Station. Report prepared under Order 43910-6-0134 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Jackson, Mississippi.
Lennartz, M.R. and D.G. Heckel. 1987. Population dynamics of a red-cockaded woodpecker population in Georgia Piedmont loblolly pine habitat. Pages 48-55 in R.R.
Lennartz, M.R., R.G. Hooper, and R.F. Harlow. 1987. Sociality and cooperative breeding of red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 20:77-88.
Marks, C. 2010. Telephone conversation with Paula Halupa. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida. March 15, 2010.
Marks, C. and G. Marks. 2008. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida. May 27, 2008.
Marks, G.E. and C.S. Marks. 2008a. Status of the Florida bonneted bat (Eumopsfloridanus). Final report. Submitted by the Florida Bat Conservancy under grant agreement number 401815G192. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida.
Marks, G. and C. Marks. 2008b. Bat conservation and land management Kissimmee River WMA. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida.
48 Marks, G.E. and C.S. Marks. 2008c. Status of the Florida bonneted bat (Eumopsfloridanus). Supplemental report. Submitted by the Florida Bat Conservancy under grant agreement number 401815G192. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida.
Marston, T.G. and D.M. Morrow. 2004. Red-cockaded woodpecker conservation on Fort Jackson military installation: a small population’s response to intensive management in the Sandhills region of South Carolina. Pages 378-390 in R. Costa and S.J. Daniels, editors. Red-cockaded woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers; Blain, Washington.
McGowan, K.J. and G.E. Woolfenden. 1989. A sentinel system in the Florida scrub-jay. Animal Behavior 37:1000-1006.
McGowan, K.J. and G.E. Woolfenden. 1990. Contributions to fledgling feeding in the Florida scrub-jay. Journal of Animal Ecology 59:691-707.
Menges, E.S. and C.V. Hawkes. 1998. Interactive effects of fire and microhabitat on plants of Florida scrub. Ecological Applications 8(4):935-946.
Menges, Eric S. and N. Kohfeldt. 1995. Life history strategies of Florida scrub plants in relation to fire. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, Vol. 122: 282-297.
Miller, J.B. 2003. Personal communication. Biologist. Email to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dated May 13, 2003. Florida Park Service; St. Augustine, Florida.
Miller, K.E. 2004. Personal communication. Biologist. Email to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dated December, 14, 2004. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; Gainesville, Florida.
Miller, K.E. 2006. Assessing impacts of Hurricane Charley on Florida scrub-jays in Charlotte County. Progress Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Vero Beach, Florida.
Moler, Pb. 1983a. Distribution of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corars couperi, in Florida. Herpetological Review I 6(2):37-38.
Moler, P.E. 1985b. Home range and seasonal activity of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi, in northern Florida. Final performance report, Study E-1-06, III-A-5. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; Tallahassee, Florida.
Moler, P.E. 1992. Eastern indigo snake. Pages 181-186 in P.E. Moler, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida, volume III, Amphibians and Reptiles. University Press of Florida; Gainesville, Florida.
Moler, P.E. 1998. Personal communication. Biologist. Comments dated January 9, 2006, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the technical/agency draft Multi-Species Recovery Plan for South Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; Tallahassee, Florida. 49 Morse, J. 2008. Bat Species Inventory in the Southwest Region. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Southwest Region. Lakeland, Florida.
Morse, J. 2008. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Lakeland, Florida. October 10, 2008.
Morse, J. 2010. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Lakeland, Florida. January 4,2010.
Moulis, R. 1976. Autecology of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi. Bulletin of the New York Herpetological Society, Vol. 12 No. 3 & 4.
Mumme, R.L. 1992. Do helpers increase reproductive success? An experimental analysis in the Florida scrub-jay. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 31:319-328.
Mumme, R.L. and S.J. Schoech, G.E. Woolfenden, and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 2000. Life and death in the fast lane: demographic consequences of road mortality in the Florida scrub- jay. Conservation Biology 14: 501-5 12.
Myers, R.L. 1990. Scrub and high pine. Pages 150-193 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel (eds.) Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, Florida.
NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: March 18, 2010).
Parker, W.S. and M.V. Plummer. 2001. Population ecology in snakes: Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (Seigel, R.A., J.T. Collins, and S.S. Novak, editors). The Blackburn Press; Caldwell, New Jersey. pp. 253-301.
Pearlstine, L.G. 2008. Ecological consequences of climate change for the Florida Everglades: An initial summary. Technical memorandum, South Florida Natural Resources Center, Everglades National Park; Homestead, Florida.
Percival, H.F., D.B. IVlcDonald, and M.J. IVlazurck. 1995. Status and distribution for the Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Technical Report Number 51, final report for U.S. Air Force, Environmental Flight, research work order 136. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, October 31, 1995.
Robson, M. 1989. Status survey of the Florida mastiff bat. Final performance report. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Nongame Wildlife Section. Tallahassee, Florida.
Robson, M.S., F.J. Mazzotti, and T. Parrott. 1989. Recent evidence of the mastiff bat in southern Florida. Florida Field Naturalist l7(4):81-82.
50 Root, K. 1998. Evaluating the effects of habitat quality, connectivity, and catastrophes on a threatened species. Ecological Applications, 8,3: 854-865.
Schaub, R., R.L. Mumme, and G.E. Woolfenden. 1992. Predation on the eggs and nestlings of Florida scrub-jays. Auk 109:585-593.
Schmalzer, P. A., and S. R. Boyle. 1998. Restoring longunburned oak-mesic flatwoods requires mechanical cutting and prescribed burning. Restoration and Management Notes 16:96—97.
Schmalzer, P.A. and C.R. Hinkle. 1992a. Recovery of Oak-saw Palmetto Scrub after Fire. Castanea. 57: 158-173.
Schmalzer, P.A. and C.R. Hinkle. 1992b. Species composition and structure of oak-saw palmetto scrub vegetation. Castanea 57(4):220-251.
Schrott, G. 2012a. Unpublished Florida Grasshopper Sparrow Working Group meeting presentation. January 24, 2012. Archbold Biological Station, Venus, Florida.
Scofield, B. 2015. Personal communication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fish and Wildlife Biologist. Comments in the draft JIFE BO to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dated March 17, 2015. Avon Park Air Force Range; Highlands and Polk Counties, Florida
Shaw, C.E. 1959. Longevity of snakes in the U.S. as of January 1,1959. Copeia.
Simberloff, D. 1993. Species-area and fragmentation effects on old growth forests: prospects for longleaf pine communities. Pages 1-14 in S. M. Hermann, editor. The longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, restoration, and management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 18. Tall Timbers Research Station; Tallahassee, Florida.
Smith, B. 2003. Personal communication. Biologist with Dynamac, Inc. Presentation to South Florida Ecological Services Office. Vero Beach, Florida. February 2003.
Smith, C.R. 1987. Ecology of juvenile and gravid eastern indigo snakes in north Florida. M.S. thesis, Auburn University; Auburn, Alabama.
Smith, K. 2010. Capture of Eumops floridanus in a mist net in south Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Big Cypress Field Office, Naples, Florida.
Smith, K. 2010. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Naples, Florida. March 17, 2010.
Snodgrass, J.W., T.Townsend, and P. Brabitz. 1993. The status of scrub and Florida scrub-jay in Brevard County, Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 21(3):69-74.
51 Speake, D.W., D. McGlincy, and C. Smith. 1987. Captive breeding and experimental reintroduction of the eastern indigo snake. Pages 84-90 in R.R. in Proceedings of the 3rd Southeastern Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium; Athens, Georgia.
Stailcup, J.A. and G.E. Woolfenden. 1978. Family status and contribution to breeding by Florida scrub-jays. Animal Behavior 26: 1144- 1156.
Stark, L.M. and D. Kazanis. 2001. Arbovirus surveillance: annual summary report, 2001. Florida Department of Health [Internet]. Tampa, Florida [cited December 14, 2006]. Available from: http://www.myfloridaeh.comlcommunity/arboviral/pdfs/2001/ 200l_arboannual.pdf
Steiner, T.M., O.L. Bass, Jr., and J.A. Kushlan. 1983. Status of the eastern indigo snake in southern Florida National Parks and vicinity. South Florida Research Center Report SFRC-83/Ol, Everglades National Park; Homestead, Florida.
Stevens, T. and J. Hardesty. 1999. Status and distribution of the Florida scrub-jay ~Aphe1ocoma coerulescens) at Cape Canaveral Air Station, Florida, Annual Report: 1998-1999. Report to U.S. Air Force; Patrick Air Force Base, Florida.
Stith, B.M. 1999. Metapopulation viability analysis of the Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens): a statewide assessment. Final report contract no. 1448-4018l-98-M324, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Jacksonville, Florida.
Stith, B.M, J.W. Fitzpatrick, G.E. Woolfenden, and B. Pranty. 1996. Classification and conservation of metapopulations: a case study of the Florida scrub-jay. Pages 187-215 in D.R. McCullough, ed. Metapopulations and wildlife conservation. Island Press. Washington, D.C.
Stober, J.M. and S.B. Jack. 2003. Down for the count? Red-cockaded woodpecker restoration on Ichauway. Pages 347-354 in R. Costa and S.J. Daniels, editors. Red-cockaded woodpecker: road to recovery. Hancock House Publishers; Blain, Washington.
Swain, H.M., P.A. Schmalzer, D.R. Breininger, K. V. Root, S.A. Bergen, S. R. Boyle, and S. MacCaffree. 1995. Appendix B: Biological Consultant’s Report. lit Scrub Conservation and Development Plan, Brevard County. Submitted to Natural Resource Management Division, Brevard County, Florida. Florida Thstitute of Technology, Melbourne.
Timm, R. and J. Arroyo-Cabrales. 2008. Eumopsjloridanus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.1.
Timm, R.M., and H.H. Genoways. 2004. The FBB, Euinopsfloridanus (Chiroptera: Molossidae): distribution, morphometrics, systematics, and ecology. Journal of Mammalogy 85(5):852-865.
52 Thaxton, J.E. and T.M. Hingtgen. 1994. Responses of Florida scrub-jays to management of previously abandoned habitat. District 4 Annual Research Report, Florida Park Service.
Thaxton, J.E. and TM. Hintgen. 1996. Effects of suburbanization and habitat fragmentation on Florida scrub-jay dispersal. Florida Field Naturalist 24(2).
The Nature Conservancy. 2001. Saving the Florida scrub-jay: recommendations for preserving Florida’s scrub habitat. 13 pp.
Toland, B.R. 1991. Nest site characteristics of a Florida scrub-jay population in Indian River County. In Florida scrub-jay workshop. May 23, 1991. Ormond Beach, Florida.
Toland, B.R. 1999. Current status and conservation recommendations for the Florida scrub-jay in Brevard County. Report to Brevard County Board of County Commissioners. September 1, 1999.
Trokey, S. 2008a. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Sanibel, F]orida. October 18, 2008.
Trokey, S. 2008b. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Sanibel, Florida. February 5, 2008.
Trokey, S. 2OlOa. Telephone conversation with Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Sanibel, Florida. March 15, 2010.
Trokey, S. 2010b. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Sanibel, Florida. March 16, 2010.
Turner, W.R., D.S. Wilcove, and H.M. Swain. 2006. State of the scrub: conservation progress, management responsibilities, and land acquisition priorities for imperiled species of Florida’s Lake Wales Ridge. Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid, Florida.
U.S. Aft Force. 2000. Plan for management of the Florida grasshopper sparrow, Florida scrub- jay, and red-cockaded woodpecker at Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida. Miscellaneous publication. Avon Park Air Force Range; Avon Park, Florida.
U.S. Air Force. 2013. Biological Assessment: US Air Force Joint Integrated Fire Exercise, Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida. Avon Park Air/Ground Training Center. August 28, 2013. Miscellaneous publication. Avon Park Air Force Range; Avon Park, Florida.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Final Rule: determination of threatened status for Florida scrub-jay. Federal Register 52:20715-20719.
53 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Recovery plan for the Florida scrub-jay [Internet]. Atlanta, Georgia [Cited December 13, 2006]. Available from: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/l 9901900509.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida multi-species recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): Second revision [Internet]. Atlanta, Georgia [cited January 8, 2009]. Available from: http://www.fws.gov/rcwrecovery/files/RecoveryPlanlfinalrecoveryplan.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Florida Grasshopper Sparrow Survey Protocol. South Florida Ecological Services Office; Vero Beach, Florida.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Strategic Habitat Conservation. Final Report of the National Ecological Assessment Team to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geologic Survey.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Draft communications plan on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Role in Climate Change.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Standard protection measures for the eastern indigo snake. South Florida Ecological Services Office; Vero Beach, Florida.
Walters, JR. 1990. Red-cockaded woodpeckers: a “primitive” cooperative breeder. Pages 69- 101 in P.B. Stacey and W.D. Koenig, editors. Cooperative breeding in birds. Cambridge University Press; London, United Kingdom.
Walters, J.R., P.D. Doerr, and J.H. Carter, III. 1988. The cooperative breeding system of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Ethology 78:275-305.
Ware, S., C. Frost, and P.D. Doerr. 1993. Southern mixed hardwood forest: the former longleaf pine forest. Pages 447-493 in W.H. Martin, 5G. Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht, editors. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: lowland terrestrial communilies. John Wiley and Sons; New York, New York.
Webber, H.J. 1935. The Florida scrub, a fire-fighting association. American Journal of Botany 22(3): 344-36 1.
Woolfenden, G.E. 1974. Nesting and survival in a population of Florida scrub-jays. Living Bird 12:25-49.
Woolfenden, G.E. 1975. Florida scrub-jay helpers at the nest. Auk 92:1-15.
54 Woolfenden, G.E. 1978. Growth and survival of young Florida Scrub Jays. Wilson Bulletin 90:1-18.
Woolfenden, G.E., and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 1984. The Florida Scrub Jay: Demography of a Cooperative-breeding Bird. Monographs in Population Biology number 20. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Woolfenden, G.E. and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 1986. Sexual asymmetries in the life histories of the Florida scrub-jay. Pages 97-107 in D. Rubenstrin and R.W. Wrangham, eds. Ecological aspects of social evolution: birds and mammals. Princeton University Press; Princeton, New Jersey.
Woolfenden, G.E. and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 1990. Florida scrub jays: A synopsis after 18 years of study. Pages 24 1-266 in P.B. Stacey and W.B. Koenig, eds. Cooperative breeding in birds: long term studies of ecology and behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Woolfenden, G.E. and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 1991. Florida scrub jay ecology and conservation. Pages 542-565 in: Perrine, C.M., J.-D. Lebreton, and G.J.M. Hirons (eds.). Bird population studies: relevance to conservation and management. Oxford University Press; Oxford, United Kingdom.
Woolfenden, G.E. and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 1996a. Florida scrub jay. Pages 267-280 in J.A. Rodgers, H.W. Kale, and H.T. Smith, eds. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume V. Birds. University Press of Florida; Gainesville, Florida.
Woolfenden, G.E. and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 1996b. Florida sèrub-jay. Pages 1-27 in A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The birds of North America, No.228. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union; Washington, D.C.
Wunderlin, R.P. and B.F. Hansen. 2005. Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants (http://www.plantatlas.usf.edu/) [SM. Landry and K.N. Campbell (application development), Florida Center for Community Design and Research.] Institute for Systematic Botany, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.
Zeigler, M. 2006. Personal communication. Citrus grove operations manager. Meeting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on August 1, 2006. Agricultural Resource Management; Vero Beach, Florida.
55 Table 1. List of assets, maximum number of weapon platforms, vehicles, and personnel participating in the JIVE.
Fixed Wing Fighter/Attack Aircraft 24 aircraft, 28 vehicles, 200 personnel Fixed Wing Bomber Aircraft 2 aircraft, 8 personnel Fixed Wing Gunship Aircraft 3 aircraft, 8 vehicles, 70 personnel Rotary Wing Attack Aircraft 12 aircraft, 10 vehicles, 75 personnel UAVs 6 aircraft, 12 vehicles, 25 personnel Howitzers 8 guns, 20 vehicles, 40 personnel HIMARS 6 launchers, 20 vehicles, 60 personnel Mortars 8 mortars, 8 vehicles, 50 personnel TACPs and FOs 10 vehicles, 35 personnel Command Center 5 vehicles, 10 personnel
Table 2. The amount of ordnance approved and expended by the lIFE over baseline at APAFR. ~ 5.56 mm bullet 7,200 Unlimited 5,000 7.62 mm bullet 186,072 Unlimited 5,000 .50 caliber bullet 54,00 Unlimited 5,000 20 mm bullet 9,295 Unlimited 5,000 25 mm bullet 736 Unlimited 1,000 30 mm bullet 54,242 Unlimited 2,000 40 mm HE 630 Unlimited 125 81 mm HE 120 Unlimited 600 81 mm Illum 60 Unlimited 60 81 mmWP 15 Unlimited 30 105 mm HE 977 Unlimited 50 120 mm HE None Unlimited 600 120 mm filum None Unlimited 60 120 mm WP None Unlimited 30 155 mm HE None Unlimited 50 155 mm illum None Unlimited 10 RRPR None 81 300 BUD and MK 8,394 Unlimited 250 ATOM (HE) None 48 100 2.75 inch rocket (inert) 830 Unlimited 1,200
56 Table 3. The quantity and type of ordnance delivered by assets for the Advanced Operations.
North Ranges 7.62 mm ball and tracer Rotary-wing 5,000 North Ranges 20 mm bullet Fixed-wing 5,000 North Tactical 25 mm bullet Fixed-wing 1,000 North Tactical 20 mm HE Fixed-wing Not available North Tactical 30 mm bullet Fixed-wing 2,000 North 40mm bullet Fixed-wing 125 Conventional North 81 mm HE, ilium, WP Mortar 690 Conventional North 120 mm HE, Ilium, WP Mortar 690 Conventional North 105 mm HE Fixed-wing 50 Conventional North 155 mm HE and ilium Howitzer 60 Conventional North Ranges RRPR HIMARS 300 North Tactical BDU and MK series bombs (inert) Fixed-wing 250 North Tactical ATGM-1 14 Hellfire rocket (inert) Rotary-wing Not available North ATGM-1 14 Hellfire rocket HE Rotary-wing 100 Conventional North Tactical 2.75 inch rocket (inert) Fixed- and 1,200 Rotary-wing North 2.75 inch rocket HE Rotary-wing Not available Conventional
Table 4. The quantity and type of ordnance delivered by assets for thc Mid-level Operations.
7.62 bail and tracer Rotary-win~~ 5,000 20 mm bullet Rotary-wing 5,000 81 ilIum, WP Mortars 690 120 ilium, WP Mortars 690 105 mm and 155 mm Howitzer 100 105 rmn training round s/40 mm Gunship 50 RRPR Gunship 300 BDU and MK series bombs (inert) Fixed-wing 250
57 i0 .4
a I- ~Ui.
North vent na •~0
S~ 8
8 ~ Ajpha Plus
—ii—
A~ha 3
I -~ I 00 in 00 Range 4t * V I
LI South Con., boo
carRa 4b South al
I
0 Zr’ C -l North Tactical Range
Smith
16 A-E A0 A8 A-C c_ A’A .. .. S. II .
LEG’ ND Mortar_Points Fire_Points HE_Area Drop_Zone Vehicle_Trail C Impact_Range Aiifield&Cantonm ent Roads
Figure 2. North Ranges w+E
South Conventional Range South Tactical Range
West Mortar Fi( g Area V East Mor Firing Area
1000 Meters
LEGEND I Impact Range Mortar Firing Area Roads
Figure 3. South Ranges. LEGEND
Mod. r Fiiing Are. ~ l2Onm 902 RRPR S0Z 48mm Sfl T.rfl OiøcIine T.nk TniI MOU T Imp.ct Range
Figure 4. Surface Danger Zone impact area in the South Tactical Range. It
1• S ,, SQ..
C C 4- 0 C 00 Range .~‘ -~ —S. ‘-4
-4C
S)uth — >4 cT~ 4;-, 0
‘-4 0 South$[’ 0 4t ‘-4 C 1~. n
I DL — Li i •%
a. Tacti~I
Naflh Conventtnal // ~ 4 — \l%
— C F - ‘fl—b. r~t’ C A~haPIus - C
sêjpha
Range
St * Ii U -- • - r I C V .: —. -~ U South Cow n~ion
Re
— South a
~egend:
Swa~~am~ck ake — Roads mpauAreas Avon Park Air Force Range —: A I aU \ ‘1 La
I Tactical 1~ N ‘S North Conventional — / ~kk C ‘N
I— T P~~Ib “5 C I 0 4~~ Alpha Plus I I .4- a — I bfl A~ha 4 ‘0 I ~1 —‘ a Range •t’ Clear 468 acres of a —. North Florida Slash Pine 4 —
Soulh Cony ona
~ carRa
0” 4? S.
7: ‘.4,
N Legend: A 1~mber Clearing — Roads SwamPiHamntck Avon Park Air Force Range Lake CantonrmritArea florida Scrub-jay Habitat Improvements PinePlantations c: rrpact~reas