North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Home , Eastern indigo snake, Indigo snake (species), Osceola National Forest

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration

Project

Biological Assessment for Proposed, Threatened, United States and Endangered Wildlife Species Department of Agriculture Forest Service

May 2016

For More Information Contact:

Ivan Green, District Ranger 24874 U.S. Highway 90 Sanderson, FL, 32087 386-752-2577

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690- 7442; or (3) email: [email protected] . USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 3 LIST OF TABLES...... 3 CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS ...... 1 NEED FOR RE-ASSESSMENT BASED ON CHANGED CONDITIONS ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 2 Other Activities Related to the Proposed Action ...... 10 Design Criteria for the Proposed Action ...... 11 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES ...... 13 Individual Species Requirements...... 14 List of Preparers and Reviewers: ...... 27 LITERATURE CITED OR USED FOR SPECIES REVIEW ...... 28

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of the Osceola National Forest ...... 2 Figure 2. Location of the Sandlin Bay Project...... 4 Figure 3. Proposed Action for Compartment 111 ...... 6 Figure 4. Proposed Action for Compartment 120 ...... 7 Figure 5. Project area wetlands...... 20

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Compartment 111 stands selected for treatment...... 8 Table 2. Compartment 120 stands selected for treatment...... 9 Table 3. Road reconstruction for sale haul routes...... 10 Table 4. Project Design Criteria to minimize or avoid impacts of project activities...... 12 Table 5. Frosted Flatwoods Salamander Surveys within Osceola National Forest (U.S. Forest Service, 2012)...... 23

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations and FSM 2671.4, the Osceola National Forest is required to obtain written concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with respect to the determination of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for listed species considered in this Biological Assessment.

NEED FOR RE-ASSESSMENT BASED ON CHANGED CONDITIONS

The findings of this Biological Assessment are based on the best data and scientific information available at the time of preparation. If new information becomes available that reveals potential effects to sensitive species or their habitats in a manner or to an extent not considered within this evaluation; if the proposed action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect that was not considered in this evaluation; or if a new species is listed or habitat identified that may be affected by the proposed action, a revised biological evaluation will be prepared.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Biological Assessment is to document potential effects of the proposed federal action on endangered and threatened species or their habitat and to ensure that land management decisions are made with the benefit of such knowledge.

The following objectives as stated in FSM 2672.41 will be met:

1. To comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. To ensure that actions of Federal agencies do not jeopardize the continued existence of a species or result in adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

2. To provide a process and standard which will ensure that endangered and threatened species receive full consideration in the decision making process.

The Osceola National Forests (OSC) Wildlife Proposed, Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive (PETS) species list (Appendix A) was reviewed to determine whether any PETS species could be potentially affected by the proposed action. Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) was considered as part of this Biological Assessment but eliminated from detailed evaluation. Florida panther do not currently inhabit OSC; however, they could potentially be reintroduced in the future. In addition, American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) was also considered as part of this Biological Assessment but eliminated from detailed evaluation. The American alligator is listed due to their similarity of appearance to American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). However, American crocodiles occur in isolated areas within south Florida and do not occur within OSC. There are no federally listed threatened or endangered plant species within OSC.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

The following evaluation methods were used to determine which species to address and potential effects of the project:

. Review of U.S. Forest Service location records for listed species. . Review of Florida Natural Areas Inventory records within the project area. . Field examination by David K. Dorman for habitat evaluation and evidence of use by animals during 2011 and Amy D. Thompson in 2013. . Informal consultation with staff of the Osceola Ranger District concerning animal occurrences and historic effects from logging and prescribed fire on the forest. . Literature review for PETS species to better understand life history characteristics, habitat requirements and potential effects of the proposed action.

PROPOSED ACTION

The North Sandlin Bay Restoration project proposes management activities for approximately 2,500 acres in the northwest area of the Osceola National Forest (OSC; T2N R17E) within Forest Compartments 111 and 120. The name derives from a large swamp west of the project area shown on U.S. Geological Survey maps as Sandlin Bay (Figure 1).

The stands proposed for management activities are within Forest Compartments 111 and 120, combined the Compartments total about 10,700 acres, including wetlands and ephemeral ponds. Selected pine stands in Compartment 111 total about 967 acres, exclusive of wetlands, with about 680 acres planned for longleaf pine restoration. Selected stands in Compartment 120 total about 1,537 acres, with about 682 acres planned for longleaf pine restoration (Figure 2).

Area of Detail shown at left.

Figure 1. Location of the Osceola National Forest

One 42-acre stand in Compartment 111 (Stand 16) will be clearcut to remove loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and re-planted with longleaf pine. Some private industrial forest companies do plant

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment loblolly pine because it is a fast-growing species, as was the case for this site. However, research has shown that loblolly pine is vulnerable to Southern Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) and is at higher risk of damage from wind storms.

Although loblolly is a native species to the southeast, it would still be considered an off-site species (not appropriate for local conditions) in the stands selected for action in North Sandlin Bay. Loblolly pine can quickly re-seed into longleaf areas if not removed. The use of longleaf pine is more in line with our ecosystem restoration objectives.

The major goals of the proposed action are to: • Restore longleaf pine to appropriate sites; • Allow or mimic natural processes and patterns needed to maintain a rich diversity of native plants and animals, particularly the sustainable application of an appropriate fire regime; • Transition from a midstory dominated by shrubby hardwoods and saw palmetto to stands with at least a 40% groundcover of low, herbaceous plants and bunch grasses; • Move forest conditions toward species composition and structure that reflects a healthy, functioning flatwoods ecosystem; • Work to restore more natural hydrological patterns important for amphibians and other wetland-associated species; • Minimize risks of Southern Pine Beetle infestations by removing loblolly pine; and • Improve aesthetic qualities and provide for nature-based experiences that welcome forest users. The area was managed for industrial timber production prior to acquisition by the U.S. Forest Service and now exists as thick slash pine plantations ranging in pine densities from about 80 to 120 square feet basal area per acre (sq.ft/BA) with average ages of about 35 to 45 years old. The OSC plans to thin these slash pine plantations using any sequence of row-thinning selections, or by individual tree selection, to post-treatment of about 40 to 60 sq.ft/BA. All areas selected for harvest would be marked or designated for sale prior to logging. Merchantable timber would be removed through several advertised sales.

Historic timber surveys conducted in the 1930’s indicate a fair percentage of stands in the area were once longleaf pine. One project objective is to restore longleaf pine back where it occurred historically. Soil types in the area are capable of supporting both longleaf and slash pine.

The slash pine plantations that occur in areas not designated longleaf pine sites on historical maps will be thinned down to about a 40 to 60 BA sq.ft/ac using standard techniques as listed above. No longleaf planting would be done underneath the thinned slash pine. These areas will be included in the plans for prescribed burning or if needed, mechanical reduction of woody shrubs, for the goal is to encourage groundcover restoration here as well. In the next ten to fifteen years it is anticipated that these plantations would again be thinned after sufficient diameter growth to reduce density and to soften the appearance of a planted forest.

Thinning the slash pine in the longleaf areas would be some variation of removing a sequence of planted rows depending on row widths and local site density and configuration of stems. Using the number of rows alone to determine harvest sequence doesn’t take into account the possibility of suppressed slash pine in extremely dense stands. In these sites, more than two rows may need to be

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment removed to create a gap wide enough for mowers or planting equipment and for the amount of sunlight needed by longleaf pine seedlings. Patterns of thinning may include removing two rows, and leaving two rows, or removing four adjacent and leaving two rows, leave four rows, and leave two rows.

Some standing slash pine will be left to retain a component of mature forest during the transition to longleaf. We will thin to reduce the canopy cover by approximately 50%, leaving a post-treatment stand density of about 40 to 50 BA sq.ft./ac.

Figure 2. Location of the Sandlin Bay Project.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Site preperation may include light roller chopping, however, many of the pine plantations contain extensive bedding. Previous actions on the OSC have shown that light roller chopping in preparation for planting does little to level out bedded areas. The OSC may use a V-blade or flat blade positioned on the front of a tractor positioned at the top height of bedded rows. The grade level V-blade would create breaks or flatten the berms and push over mounds to fill in existing ruts between each bedded row. Thinning some rows perpendicular to existing rows may be done to help break up existing raised beds in order to decrease artificial channeling of rainwater through stands. Mulching or mowing and prescribed fire will be used as needed to reduce post-harvest debris and return nutrients to the soil.

Planting longleaf pine seedlings would be delayed until the production of needlecast or growth of nonwoody groundcover is sufficient to support prescribed fire. Longleaf pine will be planted by hand-planting or machine-planting with either bare-root or containerized seedlings at the rate of approximately 500 trees per acre (tpa) with 200 tpa being the minimum.

As the longleaf pine ages, the overstory slash pine will eventually be removed. Re-entry into the stand to remove the overstory of slash pine would be scheduled after about ten years. Harvest equipment would move directly down the rows of the slash pine, avoiding young longleaf pines planted in the gaps created by the initial thinning. If the majority of longleaf pine saplings die after planting in a stand, that slash pine overstory will remain.

A few stands overlap the historic stand boundaries between slash and longleaf pine sites. Determinations whether to underplant longleaf, and to what extent, in these stands can be made several years after thinning and local conditions are evaluated.

At the time of the initial scoping, larger restoration cuts were planned to accelerate the replacement of slash pine with longleaf pine (simlar to the South Sandlin Bay project). The FWC expressed concern related to a potential decrease in bear density within OSC based on areas left with little cover for the bears during the conversion of slash pine to longleaf pine forest. To counteract this effect, FWC recommended that a mosaic of upland habitats be maintained with longer fire rotation in smaller compartments and leaving a thicker understory along wetland edges.

Since the initial scoping period in 2013, the OSC staff has discussed the value of leaving the existing mature forest structure, since many stands, although representing suppressed pine growth due to overstocking, have pines aged at 40 years or older. The Proposed Action has been modified to forego the large restoration cuts and thin the slash pine instead. However, in any choice of action, extensive wetlands (some having small interior pine islands) adjacent to project sites will continue to provide potential denning areas for black bears.

Other comments from FWC included inclusion of furrow reduction and plugging of ditches to promote aquifer recharge within the flatwoods in OSC. One motive for the original Proposed Action in using larger restoration cuts was to reduce the furrows created by bedding. However, entries for subsequent thinning or removal of overstory slash pine can be conducted in patterns to disrupt the furrows. This won’t completely eliminate the furrows, but can reduce channeling of surface water straight to ponds or ditches, and increase more sheet flow across stands. Additional efforts to restore

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment more natural hydrological flows in these heavily disturbed areas will continue with reshaping ditches, replacing culverts or constructing low-water crossings.

Figure 3. Proposed Action for Compartment 111

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Figure 4. Proposed Action for Compartment 120

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Table 1. Compartment 111 stands selected for treatment. CMPT Stand Year Age Acres Stand Trees Pole Sawtimber Avg. size Avg. In of (2013) (excluding Basal Per pine BA pole sawtimber Longleaf Origin wetlands) Area acre BA pine pine (DBH) site? (BA) (DBH)1 111 1 1977 38 102 134.3 428 92.9 40 7.3 10.7 no

111 14 1988 27 20 96.7 417 86.7 10 7.1 10 partial

111 162 1974 41 42 145 370 67.5 77.5 8.1 11.7 partial

111 18 1976 39 40 135 352 65 62.5 7.6 10.7 yes

111 27 1980 35 11 143.3 30 140 3.3 7.2 10 yes

111 28 1969 46 162 58.3 555 4.2 53.3 8.8 11.9 yes

111 30 1980 35 56 88 83 68 20 7.7 10.5 yes

1113 31 1987 28 25 123.3 261 123.3 unk 6.2 yes

111 33 1987 28 15 123.3 647 120 3.3 6.9 11 partial

111 34 1967 48 26 60 523 unk 60 unk 12.8 yes

111 35 1967 48 27 83.3 93 unk 83.3 unk 13.5 yes

111 36 1981 34 46 86 115 66 20 7.4 10.8 partial

111 37 1980 35 9 123.3 286 113.3 10 7.6 10 yes

111 38 1980 35 27 106.7 412 93.3 13.3 6.9 10.2 no

111 40 1979 36 139 123.6 426 110 13.6 7.5 10.3 yes

111 41 1978 37 114 100 431 92.5 7.5 7.2 10.3 yes

111 42 1970 45 20 136.7 386 80 46.7 7.6 11.6 yes

111 44 1971 44 36 62.5 414 5 55 7.5 11.9 yes

111 45 1974 41 22 146.7 104 120 26.7 7.3 10.7 yes

111 46 1980 35 28 116.7 513 103.3 13.3 7.5 10.1 yes

Total acreage of project stands in Comparatment 111 is about 970 acres. The stands in Compartment 111 range in age of 27-47 years old with average existing basal area of about 100 ft2/acre. Stands will be thinned to basal area of about 50 ft2/acre. About 680 acres will be planted with longleaf pines below the residual mature slash pine.

1 Diameter of tree bole at breast height or DBH 2 This stand contains planted loblolly pine and will be clearcut, followed by longleaf planting. 3 Action will be delayed until all data is confirmed.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Table 2. Compartment 120 stands selected for treatment. CMPT Stand Year Age Acres Stand Trees Pole Sawtimber Average Average In of (2013) (excluding Basal per pine BA size of size of Longleaf Origin wetlands) Area acre BA pole sawtimber area? pine pine (DBH) (DBH) 120 1 1968 47 81 52 85 14 38 8.7 12.6 yes 120 2 1969 46 87 38 64 8 30 7.8 12.9 no 120 3 1987 28 67 94 367 79.3 14.7 7 10.9 no 120 4 1987 28 68 156.7 577 136.7 20 7.1 10.3 no 120 5 1983 32 161 91.7 309 85 6.7 7.5 10.3 yes 120 6 1984 31 64 130 447 112 18 7.4 10 yes 120 7 1987 28 23 153.3 629 146.7 6.7 7 9.9 no 120 8 1987 28 29 130 444 120 10 7.6 10 no 120 9 1985 30 9 136.7 509 130 6.7 7.2 11 no 120 10 1973 42 26 53.3 94 13.3 40 9 11.3 partial 120 11 1985 30 16 90 322 66.7 23.3 7 10.7 partial 120 12 1972 43 14 60 102 13.3 46.7 8.5 11.4 yes 120 13 1971 44 34 52.5 83 7.5 45 9 11.3 partial 120 14 1986 29 161 88.3 300 75 13.3 7.5 10.4 yes 120 15 1985 30 180 77.3 285 71.8 5.5 7.3 10.5 yes 120 16 1983 32 79 127.1 441 115.7 11.4 7.6 10.3 no 120 17 1985 30 17 116.7 391 93.3 23.3 7.3 10.3 no 120 18 1989 26 14 136.7 540 133.3 3.3 7.1 9.7 no 120 19 1983 32 34 142.5 469 117.5 25 7.6 11.6 no 1204 20 287 no 120 21 1977 38 194 86.9 94 73.1 13.8 7.5 10.5 yes 120 22 1974 41 62 52 248 10 42 9 11 yes 120 24 1983 32 117 90 65 25 7.9 10.6 yes

Total acreage of project stands in Comparatment 120 is about 1,540 acres. Stands in Compartment 120 range in age of 28-47 years old with average existing basal area of about 100 ft2/acre; Stands will be thinned to a post-treatment basal area of about 50 ft2/acre. About 682 acres will be planted with longleaf pines below the residual mature slash pine.

Pine stands throughout the project area are fairly standard with the average dbh for pole-size timber is about 7.5”dbh. The average size of sawtimber is about 11”dbh.

4 Action will be delayed until all data is confirmed.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Other Activities Related to the Proposed Action

There are approximately 15 miles of Forest Service road that will be utilized in Compartments 111 and 120 to haul timber (Table 1). All roads are open and are in at least moderate condition. As needed and appropriate, the addition of limerock to road surfaces or grading may occur to improve road condition to complete harvest activities. There will be no new construction of permanent roads.

Table 3. Road reconstruction for sale haul routes.

Present Maintenance Miles of Road Sale Name Comp Road Status Level Work 111 291-G Open 2 1.3 111 274 Open 3 5.2 111 274-A Open 2 1.0 Birds Beak (North Sandlin) 111 275 Open 3 1.4 111 281 Open 3 2.3 111 281-F Open 2 2.3 111 281-G Open 2 0.9 111 29106 Open 2 0.5 120 291-D Open 2 1.9 120 287 Open 2 4.5 120 289 Open 2 3.7 120 291-E Open 2 2.0 120 291-F Open 2 3.0 North Sandlin (west of 291) 120 29115 Open 2 0.6 120 29114 Open 2 0.7 120 29117 Open 2 1.8 120 291-J Open 2 0.5 120 29109 Open 2 0.8 120 29111 Open 2 1.3 120 29110 Open 2 1.6 All Sales Main Haul Road 120 29119 Open 2 1.4 291 Open 3 6.5

Restoration of Native Plants

It is difficult with current stand conditions to determine how well native groundcover and perennial bunch grasses would re-vegetate the project area after timber harvest and site preparation is finished. If improved stand conditions and prescribed fire do not stimulate regrowth of native plants, areas may be supplimented with appropriate native species.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Any invasive plant species found will be evaluated for control or eradication under the existing Forestwide EA for Nonnative Invasive plants. Subsequent prescribed burns used for site maintenance will be coordinated with the Fire Management Officer in order to not destroy regeneration, and will not be conducted until seedlings are 3/8” diameter at root collar. After the seedlings are at least this diameter, burns will be conducted between one and four-year intervals, depending on local conditions and groundcover. A written site-specific plan for all prescribed burns will be prepared and approved by Forest Service specialists prior to implementation. Prescribed fire also will be implemented in thinned stands to control understory vegetation.

Design Criteria for the Proposed Action

Table 4 describes project design criteria to reduce potential impacts to natural resources. These measures will be incorporated into the proposed action. The incorporation of these project implementation measures will better ensure protection of natural resources during restoration and management activities.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Table 4. Project Design Criteria to minimize or avoid impacts of project activities.

Resource or Related Action Measure 1) Utilize Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Silviculture BMPs. 2) Suspend harvesting when ground conditions are excessively wet to minimize rutting and compaction. 3) Locate skid trails, loading ramps, log decks and harvesting in a manner to minimize soil compaction. Soil and Water Quality 4) Scatter logging slash on-site to minimize nutrient loss. 5) Minimize stream crossings and designate crossings prior to harvesting. 6) Avoid wetland transition zones unlesss low-pressure equipment is being used to mow or press down woody shrubs prior to buring. Fuels. 7) Utilize methods that will minimize soil displacement surface Plants: Region 8 Sensitive Plant in unbedded areas with the objective of maintaining the Species Diversity integrity of the native herbaceous vegetation and minimize disturbance to vegetation regrowth. 8) Take any mulch, fill, or seed used to stabilize or restore disturbed sites from weed-free sites. 9) Rate non-native invasive plant species found using Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council criteria; Category Type I plants Non-native Invasive Plants would be evaluated for removal. 10) Control or removal would be conducted under the OSC 2010 Forest-wide Treatment for Non-native Invasive Plants Environmental Assessment. 11) Protect/relocate any protected wildlife species encountered during activities. Protection or relocation would be accomplished by Forest Service staff or designated Wildlife: Proposed, Endangered, personnel. The appropriate Forest Service staff would be Threatened or Sensitive Species notified of sightings. 12) Suspend use of heavy equipment during wet soil conditions to avoid rutting.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

13) Educate field personnel and contractors in gopher tortoise burrow identification. In potential gopher tortoise habitat, prohibit parking equipment within 25 feet of known gopher tortoise burrows. Equipment operators will be instructed to maintain a 25-foot distance during operations when previously unknown burrows are encountered. 14) All contractors and staff will maintain safe vehicle speeds and watch for gopher tortoises that may be crossing roads. 15) Retain throughout the forest all relict and flattop longleaf and slash pines and some that are misshapen, poorly formed, or suppressed (Forest Plan, VG-12). Forest Service Region 8 Sensitive 16) Retain slash pine greater than 14’ diameter at base height Wildlife Species and Wildlife (DBH), particulalry near wetland transtion zones. Diversity 17) Leave an average of six snags per acre, especially those with cavities. 18) Maintain smaller (3 to 5 acres) of enclaves containing tall pines near wetlands or “fingers” of pine flatwoods extending into wetlands. Allow a slightly higher midstory to remain by excluding mowng equipment and allowing sites to remain unburned during prescribed fire operations. These sites can provide nesting sites for Swallow-tail kites. These areas may be burned in late summer or early fall following nesting season.

19) Protect resources under direction of District Archeologist prior to all activities as necessary to meet National Historic Heritage Resources Preservation Act Section 106 compliance before implementation 20) Reduce visual impacts by requiring that slash, tops and logging debris be piled no more than two feet high within Aesthetics 100 feet of level A and B roads and designated trails. Near system roads, planting would be done parallel to the roads to minimize “row effects” of planted pine.

Protection of Heritage Resources

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance has been met for this project, including external consultation with the State Historical Preservation Office and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer as directed by the District Archeologist. No ground-disturbing activities activities will occur until the District Archeologist confirms with staff overseeing project implementations that all areas requiring protection or exclusion of heavy equipment have been appropriately designated. If new sites are discovered during project activities, work will stop until the District Archeologist makes further evaluations and allows work to continue.

PROPOSED, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES Existing Condition and Environmental Consequences

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

The analysis area used for effects is the 2,500 acres contained within Compartment 111 and 120. About 40% of the total area of the treatment stands consists of basin wetlands dominated by pond cypress and bay trees, which are not included in the harvest acreage. These wetlands are interspersed throughout the treatment area and may contain interior small pine islands. (Figures 1, 2, 3). Higher ground currently dominated by slash pine planted in deeply bedded plantations, and some limited natural mixed pine stands of both slash and longleaf pine, comprise the area between wetlands. This higher ground is composed of longleaf soil types and historically supported longleaf pine and frequent fire.

Individual Species Requirements Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

The red-cockaded woodpecker is identified by its conspicuous white cheek patch, black and white cross-barred back, black cap and nape, white breast and flanks with black spots. In addition, males have a small bright red spot on each side of the black cap. The bird is approximately 8½ inches in length with a wingspan of 14½ inches. The female is somewhat smaller and resembles the male in coloration, with the exception of a red streak alongside the black cap. The female is approximately 7⅜ inches with a wingspan of 13¼ inches (USFWS 1999).

Red-cockaded woodpeckers are a social species and live in groups with a breeding pair and up to four helpers, generally male offspring from the previous year. Approximately 200 acres of mature pine forests are necessary to support each group’s nesting and foraging habitat needs. Juvenile females will leave the group prior to the breeding season and establish a breeding pair within a solitary male group. Breeding pairs are monogamous and will raise a single brood each breeding season. Three to four small white eggs will be laid within the roost cavity and incubated by members of the group for a period of ten to twelve days. Chicks are also fed by members of the group and remain within the roost cavity for approximately 26 days. Insects including ants, caterpillars, moths, grasshoppers, spiders and beetle larvae comprise approximately 85 percent of their diet. The remainder of their diet consists of wild grapes, cherries, poison ivy berries, blueberries and nuts such as pecans (USFWS 1999).

Red-cockaded woodpeckers live in mature pine forests, specifically those with longleaf pines averaging 80 to 120 years and loblolly pines averaging 70 to 100 years. This species requires mature, green pine trees in which to excavate its cavity. This unique requirement for mature pines as cavity sites, coupled with the historical conversion of over 95% of its primary habitat are the two most significant factors leading to its decline. Destruction of its preferred longleaf pine habitat by humans or disease (pines afflicted by fungus or red-ring rot) resulted in the woodpecker becoming listed as endangered in 1970. The current range of this species is from eastern Texas to the southeastern United States and southern Florida. Historically, red-cockaded woodpeckers were found abundantly from Texas to New Jersey and as far inland as Tennessee.

Red-cockaded woodpeckers have also been adversely affected through fire suppression (Landers et al. 1995). Fire is an integral component of the longleaf pine-wiregrass community. Prolonged fire suppression favors accumulation of dense groundcover and understory shrubs over grassland

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment communities. Lightning-season burning is considered essential to restoring red-cockaded woodpecker habitat (Titus 2006; Walters 1997). Prey biomass improves with increased herbaceous and grass vegetation created by growing season burns (Collins et al. 2002, Hess and James 1998). In addition, prey availability increases as arthropods typically consumed by red-cockaded woodpeckers disperse from the ground cover into the canopy (Hanula and Franzeb 1998). According to the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan (USFS 2003), the recommended percentage of herbaceous groundcover is 40% or greater. This species appears to prefer to forage within open longleaf stands that function in providing a healthy, diverse arthropod community and unrestricted flight paths. Improved food resources are consistent with data showing small home ranges associated with old-growth forests where 50% of the acreage was burned during the growing season (Engstrom and Sanders 1997).

Since habitat loss has been cited as the most important factor leading to the decline of red-cockaded woodpeckers throughout their range (USFWS 2003), restoration of longleaf pine habitat is a priority management measure to assist in recovery of this species. The goal for red-cockaded woodpecker management on OSC is to provide sufficient quantity and quality of habitat to facilitate recovery. The quality of foraging habitat affects home-range size, group size and group reproductive measures (Delotelle and Epting 1992; USFWS 2003). This relationship between quantity and quality of foraging habitat strongly suggests the need to maintain and restore quality foraging habitat in order to sustain red-cockaded woodpecker populations (USFWS 2003).

In order to assist in recovery of red-cockaded woodpeckers, the U.S. Forest Service adopted measures from the Second Revision of the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003) into its Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The OSC has been designated a recovery population with a goal of 462 active red-cockaded woodpecker clusters. In order to meet this goal, restoring longleaf pine-wiregrass ecosystems through implementation of silvicultural prescriptions in concert with the frequent application of prescribed fire is crucial. Currently, OSC supports approximately 143 active clusters and for the last decade the population has been growing between 10 to 15 percent per year (USFS 2012).

On OSC, red-cockaded woodpeckers select for mature longleaf pine stands with a sparse midstory and low groundcover. Green tree basal areas are generally too high in mature pine stands, ranging from 65 to 110 square feet per acre in existing active colonies and foraging partitions. Frequent growing season fire with fire return intervals between two to five years (emphasis on a two to three year cycle) is required to maintain this habitat. The red-cockaded woodpecker is also a management indicator species on OSC. Management indicator species are specific species designated within the Forest Plan that represent particular habitat, habitat complexes and group of species that share common habitat components required for sustained growth and successful reproduction. Managing the landscape to benefit a specific management indicator species should have corresponding favorable effects on the many other wildlife species that they represent.

Currently the closest active RCW cluster is greater than 10 miles to the southwest of proposed project area. This distance minimizes any possible short-term effects from the proposed action on this species.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Analysis of Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

No Action

This alternative would have no direct effect on red-cockaded woodpeckers as the current condition of the forest would remain unchanged. In the long term, the No Action Alternative will not improve habitat or increase habitat availability for this species and would in fact inhibit conversion of approximately 2,500 acres of slash pine plantation to longleaf pine forest. In addition, under the No Action Alternative, hydrologic restoration would not occur. Restoring surface hydrology could prove important in recovering a more natural longleaf pine forest. Although the No Action Alternative would have no immediate effect on red-cockaded woodpeckers, it is contrary to OSC recovery and species management goals for this species and may adversely affect red-cockaded woodpeckers in the future, preventing northward population expansion into the project area. Over time, continued habitat degradation within the project area would indirectly and cumulatively adversely affect this species. Through implementation of the proposed action, including thinning, conversion of slash pine to longleaf pine and application of a regular burn cycle, the area has the potential to become viable habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers.

Proposed Action

Due to the current condition of forest structure and composition targeted for restoration, this species is highly unlikely to inhabit stands within the project area, therefore, the proposed action would not directly affect red-cockaded woodpeckers. Indirect beneficial effects on this species are anticipated with implementation of the proposed action. Studies have shown that habitat degradation due to later stages of forest succession has contributed to the decline of this species and implementation of prescribed fire in these later successional stands may assist in recovery. The proposed action includes timber harvest, thinning, and planting of longleaf pine within the project area.

Any cumulative effects that could either benefit or adversely affect RCW would be a result of a temporal or spatial overlap between nearby projects. The one project that would be included in this analysis is South Sandlin Bay. However, only one 42 acre stand (1.6% of proposed treatment) is planned to be clearcut for North Sandlin Bay, there would be no significant cumulative effects due to forest fragmentation or large openings in conjunction with South Sandlin Bay. Additionally, there is no change with forest structure as all of North Sandlin Bay will retain a component of mature pine. Implementation of activities for North and South Sandlin Bay may overlap, with harvesting and hauling occurring concurrently. However, because there are no active clusters near either project area, there would be no cumulative effects from disturbance to RCW. Therefore, the U.S. Forest Service has determined that the proposed action will not create any adverse cumulative effects for RCW.

Prior to the assignment of Management Area 7.3 the project area was included in the prescribed fire program under custodial care. Implementation of project activities would facilitate following a more natural fire regime, particularly the ability to burn more in the growing season. Prescribed fire has been shown to benefit this species through suppression of dense woody understories and maintenance of sparse canopies (Wilson et al. 1995, Plentovich et al. 1998, Provencher et al. 2002,

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Wood et al. 2004). In the long term, implementation of the proposed action would have a beneficial effect on this species by creating and maintaining preferred habitat within OSC. Therefore, the U.S. Forest Service has determined that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, red-cockaded woodpeckers.

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)

Wood storks are large, white, long-legged wading birds that relies upon shallow, freshwater wetlands for foraging. Black primary and secondary feathers, a black tail and a blackish, featherless neck distinguish wood storks from other wading birds species. This species was federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended on February 28, 1984. No critical habitat has been designated; therefore, none will be affected.

Wood storks are found from northern Argentina, eastern Peru and western Ecuador north to Central America, Mexico, Cuba, Hispaniola, and the southeastern United States (AOU 1983). Only the population segment that breeds in the southeastern United States is listed as endangered. In the United States, wood storks were historically known to nest in all coastal states from Texas to South Carolina (Wayne 1910, Bent 1926, Howell 1932, Oberholser 1938, Cone and Hall 1970). Dahl (1990) estimates these states lost about 38 million acres, or 45.6 percent, of their historic wetlands between the 1780s and the 1980s. However, it is important to note wetlands and wetland losses are not evenly distributed in the landscape. Hefner et al. (1994) estimated 55 percent of the 2.3 million acres of wetlands lost in the southeastern United States between the mid-1970s and mid-1980s were located in the Gulf-Atlantic coastal flats. These wetlands were strongly preferred by wood storks as nesting habitat. Currently, wood stork nesting is known to occur in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. Breeding colonies of wood storks are currently documented in all southern Florida counties except for Okeechobee County.

The wood stork population in the southeastern United States appears to be increasing. Preliminary population totals indicate that the wood stork population has reached its highest level since it was listed as endangered in 1984. In all, approximately 11,200 wood stork pairs nested within their breeding range in the southeastern United States. Wood stork nesting was first documented in North Carolina in 2005 and wood storks have continued to nest in this state through 2013. This suggests that the northward expansion of wood stork nesting may be continuing.

The decline in the United States population of wood storks is thought to be related to one or more of the following factors: 1) reduction in the number of available nesting sites, 2) lack of protection at nesting sites and 3) loss of an adequate food base during the nesting season (Ogden and Nesbitt 1979). Ogden and Nesbitt (1979) indicate a reduction in nesting sites is not the cause for the population decline, because the number of nesting sites used from year to year is relatively stable. Ogden and Nesbitt (1979) suggest loss of an adequate food base is a cause of wood stork declines.

The primary cause of the wood stork population decline in the United States is loss of wetland habitats or loss of wetland function resulting in reduced prey availability. Almost any shallow wetland depression where fish become concentrated, either through local reproduction or receding water levels, may be used as feeding habitat by wood storks during some portion of the year, but only a small portion of the available wetlands support foraging conditions (high prey density and

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment favorable vegetation structure) that wood storks need to maintain growing nestlings. Wood storks forage primarily within freshwater marsh and wet prairie vegetation types, but can be found in a wide variety of wetland types, as long as prey are available and the water is shallow and open enough to hunt successfully (Ogden et al. 1978, Coulter 1987, Herring and Gawlik 2007). Calm water, about 5 to 25 cm (~2 to 10 inches) in depth and free of dense aquatic vegetation is ideal, however, wood storks have been observed foraging in ponds up to 40 centimeters in depth (~ 16 inches; Coulter and Bryan 1993, Gawlik 2002). Typical foraging sites include freshwater marshes, ponds, hardwood and cypress swamps, narrow tidal creeks or shallow tidal pools and artificial wetlands such as stock ponds, shallow, seasonally flooded roadside or agricultural ditches and managed impoundments (Coulter et al. 1999, Coulter and Bryan 1993, Herring and Gawlik 2007). During nesting, these areas must also be sufficiently close to the colony to allow wood storks to efficiently deliver prey to nestlings.

Wood storks feed almost entirely on fish between 2 and 25 cm (~1 to 10 inches) in length (Kahl 1964, Ogden et al. 1976, Coulter 1987) but may occasionally consume crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, and arthropods. Wood storks nest during the dry season, and rely on the drying wetlands to concentrate prey items in the ever-narrowing wetlands (Kahl 1964). Because of the continual change in water levels during the wood stork nesting period, any one site may only be suitable for wood stork foraging for a narrow window of time when wetlands have sufficiently dried to begin concentrating prey and making water depths suitable for storks to access the wetlands (Gawlik 2002, Gawlik et al. 2004).

Researchers have shown that wood storks forage most efficiently and effectively in habitats where prey densities are high, the water shallow and canopy open enough to hunt successfully (Ogden et al. 1978, Browder 1984, Coulter 1987). Wood stork prey availability is dependent on a composite variable consisting of density (number or biomass/m2) and the vulnerability of the prey items to capture (Gawlik 2002). For wood storks, prey vulnerability appears to be largely controlled by physical access to the foraging site, water depth, the density of submerged vegetation, and the species-specific characteristics of the prey. For example, fish populations may be very dense, but not available (vulnerable) because the water depth is too great (greater than 30 cm) for wood storks or the tree canopy at the site is too dense for wood storks to land. Dense submerged and emergent vegetation may reduce foraging suitability by preventing wood storks from moving through the habitat and interfering with prey detection (Coulter and Bryan 1993). Some submerged and emergent vegetation does not detrimentally affect wood stork foraging and may be important to maintaining fish populations. Wood storks tend to select foraging areas that have an open canopy, but occasionally use sites with 50 to 100 percent canopy closure (Coulter and Bryan 1993, Coulter et al. 1999). Foraging sites with open canopies are more easily detected from overhead as wood storks are searching for food.

Adults feed farthest from the nesting site prior to laying eggs, forage in wetlands closer to the colony site during incubation and early stages of raising the young and then farther away again when the young are able to fly. Wood storks generally use wet prairie ponds early in the dry season then shift to slough ponds later in the dry season thus following water levels as they recede into the ground (Browder 1984).

In April 1997, nesting was documented for the first time on OSC. Birds from colonies outside OSC also forage within OSC wetlands when water conditions are favorable. Fire is beneficial for this

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment species when it burns into the edges of swamps and ephemeral wetlands, thereby opening up additional feeding areas. Wood storks are occasionally observed across OSC and an old rookery has historically been located northeast of Ocean Pond about 20 miles southeast of the project area. However, this site has not been active for several years. Recently, a new active rookery has recently been found within the southwest corner of OSC approximately 20 miles south of the project area.

Analysis of Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

No Action

This species has seldom been observed within the project area due to lack of suitable foraging area. Since this species or evidence of the presence of this species has not been observed within the project area, this alternative would have no direct effect on wood storks. Wood storks, however, have been observed at times foraging within roadside ditches within the vicinity of the project area. In the future, suitable foraging habitat would continue to be limited under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, the U.S. Forest Service has concluded that this alternative would have no effect on wood storks.

Proposed Action

Due to lack of suitable habitat, restoration activities during implementation of the proposed action would have no direct or indirect effect on wood storks. In the future however, restoration activities as described within the proposed action would likely have a beneficial effect on wood storks. Conversion of slash pine plantation to longleaf pine forest coupled with prescribed fire and hydrologic restoration would likely improve wetlands and wetland ecotones within the project area. Since wood storks tend to select foraging areas that have an open canopy, timber harvest and thinning within the project area may allow foraging birds to more easily detect suitable wetlands from the air while searching for food (Coulter and Bryan 1993, Coulter et al. 1999).

Any cumulative effects that could either benefit or adversely affect wood storks would be a result of a temporal or spatial overlap between nearby projects. The one project that would be included in this analysis is South Sandlin Bay. We anticipate that no project work would be implemented for the restoration of wetlands until thick stands of pine are harvested, and areas have enough spacing to accommodate low-pressure equipment. Equipment near wetlands may be used to mow or push down woody shrubs in wetland transition zones to prepare for prescribed burning, as long as Project Design Criteria are observed in order to preserve soil profiles and avoid the creation of ruts or ditching. Subsequently as more fire moves towards the interior of wetlands, woody shrubs and accumulated vegetation debris would be cleared away. As tree canopies are reduced and water is free from layers of obstructing vegetation, conditions for foraging would improve.

However, prescribed burning along wetland transition zones, and into area wetlands, can’t occur until young longleaf saplings are large enough to withstand fire. Although burning is planned for both North and South Sandlin Bay, trying to burn both areas at the same time would require the

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment resources not available to the Forest Service, and would increase risks inherent with prescribed burning. That any activites occurring with wetlands adjacent to project stands in both North and South Sandlin Bay is highly unlikely. Additionally, stands selected for activities in North Sandlin Bay comprise only about 23% of the total project boundary, with the remaining acres primarily wetlands that will not be affected by the project (Figure 5). Therefore there would be no cumulative effects to wood storks.

It is anticipated that restoration activities within OSC would have long term benefits to wood storks within this large conservation area, potentially supporting breeding rookeries in the future. Due to these potential future benefits, the U.S. Forest Service has determined that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, wood storks.

111 120

0 0.5 1 2 Compartments 120 and 111 Miles North Sandlin Bay areas selected for activities 1:62,722 Wetlands within the North Sandlin Bay Project Area Author: C. Thompson Date Saved: 4/14/2016 4:54:06 PM Figure 5. Project area wetlands.

Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi)

Eastern indigo snakes are the largest native non-venomous snake in North America, reaching lengths of up to 8.5 feet (Moler 1992). They are an isolated subspecies occurring in southeastern Georgia and throughout peninsular Florida. Eastern indigo snakes prefer drier habitats, but may be found in a variety of habitats including pine flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, floodplain edges, sand ridges, dry glades, tropical hammocks, edges of freshwater marshes, muckland fields, coastal dunes, cabbage palm hammocks and xeric sandhill communities (Schaefer and Junkin 1990, USFWS 1999). Eastern indigo snakes also use agricultural lands and various types of wetlands. Eastern

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment indigo snakes need relatively large areas of undeveloped land to maintain their population. In general, adult males have larger home ranges than females or juveniles. In Florida, Smith (2003) indicated that female and male home ranges extend from 5 to 371 acres and 4 to 805 acres, respectively.

They prefer dry, well drained sandy soils and commonly use burrows and other natural holes as dens. Adult Eastern indigo snakes are commonly associated with gopher tortoise habitat. Speake et al. (1978) found that 77% of Eastern indigo dens in Georgia were in gopher tortoise burrows, 18% were under decayed stumps and logs and 5% were under plant debris. Adult activities during winter and early spring are around high pineland ridges where gopher tortoise burrows and stumps are available refuge; as the season progresses, use of wetland habitats increases (Speake et. al. 1978). Juveniles can be found in cypress ponds, flatwoods and bayheads; juveniles often use stumps and root channels for hibernating in winter and as escape cover in summer. Juvenile use of gopher tortoise burrows is limited (Smith 1987). Home range size can vary depending on the quality of the habitat but generally males require 300-400 acres and females require 100-200 acres. Prey items include snakes, frogs, small mammals, birds, small gopher tortoises and turtles.

Eastern indigo snakes were listed as threatened in 1978 due primarily to habitat loss due to development. Further, as habitats become fragmented by roads, Eastern indigo snakes become increasingly vulnerable to highway mortality as they travel through their large territories (Schaefer and Junkin 1990). Declines in Eastern indigo snake populations were also due to over-collection by the pet trade and mortality caused by rattlesnake collectors who gas gopher tortoise burrows to collect snakes (USFWS 2013).

An Eastern indigo snake was documented in 1976 approximately ten miles south of the project area at the junction of Forest Road 237 and Deep Creek. During the same time period, one additional Eastern indigo snake was located several miles further south of the project area. Good habitat is currently present just a few miles southwest of the project area off OSC.

Additional species specific surveys have not been conducted for this proposed project. This species is unlikely to occur in the project area because preferred habitat is very limited and current survey methods are not feasible or effective in uncovering new information on this rare species in this habitat matrix. However young snakes like to inhabit swamp habitat so they could be present even though they have not been directly observed.

Analysis of Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

No Action

Since this species or evidence of the presence of this species has not been observed within the project area, this alternative would have no direct effect on Eastern Indigo snakes. The No Action Alternative, however, would have a negative indirect on the species within OSC. Without implementation of restoration activities including prescribed fire, the project area would remain unsuitable as potential habitat. Continued loss and degradation of potential habitat would likely exclude colonization of the project area by Eastern indigo snakes.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Proposed Action

Since this species or evidence of the presence of this species has not been observed within the project area, this alternative would have no direct effect on Eastern indigo snakes. Habitat quality within the project area is so poor that this species is expected to be completely absent from the area.

Normally, cumulative effects that could adversely affect Eastern indigo snakes would be a result of a temporal or spatial overlap between nearby projects. Although South Sandlin Bay is the only other project nearby, only about 30% of Compartment 121 is involved in activities. Of that, implementation of project activities has been staggered across the past three years since the decision for the project was made (2013). the total area of the Sandlin Bay area, including wetlands is over 17,000 acres. This complex mosaic of wetlands, swamps and isolated pine hammocks provides a vast area for Eastern indigos. Even if any individuals are present, the amount of undistrubed land, along with the incremental application of activities precludes any cumulative effects.

Nonetheless, implementation of restoration activites including harvest, thinning, longleaf pine planting and prescribed fire as described in the proposed action may have an indirect beneficial effect on Eastern indigo snakes. The proposed action may increase the spatial extent of suitable gopher tortoise habitat within OSC and use of a prescribed fire regime would directly benefit gopher tortoise commensals such as Eastern indigo snakes through maintenance of preferred habitat. Due to these anticipated future benefits, the U.S. Forest Service has determined that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, Eastern indigo snakes.

Frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum)

The frosted flatwoods salamander is a small (approximately 3½ to 5¼ inches total length) species of mole salamander with a small, distinct head, short legs and long, rounded tail. It is brownish to purplish in color with silvery white web pattern, bands or diffuse spots. This species has a very narrow geographic distribution, occurring only in the southeastern coastal plain of the United States. It inhabits seasonally wet pine flatwoods and pine savannas east of the Apalachicola River in northern Florida, southern Georgia and southern South Carolina (Pauly et al. 2007). Historically, this species was thought to be a common inhabitant of the longleaf pine-wiregrass community. This community type has largely been converted to urban or agricultural land uses, including silviculture. Means et al. (1996) documented extirpation of a sizable breeding population of frosted flatwoods salamanders as a result of silvicultural practices of converting natural pine forest to ditched and bedded slash pine plantation. Frosted flatwoods salamanders have also been adversely affected through fire suppression. Fire is an integral component of the longleaf pine-wiregrass community. Prolonged fire suppression favors accumulation of dense groundcover and understory shrubs over grassland communities. In addition, fire suppression also permits native ephemeral wetland communities to succeed to dense stands of hardwood shrubs. Frosted flatwoods salamanders are dependent upon these ephemeral wetlands for breeding habitat. Breeding sites are generally characterized by an overstory of pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens) and black tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica) and a diverse understory of native grasses and herbs.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Adult salamanders spend most of the year underground in burrows, especially those of crayfish. They feed on a variety of small invertebrates, primarily earthworms and spiders (Goin 1950, FWC 2014). Breeding occurs from September through December when adults migrate to their natal wetlands during rainfall events from the surrounding wetland habitats. Females lay clumps of eggs among vegetation; maximum clutch size is 35 eggs (FWC 2014). Salamander larvae have most frequently been encountered in early spring among emergent grassy vegetation in shallow ponds. Eggs require inundation and thus are vulnerable to drought conditions or other factors that may act to lower the water table (Palis and Hammerson 2008).

In 1999, the frosted flatwoods salamander was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Although this species is protected, populations continue to decline. The only known extant Florida population east of the Suwannee River is found in OSC (Palis 1997). Surveys for frosted flatwoods salamanders have previously been conducted within OSC with occurrences documented from three small wetlands (Table 7). Larvae have been found in only one compartment within OSC, C-77 located in the southeastern portion of OSC, south of Interstate 10. Although potential habitat for this species is common throughout OSC, frosted flatwoods salamanders have not been documented within the project area.

TABLE 5. FROSTED FLATWOODS SALAMANDER SURVEYS WITHIN OSCEOLA NATIONAL FOREST (U.S. FOREST SERVICE, 2012).

Year Surveyor Month Area Results

1992 Palis and February 15 Sites C-77: Larvae Walker Pond 77-01: voucher specimen

1993 Palis and February/March 61 Ponds LARVAE FOUND AGAIN IN 77- Walker 01 AND ALSO 77-02 AND 08 1995 Moler and February C-77 Ponds DIURNAL AND NOCTURNAL Monaghan SAMPLING-NONE FOUND 1996 Printiss - February/March Forest wide (C-77 C-77: Larvae Coastal Plains ponds; Osceola-54 Institute ponds; Pinhook: 9 ponds)

2010 Enge & Dorman March 8 ponds None encountered & 2011

During the time period between 1998 and 2009, additional survey work was fruitless due to extended drought resulting in low water conditions during the breeding season. Although adequate water levels returned during the winter of 2010, historic ponds were sampled with negative results. (USFS 2012).

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Revised Forest Plan standards WL- 16, 17 & 19a (LRMP Amendment # 8) are applicable around known breeding sites and will be applied wherever new salamander breeding activity is discovered on the forest. On February 10, 2009 USFWS established an area of critical habitat 550 acres in size around the only known 3 ponds that have supported flatwoods salamanders in the past. In 2010, the Forest Plan adopted a larger Salamander Conservation Area (about 6,300 acres) around the critical habitat and further emphasized land management techniques that would favor salamander conservation. Despite limited known breeding activity on the forest, prescribed burning is the primary tool to maintain potential breeding habitat for this species within OSC. Fire reduces accumulation of woody shrubs and stimulates development of herbaceous vegetation that serves as cover for salamander larvae. Forest Plan standard WL- 18 specifically directs the use of prescribed fire to restore or maintain salamander breeding habitat.

Analysis of Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

No Action

Since this species or evidence of the presence of this species has not been observed within the project area, this alternative would have no direct effect on frosted flatwoods salamanders. The No Action Alternative, however, would have a negative indirect effect on the species within OSC. Without implementation of restoration activities including prescribed fire, the project area would remain unsuitable as potential habitat. Adverse effects would persist in the long term because wetland ecotones would continue to be overgrown with woody vegetation and unacceptable as breeding habitat. Continued loss and degradation of potential habitat would likely exclude colonization of and/or lead to extirpation from the project area by this species.

Proposed Action

Since this species or evidence of the presence of this species has not been observed within the project area, this alternative would have no direct effect on frosted flatwoods salamanders. Habitat quality within the project area is so poor that this species is expected to be completely absent from the area. However, implementation of restoration activites including harvest, thinning, longleaf pine planting and prescribed fire as described in the proposed action may have an indirect beneficial effect on frosted flatwoods salamanders. The proposed action may increase the spatial extent of suitable habitat within OSC through implementation of a prescribed fire regime that would favor wiregrass. In addition, conversion of slash pine plantation to longleaf pine forest coupled with prescribed fire and hydrologic restoration would likely improve wetlands and wetland ecotones within the project area, thereby improving potential breeding habitat for this species.

The OSC has been designated a recovery population with a goal of 462 active red-cockaded woodpecker clusters. In order to meet this goal, restoring the longleaf pine-wiregrass ecosystem through implementation of silvicultural prescriptions in concert with the frequent application of prescribed fire is crucial. The red-cockaded woodpecker is also a management indicator species on OSC. Management indicator species are specific species designated within the Forest Plan that represent particular habitat, habitat complexes and group of species that share common habitat components required for sustained growth and successful reproduction. Managing the landscape to

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment benefit a specific management indicator species should have corresponding favorable effects on the many other wildlife species that they represent, including frosted flatwoods salamanders. Due to these anticipated future benefits, the U.S. Forest Service has determined that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, frosted flatwoods salamanders. Even if individuals of this species are present, home ranges are small enough to preclude any overlaps of effects from activities regarding the South Sandlin Bay project. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to flatwood salamanders.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, AND THREATENED SPECIES AFFECT DETERMINATIONS UNDER PROPOSED ACTION.

Species Determination Page # Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides may affect, but is not likely to adversely 14 borealis) affect Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) may affect, but is not likely to adversely 17 affect Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais may affect, but is not likely to adversely 20 couperi) affect Frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma may affect, but is not likely to adversely 22 cingulatum) affect

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

List of Preparers and Reviewers:

Amy Thompson U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gina Paduano Ralph, Ph.D. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cynthia Thompson Osceola National Forest Service Thomas Scott Osceola National Forest Service Dave Dorman (retired) Osceola National Forest Service

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

LITERATURE CITED OR USED FOR SPECIES REVIEW

American Ornithologists Union [AOU]. 1983. Checklist of North American birds. Sixth Edition. American Ornithologists Union; Baltimore, Maryland.

Bent, A.C. 1926. Life histories of North American marsh birds. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 135.

Browder, J.S. 1984. Wood stork feeding areas in southwest Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 12: 81-96.

Collins, C.S.; R.N. Conner and D. Saenz. 2002. Influence of hardwood midstory and pine species on pine bole arthropods. Forest Ecology and Management 164: 211-220.

Cone, W.C. and J.V. Hall. 1970. Wood Ibis found nesting on Okefenokee Refuge. Chat. 35:14

Coulter, M.C. 1987. Foraging and breeding ecology of wood storks in East-Central Georgia. Pages 21-27, in Proceedings of the Third Southeastern Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium, R.R. Odom, K.A. Riddleberger, and J.C. Ozier (Eds.). Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division.

Coulter, M.C. and A.L. Bryan, Jr. 1993. Foraging ecology of wood storks (Mycteria americana) in east central Georgia: Characteristics of foraging sites. Colonial Waterbirds 16:59-70.

Coulter, M.C., J.A. Rodgers, J.C. Ogden, and F.C. Depkin. 1999. Wood stork (Mycteria americana). In The Birds of North America, No. 306, A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; Washington D.C.

DeLotelle, R. S. and R. J. Epting. 1992. Reproduction of the red-cockaded woodpecker in central Florida. Wilson Bulletin 104: 285–294.

Engstrom. R.T. and F. Sanders. 1997. Red-cockaded woodpecker foraging ecology in an old- growth longleaf pine forest. Wilson Bulletin 109: 203-217

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2014. Frosted flatwoods salamander, Ambystoma cingulatum. http://myfwc.com/media/2211319/Frosted-Flatwoods- Salamander.pdf

Gawlik, D.E., 2002. The effects of prey availability on the numerical response of wading birds. Ecological Monographs 72(3): 329-346.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Gawlik, D. E., G. Crozier, K. H. Tarboton. 2004. Wading bird habitat suitability index. Pages 111-127, In K. C. Tarboton, M. M. Irizarry-Ortiz, D. P. Loucks, S. M. Davis, and J. T. Obeysekera. Habitat suitability indices for evaluation water management alternatives. Technical Report, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.

Goin C.J. 1950. A study of the salamander, Ambystoma cingulatum, with the description of a new subspecies as cited in Pauly, Gregory; Oliver Piskurek; Bradley Shaffer (2007). "Phylogeographic concordance in the southeastern United States: the flatwoods salamander, Ambystoma cingulatum, as a test case". Molecular Ecology 16 (2): 415 -429.

Hanula, J.L. and K. Franzreb. 1998. Source, distribution, and abundance of macroarthropods on the bark of longleaf pine: potential prey of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Forest Ecology and Management 102: 89-102.

Hefner, J.M., B.O. Wilen, T.E. Dahl, W.E. Frayer. 1994. Southeast wetlands: Status and trends, mid-1970s to mid-1980s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; Atlanta, Georgia.

Herring, G. and D. E. Gawlik. 2007. Multiple nest-tending behavior in an adult female white ibis. Waterbirds 30:150-151.

Hess, C.A. and F.C. James. 1998. Diet of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker in the Apalachicola National Forest. The Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 509-517.

Howell, A.H. 1932. Florida bird life. Coward-McCann; New York, New York.

Kahl, M.P., Jr. 1964. Food ecology of the wood stork (Mycteria americana) in Florida. Ecological Monographs 34:97-117.

Landers, J. L.; D. H. Van Lear and W. D. Boyer. 1995. The longleaf pine forests of the southeast: requiem or renaissance. Journal of Forestry 93: 39–44.

Means, B.; J.G. Palis and Mary Baggett. 1995. Effects of slash pine silviculutre on a Florida population of flatwoods salamander. Conservation Biology 10(2): 426-437.

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, FL

Oberholser, H.C. 1938. The bird life of Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Conservation, Bulletin 28.

Ogden, J.C. and S.A. Nesbitt. 1979. Recent wood stork population trends in the United States. Wilson Bulletin 91(4):512-523.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Ogden, J.C., J.A. Kushlan, and J.T. Tilmant. 1978. The food habits and nesting success of wood storks in Everglades National Park in 1974. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Natural Resources Report No. 16.

Palis, J.G. 1997. Species profile: flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) on military installations in the southeastern United States. Technical Report SERDP-97-6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Pp. 23

Palis, J and G. Hammerson. 2008. Ambystoma cingulatum. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011. .

Pauly, G.; O. Piskurek and B. Shaffer. 2007. Phylogeographic concordance in the southeastern United States: the flatwoods salamander, Ambystoma cingulatum, as a test case. Molecular Ecology 16: 415-429.

Platt, W.J.; G.W. Evans and M.M. Davis. 1988. Effects of fire season on flowering forbs and shrubs in longleaf pine forests. Oecologia 76: 353-363.

Plentovich, Sheldon; Tucker, James W., Jr.; Holler, Nicholas R.; Hill, Geoffrey E. 1998. Enhancing Bachman's Sparrow Habitat via Management of Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers". Journal of Wildlife Management 62 (1): 347–354.

Provencher, L.; N. M. Gobris; L. A. Brennan; D. R Gordon and J. L. Hardesty. 2002. Breeding bird response to midstory hardwood reduction in Florida sandhill longleaf pine forests. J ournal of Wildlife Management 66: 641-661.

Schaefer, J. and J. Junkin. 1990. The Eastern Indigo Snake: A Threatened Species. University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Publication SS-WIS-24, Gainesville, FL

Smith, C. 1987. Ecology of Juvenile and Gravid Eastern Indigo Snakes in North Florida. A master's thesis submitted to the University of Florida.

Smith, R. 2003. Personal communication. Biologist . Presentation to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on February 24, 2003. Dynamac; Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

Speake, D. W.; J. A. Mc Glincy and T. R. Colvin. 1978. Ecology and management of the Eastern indigo snake in Georgia: A progress report. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division Technical Bulletin, W-14.

Streng, D.R.; J.S. Glitzenstein and W.J. Platt. 1993. Evaluating effects of season of burn in longleaf pine forests, a critical literature review, and some results from an ongoing long- term study. Pages 227-263 in S.M. Hermann, editor. The longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, restoration, and management. Proceedings of the 18th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL, USA.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Titus, G. 2006. Draft ecological assessment. Apalachicola FY 2007-2011 prescribed burning. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tallahassee, FL

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan. Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2003. Second Revision Red – Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. USFWS, Atlanta, Ga. Pp. 296.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/msrppdfs/easternindigosnake.pdf. Eastern Indigo Snake Multi Species Recovery Plan Pages 4-567-4-582.

U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Biological Assessment. South Sandlin Bay Timber Harvest and Ecosystem Restoration, Osecola National Forest, FL.

Walters, J.R. 1997. Population and management studies of Red-cockaded Woodpecker on Croatan National Forest, 1988-1997. Project Final Report. National Forests of North Carolina, Asheville, NC.

Wayne, A.T. 1910. Birds of South Carolina. Contributions to the Charleston Museum No. 1

Wilson, D.S. 1991. Estimates of Survival for juvenile gopher tortoises. Journal of Herpetology, 25(3): 379-382.

Wood, D.R.; Burger, L.W., Jr.; Bowman, J.L.; Hardy, C.L. 2004. Avian community response to pine-grassland restoration. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(3):819-829.

North Sandlin Bay Ecosystem Restoration Biological Assessment

Appendix A Osceola National Forest PETS Wildlife List

SPECIES CONSIDERED USFWS FWC USFS

Florida Panther Felis concolor coryi E 1 E E Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E SSC E Wood Stork Mycteria americana E E E Eastern Indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T T T Frosted Flatwoods Salamander Ambystoma cingulatum T SSC T American Alligator Alligator mississipiensis T  SSC T 1

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus -- -- S Sherman's Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger shermani -- SSC S Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus floridanus -- T 3 S SE Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii -- -- S Bachman’s Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis -- -- S Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus -- T S Florida Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus -- SSC S Striped Newt Notophthalmus perstriatus -- -- S Arogos Skipper Atrytone arogos arogos -- -- S

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

E= Endangered T= Threatened E 1 – not currently found on Forest but could be re-introduced in the future

The following species are not analyzed on the Osceola National Forest: T 1 – listed due to possible confusion with crocodile which does not occur on Forest

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)

E= Endangered T= Threatened T 3 = does not apply to Baker & Columbia Counties SSC= Species of special concern

United States Forest Service (USFS)

E= Endangered T= Threatened S= Sensitive: This list was established in 1980 to address plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. This list was last updated in January 2002.