U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service June 14, 2016 Biological Opinion ON Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment to increase Florida Scrub- Jay Management Areas on the Ocala National Forest (Amendment 12)

Prepared by: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jacksonville, Florida

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 2

The Service concurs with your determination that the effects from activities under the proposed amendment on the Florida bonamia, scrub buckwheat, and Lewton’s polygala are within the scope of effects described in the September 18, 1998 BA for the LRMP and evaluated in the Service’s 1998 Opinion. In addition, effects of implementing the LRMP (including the proposed amendment) on the scrub pigeon wings were recently disclosed in your Biological Assessment (BA) of Nov 24, 2015 were evaluated in the Service’s Opinion of December 17, 2015. Therefore, these plant species will not be addressed further in the amended Opinion below.

This amended Opinion is based on information provided to the Service through a BA, telephone conversations, e-mails, field investigation notes, and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the Jacksonville Ecological Services Office.

Consultation History

September 21, 1998: NFF initiated formal consultation on revision of the LRMP

December 18, 1998: The Service provided a non-jeopardy combined Biological and Conference Opinion on the LRMP to NFF concluding formal consultation.

From March 2014 to November of 2015, the Service and staff from the NFF supervisor’s office and ONF participated in several meetings and conference calls to discuss how to address Forest Service Section 7(a)(1) obligations under the Act and the proposed amendment to the NFF LRMP.

November 06, 2015: NFF provided, via email, the Service (and other “interested parties”) a “scoping letter” requesting comment on the proposal to amend the NFF LRMP to reassign approximately 50,000 acres of land designated as Management area (MA) 8.2 (sand pine timber management) to MA 8.4 (Florida scrub-jay management) and revise the desired conditions for MA 8.4.

December 4, 2015: the Service provided NFF a letter of support for the proposed amendment

March 1, 2016: NFF provided the Service a first draft BA on the proposed amendment

March 8, 2016: During a conference call, the Service provided comments on the first draft BA to NFF.

March 17, 2016: NFF provided to the Service a revised draft BA as well as a “Florida scrub-jay Analysis” document in response to discussions and the Services comments during the March 8 conference call.

March 29, 2016: NFF and the Service met in Tallahassee to discuss the revised draft BA. The Service indicated that information in the BA was complete with the exception of final maps of Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 3 the proposed Management Area 8.4. With the addition of the maps, the document could be finalized to initiate formal consultation.

May 16, 2016: Based on the draft BA, the Service provided a draft Opinion to Regional Forester’s staff, NFF staff, and ONF staff.

May 17, 2016: The Service received a letter from the Regional Forester requesting initiation of formal consultation on the amendment to the LRMP.

June 6, 2016: The Service received final comments on the draft Opinion from the Forest Service.

June 14, 2016 The Service provided a final signed Opinion to the Regional Forester

BIOLOGICAL OPINION (Amendment)

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION NFF proposes to amend their LRMP by increasing the acreage of Management Area (MA) 8.4 on the ONF from 2,874 acres to 54,724 acres and make changes related to scrub management. The increase in the size of MA 8.4 would be the result of re-designating 51,850 acres on the ONF from Management Area 8.2 (Sand Pine, Mixed Regeneration, Moderate Openings) to Management Area 8.4 (Scrub-Jay Management. The current condition of the 51,850 acres proposed for designation as MA 8.4, is primarily oak or pine scrub (44,706ac) with the remaining acres consisting of scattered prairies, wetlands, hardwood areas and pine flatwoods. The “on the ground management actions (i.e.; prescribed burning, roller chopping, and sand pine harvest) associated with this amendment were previously proposed in the LRMP and were analyzed in the Services December 18, 1998 Opinion on the LRMP. However, as described below, the proposed actions exceed the scope of what was previously analyzed. A summary of proposed actions relevant to this analysis is provided in the “Action Defined” section below.

Action Area Defined For the purposes of this Amendment, the Action Area consists of the 44, 760 acres of the Florida scrub and potential scrub vegetative communities within the current and proposed 8.4 MA on the ONF. A map of the 8.4 MA is shown in Appendix 1.

Action Defined The proposed Amendment to the 1999 LRMP has three components: 1) Addition of new scrub-jay Management Areas: Redesignate 51,850 acres from MA 8.2 (Sand Pine, Mixed Regeneration, Moderate Openings) into MA 8.4 (Scrub-Jay Management Area). Of this area 44,706 acres is scrub habitat, 2) Revise the Desired Future Condition of MA 8.4 and the related Standard & Guideline 8.4-4 and, Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 4

3) Add a newly discovered species, scrub pigeon wing, to the list of federally listed plants that occur on the ONF as discussed in the LRMP, and describe appropriate management considerations.

These elements of the proposed amendment are described below, with particular emphasis on how actions under the amendment would differ from actions under the current Forest Plan direction.

1). Addition of new Scrub-Jay Management Areas NFF, is proposing to amend the 1999 LRMP by “re-designating” 51,850 acres of scrub habitat on the ONF from MA 8.2 (Sand Pine, Mixed Regeneration, Moderate Openings) to MA 8.4 (Scrub-Jay Management Area). Eleven new scrub-jay MAs would be established and two existing scrub-jay MAs would be expanded. Fifty-one compartments in all three counties within the ONF boundaries would be affected by the proposed change. The proposed change in MA designation would shift the primary management objective in these areas from producing sand pine to generating and maintaining conditions suitable for Florida scrub-jays and a suite of other animal and plant species with similar habitat requirements

Implementation of land management activities on the proposed new MA 8.4 would be contingent on adequate funding for increasing sand pine harvest as well as prescribed burning and mechanical treatments associated with continued maintenance after the final timber harvests have been completed. Therefore, the areas would be converted to native, naturally occurring early seral stage scrub vegetative communities, upon which the Florida scrub-jay depends, over the next 20-30 years. Management within MA Area 8.2 would continue as described in the LRMP, focusing on production of merchantable sand pine. However, areas within MA 8.2 would still serve as habitat for scrub-jays as they have in the past, and planning of timber harvests and other relevant projects would still take scrub-jay habitat dynamics into consideration as well as the ecological needs of other scrub plant and animal species.

The following land management activities occur within Management Area 8.4:

 Removal of sand pine would occur to remove the overstory and set back succession. Sand pines of any age may be removed through commercial harvest or non-commercial methods such as roller-chopping or prescribed fire. Typical commercial timber harvest may be suitable for stands approximately 25 years old or older, whereas other methods to remove sand pine may be suitable in younger or less dense stands. Mature sand pine stands in MA 8.4 would be clearcut using a feller-buncher, skidder, and loader but would not be reseeded. Harvested stands may be roller-chopped and/or burned after harvest. Five hundred to 2,000 acres of sand pine would be removed per year collectively from the proposed new MAs. Final harvests of sand pine would progress on portions of different MAs over time and would be phased over multiple future projects. Although sand pine harvest may be accelerated if the proposed amendment is approved, it is likely that the total area in which sand pine is harvested will be within the range of 3,900-4,100 acres described in the LRMP and consulted upon in the LRMP BA. Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 5

 Roller-chopping would prepare scrub habitat for prescribed burning operations by decreasing vegetation height and breaking apart vegetation to distribute and cure fuels. This activity uses large drums with blades that are spaced 12-18 inches apart. The blades sink 8-10 inches into the soil and typically disturb 90% of vegetation less than 6 inches in diameter. A roller-chopping layout that leaves intermittent areas of undisturbed vegetation (i.e., a “sloppy chop”) is encouraged to promote small-scale habitat variability. Roller-chopping would occur as a method of preparation prior to prescribed burning under two different conditions: 1) Post-harvest chopping would occur within a short period (typically 3-6 months) after a final sand pine harvest. A roller-chopper would run over the recently logged site to reduce the size of logging slash and coarse woody debris. This increases the exposed surface area of post-logging slash, allowing for quicker curing and greater consumption during the subsequent prescribed burn. 2) Pre-burn chopping may occur in scrub waning in habitat quality for scrub-jays. A roller-chopper would mash down the scrub vegetation in order to transform standing live fuels to downed dead fuels. This is often necessary to reduce flame heights and provide a ground fuel component to promote movement of fire through the burn unit. In this type of application, the roller-chopper blades would not sink their maximum depth into the ground due to the presence of the shrub layer. However, the chopper blades would sink deeper into the ground in any areas of open bare ground within the treated stand.

 Prescribed burning would set back succession in scrub habitat or reduce post-harvest logging slash and coarse woody debris. Post-harvest burning would occur 3 to 6 months after sand pines are harvested a final time from MA 8.4 forest stands. This type of burning consumes the slash and coarse woody debris remaining from logging and roller- chopping and regulates oak resprouting. Maintenance burning, or burning to set back succession, would occur once a scrub stand has become unsuitable or nearly unsuitable for Florida scrub-jays. Stands generally become unsuitable when the oak shrub layer becomes too tall (over 9 feet in height) and crowded. Scrub stands that have become too tall may be roller-chopped (see above) prior to burning because standing vegetation creates extremely tall flame heights which cause containment problems. Should the application of new techniques or particular spatial arrangements allow for safe burning and achievement of resource objectives without prior chopping, this option would be explored.

The majority of prescribed burning operations in the near future are anticipated to occur in the fall or winter. Although prescribed burns coinciding with the natural fire season (late spring or early summer) are more desirable to mimic natural processes, fires occurring within these natural parameters in the scrub are often fast-moving, intense, and difficult to contain. Natural fire regimes are preferred and attempts would be made to mimic the natural fire season when safety, weather, and personnel allow.

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 6

2) Revision of Desired Future Condition for Management Area 8.4 A revised Desired Future Condition (DFC) is proposed for describing habitat conditions that would indicate treatment to reset succession was needed. The height of the shrub layer in the revised DFC would trigger a decision for implementing burning as opposed to specifying a desired age range. Topography, weather, the presence of mechanical treatments, and prior site conditions can all influence how quickly a stand grows over time. Using shrub layer height better represents conditions linked to habitat quality for Florida scrub-jays and other species.

Current DFC for MA 8.4: In this area, the vegetation patterns consist of a mosaic of oak scrub patches. Patch sizes are generally governed by the presence of effective burning boundaries, but may be as large as 800 acres. Each patch is burned as needed to ensure that 70% of the patch has oaks 3-6 feet tall and to expose bare sand on the ground. The area looks different from the sand pine scrub in other management areas, because this area has only a very low density of sand pine overstory. Sand pine is deliberately removed by clearcutting, followed by frequent prescribed burns that kill sand pine seedlings as they try to establish. These conditions remain suitable for Florida scrub-jays for the next 15 to 20 years, but they gradually deteriorate as the shrubs fill in and the bare sand becomes covered with litter. At this point, the patch is burned to reset the conditions for the scrub-jay and other species. Evidence of plowed fire lines around previous fires is frequently encountered. The landscape is rarely interrupted by narrow road corridors.

Proposed revision for MA 8.4: In this area, vegetation patterns consist of a mosaic of oak scrub patches. The patches are dominated by scrub habitat with high amounts of scrub oak cover, low sand pine cover, and scattered areas of open bare ground. The oak layer is less than 9 feet tall over most of the area and scattered areas of older habitat occur rarely across the landscape. Young, short scrub habitat is adjacent to older, taller scrub habitat that is decreasing in habitat quality for scrub-jays. Commercial timber harvests may occur within this area as merchantable sand pines are harvested for a final time. Mechanical treatment may occur after harvest as pre-burn fuel preparation technique or as a stand-alone treatment where application of fire is not advisable. Prescribed burning operations can be initiated whenever the habitat conditions begin to degrade. After an initial rotation, burns may become patchier as areas of open, bare ground prevent complete fuel consumption over the entire burn block. Patch sizes are generally governed by the presence of effective burning boundaries.

Modification of Standard & Guideline 8.4-4 Standard & Guideline 8.4-4 is proposed to be modified by removing the requirement to delay prescribed burning operations if active nesting is present. Burning scrub before the habitat has completely degraded maximizes habitat productivity for scrub-jays. Burning during nesting season may be necessary to treat and maintain the needed acreage of early successional scrub habitat on the landscape and to mimic natural processes for other species that occur during the most fire-prone months. See the direct effects analysis for the Florida scrub-jay below for a detailed discussion.

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 7

Current Standard & Guideline: 8.4-4 – After clearcutting, prescribe burn the area to start natural regeneration of scrub oak. Prescribe burn when the vegetation has grown so old that its quality as scrub-jay habitat is degraded. Delay burning if active nesting is present.

Proposed Standard & Guideline: 8.4-4 – After clearcutting, prescribe burn the area to set back succession and reduce coarse woody debris. Prescribe burn when the vegetation has grown so old that its quality as scrub-jay habitat is degraded.”

3. Add scrub pigeon wing to the list of federally listed plants addressed in the LRMP Two populations of scrub pigeon wing (Clitoria fragrans), a federally threatened species, have recently been discovered on the Ocala National Forest. One population is in sandhill habitat and the other is in scrub habitat within the original MA 8.4 area. The discovery of this species constituted new information on listed species not previously considered, so consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was reinitiated in Fall 2015. The Service determined that implementation of the LRMP would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of this species (USFWS Log No. 04EF 1000-2016-F-0110).

Proposed addition to Forest plan: Scrub pigeon wing. This endangered species is a long-lived perennial herb that is known only from high pine and scrub habitats on central Florida ridges. Forest Plan direction is consistent with the management considerations described for this species in the Multi-species Recovery Plan for South Florida (USFWS 1999).

The habitat preferences and responses to management activities of scrub pigeon wing are similar to those of three other listed species on the Ocala National Forest, Florida Bonamia, scrub buckwheat and small Lewton’s milkwort. Therefore, no additional management standards or guidelines are required.

STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT RANGEWIDE

This section summarizes eastern indigo snake, sand skink, and Florida scrub-jay biology and ecology as well as information regarding the status and trends of these species throughout their entire range. We use this information to assess whether a federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the above mentioned species. The “ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE” section summarizes information on status and trends of the eastern indigo snake, sand skink and Florida scrub-jay specifically within the action area. These summaries provide the foundation for our assessment of the effects of the proposed action, as presented in the “EFFECTS OF THE ACTION” section.

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 8

Eastern Indigo Snake In addition to the assessment below, a 5-year review was completed in 2008 resulting in no change to the species designation (Service 2008). The 5-year review builds upon the detailed information in the South Florida Multi Species Recovery Plan (MSRP) for this species and is located at http://www.fws.gov/southeast/5yearReviews/5yearreviews/easternindigofinal.pdf

Species/critical habitat description The eastern indigo snake is the largest non-venomous snake in North America, obtaining lengths of up to 8.5 ft (2.6 meters) (Moler 1992). 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. In the Florida Keys, adult indigo snakes seem to have less red on their faces or throats compared to most mainland specimens (Lazell 1989). Several researchers have informally suggested that Lower Keys indigo snakes may differ from mainland snakes in ways other than color. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.

No critical habitat has been designated for the eastern indigo snake.

Life history In south-central Florida, limited information on the reproductive cycle suggests that eastern 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). Young hatch approximately 3 months after egg-laying and there is no evidence of parental care. Eastern indigo snakes in captivity take 3 to 4 years to reach sexual maturity (Speake et al. 1987). Female eastern indigo snakes can store sperm and delay fertilization of eggs. There is a single record of a captive eastern 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 parthogenetic 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 eastern indigo snake lifespan in the wild, although one captive individual lived 25 years, 11 months (Shaw 1959).

Eastern indigo snakes are active and spend a great deal of time foraging and searching for mates. They are one of the few snake species that are active during the day and rest at night. The eastern 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).

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 9

Population dynamics Eastern indigo snakes need a mosaic of habitats to complete their annual life cycle. Over most of its range, the eastern indigo snake frequents several habitat types, including pine flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, high pine, dry prairie, tropical hardwood hammocks, edges of freshwater marshes, agricultural fields, coastal dunes, and human-altered habitats. Eastern indigo snakes also use some agricultural lands (such as citrus) and various types of wetlands (Service 1999). A study in southern Georgia found that interspersion of tortoise-inhabited sandhills and wetlands improve habitat quality for the eastern indigo snake (Landers and Speake 1980). Eastern indigo snakes shelter in gopher tortoise burrows, hollowed root channels, hollow logs, or the burrows of rodents, armadillos, or land crabs (Lawler 1977; Moler 1985a; Layne and Steiner 1996). Throughout peninsular Florida, this species may be found in all terrestrial habitats which have not experienced high density urban development. They are especially common in the hydric hammocks throughout this region (Service 1999). In central and coastal Florida, eastern indigo snakes are mainly found within many of the State’s high, sandy ridges. In extreme south Florida (i.e., the Everglades and Florida Keys), eastern indigo snakes are found in tropical hardwood hammocks, pine rocklands, freshwater marshes, abandoned agricultural land, coastal prairie, mangrove swamps, and human-altered habitats (Steiner et al. 1983; Service 1999). Underground refugia used by this species include natural ground holes; hollows at the base of trees or shrubs; ground litter; trash piles; and in the crevices of rock-lined ditch walls (Layne and Steiner 1996). It is thought that 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). Observations over the last 50 years made by maintenance workers in citrus groves in east-central Florida indicate that eastern 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-1 Reservoir Project site in the Everglades Agriculture Area, eastern indigo snakes have been observed (including one mortality) during earthmoving and other construction-related activities.

Eastern indigo snakes range over large areas and use 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, decreasing to 390 acres in the summer (Moler 1985b). 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 (ABS), average home range size for females was determined to be 47 acres and overlapping male home ranges to be 185 acres (Layne and Steiner 1996).

Status and distribution The eastern 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 collectors who gas gopher tortoise burrows to collect snakes. The indigo snake (Drymarchon corais) 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. Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 10 erebennus). In the United States, the eastern indigo snake historically occurred throughout Florida and in the coastal plain of Georgia and has 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 endemic populations of the eastern indigo snake (Lawler 1977). The eastern 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 eastern indigo snake is vulnerable to habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation (Lawler 1977; Moler 1985a). The primary threat to the eastern indigo snake is habitat loss due to development and fragmentation. 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 eastern indigo snakes. In citrus groves, eastern indigo snake mortality occurs from vehicular traffic and management techniques such as pesticide usage, lawn mowers, and heavy equipment usage (Zeigler 2006). Within the 2000 to 2005 timeframe, since the spread of citrus canker, Zeigler (2006) reported seeing at least 12 dead eastern indigo snakes that were killed by heavy equipment operators in the act of clearing infected trees.

To protect and manage this species for recovery, Breininger et al. (2004) concluded that the greatest eastern 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 to area ratios low. Management of these lands should be directed towards maintaining and enhancing the diversity of plant and animal assemblages within these properties. Where these goals are achieved, eastern indigo snakes will directly benefit because of improved habitat conditions. Land managers should be encouraged to utilize fire as a tool to maintain biodiversity in a fire-dependent ecosystem

Sand Skink The following discussion is summarized from the MSRP (Service 1999) and the 5-year status review (Service 2007a), as well as from recent research publications and monitoring reports. A complete sand skink life history discussion may be found in the MSRP.

Species/critical habitat description

The sand skink is a small, fossorial lizard that occurs on the sandy ridges of interior central Florida from Putnam County south to Highlands County. The extant range of the sand skink includes Highlands, Lake, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Polk, and Putnam Counties (Christman 1988; Telford 1992; Service 1999). Principal populations occur on the LWR and Winter Haven Ridge (WHR) in Highlands, Lake, and Polk Counties (Christman 1992; Mushinsky and McCoy Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 11

1999; P. Moler, FWC, personal communication 1998). The sand skink is also found on the Mount Dora Ridge (MDR), including sites within the ONF (Christman 1970, 1992a). Despite intensive sampling efforts in scrub habitat with similar herpetofauna, the sand skink has not been recorded at APAFR on the Bombing Range Ridge (Branch and Hokit 2000). According to the FNAI database (updated as of September 2006) there were 132 locality records for the sand skink, including 115 localities on the LWR, 4 on the WHR, and 7 on the MDR. FNAI also reports four localities for this species west of the MDR in Lake County and two localities between the LWR and the Lake Hendry Ridge. The modification and destruction of xeric upland communities in central Florida were primary considerations in listing the sand skink as threatened under the Act in 1987 (52 FR 42662). No critical habitat has been designated for the sand skink.

Recent morphological (Griffith et al. 2000) and molecular studies (Schmitz et al. 2004, Brandley et al. 2005) have demonstrated that the scincid lizard genus Eumeces, Weigmann (1834) is paraphyletic and that Plestiodon, Dumeril and Bibron (1839) has nomenclatural priority for the American species formally referred to as Eumeces, except for those now placed in the genus Mesoscincus (Smith 2005). Molecular analysis of ribosomal RNA gene sequences also show “Eumeces” egregius and Neoseps reynoldsi are closely related sister species (Schmitz et al. 2004; Brandley et al. 2005). Schmitz et al. (2004) suggested the amount of genetic differentiation between the two species (5 percent) is similar to other species of North American skinks and Neoseps (Stejneger 1910) should be synonymized. They argue sand skinks are a striking example of morphological adaptation for burrowing, where the rate of morpho-ecological change exceeds phylogenetic change.

The sand skink is believed to have evolved on the central LWR and radiated from there (Branch et al. 2003). Analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) indicates populations of the sand skink are highly structured with most of the genetic variation partitioned among four lineages: three subpopulations on the LWR characterized by high haplotype diversity and a single, unique haplotype detected only on the MDR (Branch et al. 2003). Under the conventional molecular clock, the 4.5 percent divergence in sand skinks between these two ridges would represent about a 2-million-year separation; the absence of haplotype diversity on the MDR would suggest that this population was founded by only a few individuals or severely reduced by genetic drift of a small population (Branch et al. 2003).

The sand skink reaches a maximum length of about 5 inches. The tail makes up about half the total body length. The body is shiny and usually gray to grayish-white in color, although the body color may occasionally be light tan. Hatchlings have a wide black band located along each side from the tip of the tail to the snout. This band is reduced in adults and may only occur from the eye to snout on some individuals (Telford 1959). Sand skinks contain a variety of morphological adaptations for a fossorial lifestyle. The legs are vestigial and practically nonfunctional, the eyes are greatly reduced, the external ear openings are reduced or absent (Greer 2002), the snout is wedge-shaped, and the lower jaw is countersunk.

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 12

The sand skink is widespread in native xeric uplands with excessively well-drained soils (Telford 1996), principally on the ridges listed above at elevations greater than 25 meters above mean sea level. Various authors have attempted to characterize optimal sand skink habitat (Telford 1959; Campbell and Christman 1982; Christman 1978a, 1992a, Service 1993d), but McCoy et al. (1999) have argued these notions are “educated guesswork” (Burgman et al. 1993) with little empirical basis. Commonly occupied native habitats include Florida scrub, variously described as sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub, rosemary scrub and scrubby flatwoods, as well as high pine communities that include sandhill, longleaf pine/turkey oak, turkey oak barrens and xeric hammock (see habitat descriptions in Myers 1990 and Service 1999). Coverboard transects extended from scrub or high pine (sandhill) through scrubby flatwoods to pine flatwoods revealed sand skinks left more tracks in scrub than the other three habitats and did not penetrate further than 40 meters (131 feet) into scrubby flatwoods or 20 meters 66 feet) into pine flatwoods (Sutton et al. 1999).

McCoy et al. (1999) used trap-out enclosures to measure sand skink densities at seven scrub sites and attempted to rank each area individually based on eight visual characteristics used in the literature (Telford 1959, 1962; Christman 1992a; Service 1993a) to identify good habitat: root-free, grass-free, patchy bare areas, bare areas with lichens, bare areas with litter, scattered scrubs, open canopy, and sunny exposure. None of the individual literature descriptions of optimal habitat (or any combination thereof) accurately predicted the rank order of actual sand skink abundance at these sites, which ranged in density from 125 individuals/ha (51 individuals/acre) to 650/ha (263 individuals/acre) (Sutton 1996). However, knowledgeable researchers, especially as a group, appear to be able to visually sort out the environmental variables important to sand skinks, but had difficulty translating their perceptions into a set of rules that others could use to identify optimal sand skink habitat (McCoy et al. 1999). Collazos (1998), Hill (1999), and Mushinsky et al. (2001) used grids of pitfall traps and coverboards to quantify the relationship between sand skink density and a suite of environmental variables. These authors found that sand skink relative density was positively correlated with low canopy cover, percent bare ground, amount of loose sand, and large sand particle size, but negatively correlated with understory vegetation height, litter cover, small sand particle size, soil moisture, soil temperature, and soil composition. In an unburned sandhill site at ABS, Meshaka and Layne (2002) captured significantly more sand skinks in pitfall traps set in openings without shrubs than at sites with moderate to heavy shrub density. Telford (1959) suggested scattered debris and litter provided moisture that was important to support an abundant food supply and nesting sites for sand skinks. Cooper (1953) noted the species was most commonly collected under rotting logs, and Christman (1992) suggested they nest in these locations.

The trap-out enclosure surveys of Sutton et al. (1999) and Christman (2005) provide evidence that hot fires may negatively affect sand skink densities and the species continues to occupy scrub with a closed canopy and thick humus layer, although at lower densities. Also, recent coverboard surveys conducted by permit applicants have shown sand skinks may occupy both actively managed lands, such as citrus groves, pine plantations, and old field communities (Service data), particularly if these sites are adjacent to patches of native habitat that can serve as a source population for recolonization. Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 13

Specific physical structures of habitat that sustain sand skink populations, include a well-defined leaf litter layer on the ground surface and shade from either a tree canopy or a shrub layer, but not both. Leaf litter likely provides important skink foraging opportunities. Shade provided by a tree canopy or a shrub layer likely helps skinks regulate body temperature to prevent overheating. However, having both a tree canopy and a shrub layer appears to be detrimental to skinks (McCoy 2011, University of South Florida, personal communication).

Either natural fires started by lightning or prescribed burns are necessary to maintain habitat in natural scrub ecosystems. However, if fire occurs too frequently, leaf litter might not build up sufficiently to support skink populations. At ABS, sand skinks appear to be most abundant after 10 years of leaf litter development. The ideal fire frequency to maintain optimal leaf litter development for skinks likely varies by site and other environmental conditions (Mushinsky 2011, University of South Florida, personal communication).

No critical habitat has been designated for the sand skink.

Life history

The sand skink is highly adapted for life in the sand. It spends the majority of its time below the surface where it burrows through loose sand in search of food, shelter, and mates. Sand skinks feed on a variety of hard and soft-bodied arthropods that occur below the ground surface. The diet consists largely of beetle larvae and termites (Prorhinotermes spp.). Spiders, larval ant lions, lepidopteran larvae, roaches, and adult beetles are also eaten (Myers and Telford 1965; Smith 1982).

Sand skinks are most active during the morning and evening in spring and at mid-day in winter, the times when body temperatures can easily be maintained between 28°C and 31°C in open sand (Andrews 1994). During the hottest parts of the day, sand skinks move under shrubs to maintain their preferred body temperatures in order to remain active near the surface (Andrews 1994). With respect to season, Telford (1959) reported skinks were most active from early March through early May, whereas Sutton (1996) found skinks were most active from mid- February to late April. Based on monthly sampling of pitfall traps, Ashton and Telford (2006) found captures peaked in March at ABS, but in May at ONF. All of these authors suggested the spring activity peak was associated with mating. At ABS, Ashton and Telford (2006) noted a secondary peak in August that corresponded with the emergence of hatchling sand skinks. The literature states sand skinks lay two eggs typically in May or early June (Ashton 2005) under logs or debris, approximately 55 days after mating (Telford 1959). However, there have been observations of three to four eggs per clutch at times (Mushinsky, personal communication, 2007). The eggs hatch from June through July. Sand skinks first reproduce at 2 years of age and females produce a single clutch in a season, although some individuals reproduce biennially or less frequently (Ashton 2005). Sand skinks can live to at least 10 years of age (Meneken et al. 2005).

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 14

Information on sand skink dispersal and movement patterns is limited. Sand skink studies in the early 2000s documented dispersal distances of more than 140 meters (459 feet) (Mushinsky et al. 2001, Penney 2001, Penney et al. 2001) to more than 240 meters (787 feet) (Penney 2001). Evidence suggested smaller sand skinks might move greater distances than larger individuals. Researchers believed these documented sand skink dispersal distances likely underestimated dispersal capability. Information suggests that sand skinks can move more than 1 km (3,280 feet) at appropriate elevations where suitable soils are contiguous and there are no natural or manmade barriers to movement (Mushinsky et al. 2011a). More recent studies documented the longest sand skink movement at 8 km (5 miles)and an average movement of 1.6 km (1 mile). in naturally fragmented scrubby flatwoods at the ABS (Mushinsky et al. 2011a).

Sand skink dispersal distances documented in field studies are supported by sand skink genetic research. Genetic relatedness of sand skinks was similar between individuals captured as far as 1 to 2 km (0.6 to 1.2 miles), from one another (Schrey et al. 2010). Sand skink genetic relatedness tended to decline beyond the 1 km (0.6 mile) distance, although it appeared to be influenced by the time since fire (Schrey et al. 2010; Mushinsky et al. 2011b). Fires that occur too frequently could negatively decrease sand skink genetic diversity.

Population dynamics

The Service has little information on the population dynamics of sand skinks within their extant ranges. The skinks’ diminutive size and secretive habits make their study difficult. As noted above, sand skinks can reach densities of up to 650 individuals/ha (263 individuals/acres) in high quality habitat, particularly on the LWR. Delayed maturity (2 years), a small clutch size (two eggs) of relatively large eggs, low frequency of reproduction, and a long lifespan in sand skinks are life-history traits that also characterize a number of other fossorial lizards that occur in high densities (Ashton 2005). Such character traits may reflect high intra-specific competition and/or predation (Ashton 2005). In contrast, blue-tailed mole skinks often seem absent or rare on the same LWR study sites where sand skinks are common, and when present, are patchily distributed (Christman 1988, 1992; Mushinsky and McCoy 1995.

Status and distribution

The modification and destruction of xeric upland communities in central Florida were primary considerations in listing the sand skink as threatened under the Act in 1987 (52 FR 42662). By some estimates, as much as 90 percent of the scrub ecosystem has already been lost to residential development and conversion to agriculture, primarily citrus groves (Florida Department of Natural Resources 1991; Kautz 1993). Xeric uplands remaining on private lands are especially vulnerable to destruction because of increasing residential and agricultural pressures.

Except for a few locations where intensive research has been conducted, limited information about the presence or abundance of sand skinks exists. An extensive 1992 survey in ONF failed to capture any sand skinks, despite placement of traps near historical locations and the capture of a number of other fossorial reptiles. Telford (1992) cited the ephemeral nature of early Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 15 successional scrub habitats due to dynamic successional changes as an important confounding factor in the evaluation of the sand skink’s status in the ONF. However, 24 sand skinks were collected later from ONF for genetic analysis (Branch et al. 2003) and population studies (Ashton and Telford 2006). Additional studies have provided presence/absence information that has been used to determine the extant range of the species (Mushinsky and McCoy 1991, Stout and Corey 1995). However, few long-term monitoring efforts have been undertaken to evaluate the status or trends of sand skinks at these or other sites.

At the time of Federal listing in 1987, FNAI had recorded 31 known sites for the sand skink. By September 2006, 132 localities were known by FNAI. This increase is largely the result of more intensive sampling of scrub habitats in recent years and does not imply that this species is more widespread than originally thought. Of the known locations, 50 (38 percent) occur on public lands or private lands placed under conservation easement, and offer habitat protection. It is likely continued residential and agricultural development of xeric upland habitat in central Florida has destroyed or degraded habitat containing sand skinks. Approximately 60 to 90 percent of xeric upland communities historically used by sand skinks on the LWR are estimated to have been lost due to development (Christman 1988; Christman and Judd 1990; Kautz 1993; Center for Plant Conservation 1995). More recently, Turner et al. (2006) calculated 12.9 percent of this habitat remains.

Protection of the sand skink from further habitat loss and degradation provides the most important means of ensuring its continued existence. Existing protection of occupied skink habitat consists primarily of private preserves such as ABS, Hendry Ranch, Tiger Creek Preserve, and Saddle Blanket Lakes Scrub Preserve, coupled with publicly owned lands such as Lake Arbuckle State Park and State Forest, Lake Louisa State Park, and Highlands Hammock State Park (Service 1993a). Current efforts to expand the system of protected xeric upland communities on the LWR, coupled with implementation of effective land management practices, represent the most likely opportunity for assuring the sand skink’s survival (Turner et al. 2006). It will also be important to preserve the genetic diversity of sand skinks by protecting sites in each of the four genetically distinct populations, from the MDR, the northern LWR, the central LWR, and the southern LWR.

It is likely a substantial sand skink population is present on existing private and public conservation lands on the LWR. As of 2003, about 21,597 acres (8,740 ha) of Florida scrub and high pine on the LWR have been protected, which represents almost half of the remaining xeric habitat on this ancient ridge, but only 6.3 percent of its estimated historic extent (Turner et al. 2006). Sand skinks are present on sites that total 87.4 percent of the currently protected xeric acreage (Turner et al. 2006), but many of the other conserved sites have not been surveyed adequately. Fourteen trap-out enclosures at seven protected sites with a known burn history on the LWR in Polk and Highlands Counties contained a minimum of 84 sand skinks for a mean density of 152 individuals/ha (61per acre), and one enclosure set in dry flatwoods yielded none (Christman 2005). Fourteen of these sites had burned in the last 8 years, and the one “rosemary bald” that has not burned for 37 years had 275 sand skinks/ha (110 per acre). Five similar enclosures set on unburned xeric sites in Orange and Osceola Counties averaged 385 sand Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 16 skinks/ha (155 per acre) (Sutton 1996). Meshaka and Lane (2002) found both species persisted on a sandhill at ABS that remained unburned for 67 years (1927-1994). The relative abundance of sand skinks decreased over time, but blue-tailed mole skinks did not.

Recovery of the sand skink also may require rehabilitation of suitable but unoccupied habitat or restoration of potentially suitable habitat. Because sand skinks do not readily disperse, introductions into restored or created unoccupied habitat may be necessary. Sand skinks relocated to two former citrus groves in Orange County have persisted for at least 5 years (Hill 1999; Mushinsky et al. 2001).

Florida scrub-jay

Species/critical habitat description

Florida scrub-jays are about 25 to 30 centimeters [cm] (10 to 12 inches [in]) long and weigh about 77 grams [g] (3 ounces [oz]). They are similar in size and shape to blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata) but differ significantly in coloration (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996a). Unlike the blue jay, the Florida 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 Florida 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). Florida 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 vocalized only by females (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984, 1986). Florida scrub-jays that are less than about five months of age are easily distinguishable from adults; their plumage is smokey grey on the head and back, and they lack the blue crown and nape of adults. Molting 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 Florida scrub-jays may be indistinguishable from adults in the field (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). The wide variety of vocalizations of Florida scrub-jays is described in detail by Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1996b).

Habitat Characteristics

Florida scrub-jays are restricted to scrub and scrubby flatwoods occurring on relict dunes and sand ridges throughout Florida, primarily concentrated along the Atlantic Coast, Gulf Coast, and on the central ridges of the peninsula (Davis 1967, Myers 1990, Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). At the landscape scale, Florida scrub-jays require suitable quantity and configuration of habitat to persist long-term. Given the size of Florida scrub-jay territories and the short dispersal distances exhibited by the species, it is critical to maintain large, contiguous blocks of Florida scrub-jay habitat to support local populations that are relatively resistant to local extinction Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 17

(Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). The probability of persistence increases with increasing connectivity to other Florida scrub-jay populations (Coulon et al. 2010, 2012).

Within each territory, Florida scrub-jays require low, shrubby oaks, few trees, and bare patches of sand or sparse herbaceous vegetation (Breininger et al. 1998). Optimal habitat conditions include patches of oak shrubs 1.2-1.7 m (4-5.5 feet) tall, 10-50% bare sand, and less than one canopy tree per acre (Breininger 2004), though Florida scrub-jays can tolerate one to two pine trees per acre. The arrangement of shrub heights in a Florida scrub-jay territory is an important indicator of habitat quality (Breininger and Carter 2003, Breininger et al. 2013). Florida scrub- jays need scrub oaks of sufficient height to provide nest sites, acorns, and cover from predators; however, mortality exceeds recruitment when the average shrub height exceeds 1.7 m (5.5 ft), and Florida scrub-jays disappear from long-unburned, overgrown scrub (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996, Breininger and Carter 2003, Breininger et al. 2006).

No critical habitat has been designated for this species; therefore, none will be affected.

Life History

Diet

Florida 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 and lepidopteran larvae, comprise the majority of the animal diet throughout most of the year (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). Acorns are by far the most important plant food (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). From August to November each year Florida scrub-jays harvest and cache thousands of scrub oak acorns throughout their territory. Each Florida scrub-jay may cache 6,500 to 8,000 acorns per year (DeGange et al. 1989). Acorns are mainly cached by hammering into the sand, but are also stuffed into pine needle tufts, Spanish or ball moss, and palmetto fronds (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). Acorns are typically buried 1 to 2 cm (0.4 to 0.8 in) beneath the surface of bare sand in openings in the scrub during fall, and retrieved and consumed in winter and early spring. Other small nuts, fruits, and seeds also are eaten.

Vertebrate prey items comprise the minority of the diet, but may include a wide array of species weighing up to 25 g (0.9 oz) (Toland 1996). Notable vertebrate prey species documented for Florida scrub-jays on both the Lake Wales Ridge and the Atlantic Coastal Ridge include, green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), squirrel treefrog (H. squirella), green anole (Anolis carolinensis), brown anole (A. sagrei), Florida scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi), six-lined racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus), black racer (Coluber constrictor), peninsula crowned snake (Tantilla relicta relicta), rough greensnake (Opheodrys aestivus), house mouse (Mus musculus), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), oldfield mouse (P. polionotus), and Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus) (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984).

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 18

In suburban areas, Florida scrub-jays will accept supplemental foods offered by humans, such as peanuts, corn, and sunflower seeds.

Social Structure

Florida scrub-jays have a social structure that involves cooperative breeding, a trait that the western North American populations of other scrub-jay species do not exhibit (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). Florida scrub-jays live in groups ranging from two (a single mated pair) up to large, extended families of eight adults and one to four juveniles. Fledgling Florida scrub-jays remain with the breeding pair in their natal territory as “helpers,” forming a closely-knit, cooperative family group. Pre-breeding 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).

Florida 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). Helpers participate in sentinel duties (McGowan and Woolfenden 1989), territorial defense, predator-mobbing, and the feeding of both nestlings (Stallcup and Woolfenden 1978) and fledglings (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 observed, the sentinel Florida scrub-jay gives a distinctive warning call, and all group members seek cover in dense shrub vegetation (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991).

Territoriality

Florida scrub-jay pairs occupy year-round, multi-purpose territories (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984; Fitzpatrick et al. 1991, 1994). Territory size averages 9 to 10 hectares [ha] (22 to 25 acres [ac]), with a minimum size of about 5 ha (12 ac). The availability of territories is a limiting factor for Florida scrub-jay populations. Because of this limitation, non-breeding adult males may remain at the natal territory as helpers for up to five years, waiting for either a mate or territory to become available (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). New territories are established several ways: by replacing a lost breeder on a territory (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984); through “territorial budding,” where a helper male becomes a breeder in a segment of its natal territory (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1978); by inheriting a natal territory following the death of a breeder; by establishing a new territory between existing territories (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984); or through “adoption” of an unrelated helper by a neighboring family followed by resident mate replacement (Toland 1996). Territories also can be obtained by creating suitable habitat in areas that were previously unsuitable through effective habitat management efforts (Thaxton and Hingtgen 1994).

Reproduction and Demography

To become a breeder, a Florida scrub-jay must acquire a territory and a mate. Evidence presented by Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1984) suggests that Florida scrub-jays are permanently Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 19 monogamous. The pair retains ownership and sole breeding-privileges in their 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 Florida scrub-jays (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). These authors also reported never observing copulation between unpaired Florida scrub-jays, nor courtship behavior between a female other than her mate. Age at first breeding in the Florida 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 Florida scrub-jays exist only where there are scrub oaks in sufficient quantity to provide an ample winter acorn supply, cover from predators, and nest sites during the spring (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996).

Florida scrub-jay nests are typically placed in shrubby oaks, at a height of 1 to 2 m (3 to 6 ft). Quercus inopina and Q. geminata are the preferred shrubs on the Lake Wales Ridge (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984), and Q. myrtifolia is favored on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge (Toland 1991) and southern Gulf coast (Thaxton 1998). In suburban areas, Florida scrub-jays nest in the same evergreen oak species as well as in introduced or exotic trees; however they construct their nests in a significantly higher position in these oaks than when in natural scrub habitat (Bowman et al. 1996). Florida scrub-jay nests are an open cup, about 18 to 20 cm (7 to 8 in) outside diameter, and 8 to 9 cm (3 to 3.5 in) inside diameter. The outer basket is bulky and constructed of coarse twigs from oaks and other vegetation, and the inside is lined with tightly wound palmetto or cabbage palm 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 1 March through 30 June (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1990; Fitzpatrick et al. 1994). On the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and southern Gulf coast, nesting may be protracted through the end of July (Toland 1996, Thaxton 1998). In suburban habitats, nesting is consistently initiated earlier (March) than in natural scrub habitat (Fleischer 1996), although the reason for this difference is unknown. Nesting failures are almost always caused by predation, most frequently by ground-based predators including eastern coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), corn snake (E. guttata), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and domestic cat (Felis catus) (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991; Schaub et al. 1992).

Clutch size ranges from one to five eggs, but is typically three or four eggs. Clutch size is generally larger (up to six eggs) in suburban habitats, and the birds attempt to rear more broods (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 (Toland 1996, Thaxton 1998). Florida scrub-jay eggs measure 27.08 millimeters (mm) (1 in) x 20.18 mm (0.8 in) (length x breadth) (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b), and coloration varies from a pea green to pale glaucous green, blotched and spotted with irregularly shaped markings of cinnamon rufous and vinaceous cinnamon, these being heaviest about the larger end (Bendire 1895, Bent 1946). Eggs are incubated for 17 to 18 days, and fledging occurs 16 to 21 days after hatching (Woolfenden 1974, 1978; Fitzpatrick et al. Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 20

1994b). 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. 1994), and the presence of helpers improves fledging success (Mumme 1992). Annual productivity must average at least two young fledged per pair for a population of Florida scrub-jays to maintain 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 Florida scrub-jay fledglings to yearling age class averages 33 percent in optimal scrub; while annual survival of breeding adults averages 78 percent (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b). Florida scrub-jays that become breeders average 4.2 breeding seasons with 10-20% of the breeding-population age equal or greater than 10 years. The longest observed lifespan of a Florida scrub-jay is 15.5 years at ABS in Highlands County (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996b).

Dispersal

Florida scrub-jays are non-migratory, extremely sedentary, and permanently territorial. Juveniles remain in their natal territory for up to five years before dispersing to become breeders (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984). The length of time Florida scrub-jays remain helpers in their natal territories is influenced by many factors including sex, age, breeding opportunities, and mate availability (Breininger et al. 2010). Once they pair and become breeders, they remain on their breeding territory until death. Dispersal distances are skewed sharply toward short- distance dispersals, with most individuals dispersing within two territories from their natal territory (Breininger et al. 2006, Coulon et al. 2010). In suitable habitat, fewer than 5 percent of Florida scrub-jays disperse more than 8 kilometers [km] (5 miles [mi]) (Fitzpatrick et al. 1994). Dispersal distances differ between sexes, with females dispersing significantly farther than males (Breininger et al. 2006, Coulon et al. 2010). Florida scrub-jay dispersal behavior is affected by the intervening landscape matrix. Protected scrub habitats will most effectively sustain Florida scrub-jay subpopulations if they are located within a matrix of surrounding habitats that can be utilized and traversed by Florida scrub-jays. Additionally, the distance between patches of potential habitat has a strong influence on Florida scrub-jay dispersal. Recent research has shown that gene flow decreases dramatically as the gap between scrub patches increases (Coulon et al. 2012). The authors concluded that gap widths beyond 2 to 3 km (1.2 to 1.9 mi) resulted in a reduction in gene flow. This is consistent with behavioral observations and analyses of dispersal data, which indicated that dispersal events and patch occupancy decreased beyond a gap size of 3.5 km (2.2 mi) (Stith et al. 1996).

Status and Distribution

The Florida scrub-jay was federally listed as threatened in 1987 primarily because of habitat fragmentation, degradation, and destruction (52 FR 20719). Florida scrub-jays once occupied 39 of the 40 counties south of, and including Levy, Gilchrist, Alachua, Clay, and Duval counties. Historically, many of these counties would have contained hundreds or even thousands of Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 21 breeding pairs (Fitzpatrick et al. 1994). Only the southernmost county, Monroe, lacked Florida scrub-jays (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996a).

A decline in Florida scrub-jay population numbers was first noted in the literature by Byrd (1928), though Cox (1987) posited that Florida scrub-jay numbers probably had been declining since well before that time. Others continued to report population declines throughout the 20th century due to habitat loss from development and agriculture and habitat degradation from the exclusion of fire (Grimes 1940, 1943; Sprunt 1946; Early 1952; Longstreet 1954; Brigham 1973; Austin 1976; Woolfenden 1978; Cox 1987; Fitzpatrick et al. 1994; Toland 1999). By 1984, Florida scrub-jays had become extirpated from Broward, Dade, Duval, Gilchrest, Pinellas, and St. Johns counties, and Cox (1987) estimated that 15,600-22,800 Florida scrub-jays remained.

An extensive, state-wide survey of Florida scrub-jays in 1992-1993 estimated 3,961 Florida scrub-jay family groups with 10,972 individuals (Fitzpatrick et al. 1994). The survey most likely overestimated the abundance of Florida scrub-jays at MINWR and CCAFS) but underestimated the abundance of Florida scrub-jays in Ocala National Forest (ONF), some areas in southwest Florida, and some areas in southern Brevard and northern Indian River counties (Miller and Stith 2002; Breininger et al. 2003; K. Miller, unpublished data). By the early 1990s, Florida scrub- jays had become extirpated from two more counties (Alachua and Clay), though at least one Florida scrub-jay group was later discovered in Clay County (Bowman and Boughton 2011). Ten or fewer Florida scrub-jay pairs remained in an additional seven counties (Flagler, Hardee, Hendry, Hernando, Levy, Orange, and Putnam) (Fitzpatrick et al. 1994). Population numbers in 27 of the original 39 counties had 30 or fewer breeding pairs (Fitzpatrick et al. 1994). Fitzpatrick et al. (1994) estimated that Florida scrub-jays had declined between 25 and 50 percent in the northern third of the species’ range since the surveys by Cox (1987). Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1996b) estimated that Florida scrub-jay populations had declined by 90% or more since European settlement.

Based primarily on the 1992-93 statewide Florida scrub-jay survey, Stith (1999a) used a spatially-explicit individual-based population model to evaluate the vulnerability of remaining Florida scrub-jay populations. Stith identified 21 demographically-isolated metapopulations of Florida scrub-jays throughout the species’ range. Assuming fully restored habitat with high occupancy rates, results of simulations indicated that 16 of the 21 metapopulations had a moderate or high risk of quasi-extinction (the probability of a Florida scrub-jay metapopulation falling below 10 pairs in 60 years), though the risk of quasi-extinction could be improved for 13 of the metapopulations through habitat acquisition (Stith 1999).

Florida scrub-jay populations have continued to decrease since the 1992-93 statewide survey and Stith’s metapopulation model. For example, Toland (1999) estimated a decline of over 50% in areas in Brevard County that were re-surveyed in 1998-99. Part of this decline may be attributed to a possible rare epidemic in 1997-1998 (Breininger et al. 2003, cited in Toland 1999). Reductions have not been confined solely to unprotected lands. Florida scrub-jay populations have declined by 25% on managed conservation lands, excluding ONF, from 1992-93 to 2009- 2010 due to inadequate habitat management (Boughton and Bowman 2011). Although Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 22 population estimates were not available for ONF, the amount of suitable Florida scrub-jay habitat decreased by 22% from 1999-2012 (U.S. Forest Service, unpublished data). On average, Florida scrub-jay populations on managed conservation lands are estimated to be well below the potential carrying capacity.

The decline of Florida scrub-jay populations has been even more severe on unprotected lands, especially in suburban areas, where Florida scrub-jays have reduced demographic success compared to wildlands (Bowman 1998, Breininger 1999). For example, a suburban population in Highlands County (Lake Placid Estates) decreased from over 100 groups in the early 1990s to 7 groups by 2013 (R. Bowman, unpublished data). Similarly, Florida scrub-jays in the City of Palm Bay declined from 54 groups in 1993 to 16 groups by 2009 (Toland 1999, Larson 2012). Beginning in 2010, FWS and other interested parties began translocating family groups from the City of Palm Bay to managed conservation lands. Currently, there are 4 groups remaining (Larson 2013).

Florida scrub-jays are now extirpated from 8 of the 39 counties previously occupied (Alachua, Broward, Dade, Duval, Flagler, Gilchrist, Pinellas, and St. Johns), and only 9 counties had more than 30 Florida scrub-jay groups on managed conservation lands as of 2012 (Boughton and Bowman 2011, Faulhaber 2013). Coulon and colleagues (2008) identified 10 major genetic units of Florida scrub-jays, each encompassing one or more of Stith’s (1999) metapopulations. Only 4 of the 10 genetic units had 100 or more Florida scrub-jay groups on managed conservation lands in 2010 (Boughton and Bowman 2011; K. Miller, unpublished data).

Based on recent data from ONF (Miller 2012), a reasonable estimate of remaining Florida scrub- jay populations is 3,500-3,850 groups. Assuming a 50-70% decline on private lands since the 1992-93 survey, Faulhaber and Miller (in litt. 10/08/2012) estimated 3,100-3,750 Florida scrub- jay groups (7,758-9,383 individuals).

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

The environmental baseline includes the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to current status of the species and their habitats.

Status of the Species/Critical Habitat Within the Action Area

Eastern indigo snake There has been no detailed survey work on the ONF over the last ten years and there are no references in the literature regarding empirically derived estimates of the eastern indigo snake population on the ONF. Individuals are known to occur in the Forest based on confirmed sightings from ONF personnel and cooperators (Enge et al. 2013).

The eastern indigo snake uses a wide range of habitats, including pine flatwoods, scrub, scrubby flatwoods, high pine/sandhills, and wet prairies (Moler 1992). All of these habitats are found in Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 23 the ONF. In addition, Moler also states that “in xeric habitats, especially those in north Florida, the future status of the indigo Snake is closely tied to that of the gopher tortoise”. Based on the presence of the range of preferred habitat types and a gopher tortoise population present in the xeric habitats, eastern indigo snake occurrence within suitable habitats on the ONF can be assumed.

Sand Skink Like the eastern indigo snake, there has been no detailed survey work on the ONF over the last ten years and there are no specific references in the literature regarding empirically derived estimates of the population on the ONF. Staff biologists regularly observe signs indicating presence in several areas on the Forest.

Using the elevation and soils criteria described in the Peninsular Florida Species Conservation and Consultation Guide for the Sand Skink and Blue-tailed Mole Skink (USFWS 2012), the ONF has approximately 170,039 acres of potential sand skink habitat. 2,825 acres of this potential sand skink habitat is within current 8.4 MAs and the proposal would add 18,437 acres of potential sand skink habitat that currently resides within proposed 8.4 MA boundaries.

Florida scrub-jay The most recent surveys for Florida scrub-jays on the ONF were conducted in 2012-2014 and yielded estimates of 1100-1250 groups, which translates into approximately 2530-2875 individuals if an average observed group size of 2.3 birds per group is extrapolated to the entire population (Miller et al. 2015). These surveys were conducted entirely within Management Area 8.2 and did not include the higher quality habitat typically found in Management Area 8.4. The Florida scrub-jay population on the ONF has not been as thoroughly surveyed as the other two major populations due to the vast amount of potential habitat present and the infeasibility of conducting statistically robust surveys.

Factors Affecting Species Habitat Within the Action Area

Factors that affect the eastern indigo snake, sand skink, and Florida scrub-jay would be the implementation of the management direction/actions identified in the amendment to the LRMP within the action area (MA8.4). Conversely, other factors would be the lack of implementing these management actions, which would result in failure to restore habitat as well as degradation, and eventual loss of existing habitat.

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 Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 24 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 2007b).

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 2oC to 5oC 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).

EFECTS OF THE ACTION

This section includes an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the species and/or critical habitat and its interrelated and interdependent activities.

Factors to be considered

Potential of Mortality to Individuals: Mortality of individuals may occur from crushing from machinery or as a result of vegetative manipulation. Prescribed fire could cause mortality to individuals. Lost of nests, eggs, and nestlings, may occur if fire is conducted during the nesting season in occupied habitat.

Temporary Soil Disturbance, Vegetation Removal, and Loss of Habitat: Temporary soil disturbance and vegetation removal is expected from the implementation of most of the LRMP actions in MA 8.4. This disturbance may result in temporary change in habitat conditions. Sources of the disturbance would include use of equipment (tractors, and other machinery) as well as practices that involve manipulation of vegetation (e.g., timber harvest and, Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 25 roller chopping, and prescribed burning). The installation or application of many LRMP practices could result in soil surface disturbance and/or compaction. The ground disturbance may involve minor surface disturbance such as tracked vehicles or tires. Common potential adverse effects identified by the Service include short-term degradation of habitat conditions and the potential for increased habitat fragmentation if the scale of the disturbance is large enough, and the potential to create opportunities for colonization of these disturbed sites by invasive plants.

Permanent Loss of Habitat: Adverse effects due to permanent loss of habitat are expected to be minimized from implementation of LRMP actions. Most LRMP actions would be implemented to meet a desired future condition of habitat restoration and maintenance in MA 8.4. Therefore, habitat is expected to increase over time through the life of the LRMP. Some loss of habitat may occur due to road and recreational trail construction and maintenance.

The proposed management actions that would occur in MA 8.4 and their effects were considered in the NFF “original BA (September 17, 1998) for the LRMP and analyzed in the Service’s December 18, 1998 Opinion. However, actions are proposed in “waning” or sub optimal habitat that could be occupied albeit in low densities, by the Florida scrub-jay, eastern indigo snake, and sand skink. Furthermore, under a proposed LRMP Standard and Guideline revision (Standard and Guideline 8.4-4), prescribed fire may be implemented during the Florida scrub-jay nesting season. The scope of the effects resulting from implementing management, including burning during Florida scrub-jay nesting season, in waning habitat, was not previously addressed on the Service’s 1998 Opinion.

The LRMP states “site specific evaluations are conducted for any proposed activity that may take place within habitat for proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species or near known populations. Measures are taken to avoid adverse effects.” Furthermore Forestwide Standards and Guidelines” for Prescribed Fire (FI-1 through FI-11), Vegetation (VG-1 through VG-39), and Wildlife and Fish (WL-1 through WL-21), as well as “Management Area Specific” Standards and Guidelines, are expected to significantly reduce adverse effects from implementation of LRMP activities. For a detailed discussion of these guidelines refer to Chapters 3 and 4 of the LRMP. However, even with the implementation of these Standards and Guidelines, some remaining adverse effects may occur as described in the Species Response to the Proposed Action Section of this document below. Nevertheless, the Service believes that implementation of the LRMP in MA 8.4, in concert with the Standard and Guidelines will collectively produce a net conservation benefit to the Florida scrub-jay, eastern indigo snake, and sand skink.

Based on the present level of available information concerning the effects of global climate change on the status of the Florida scrub-jay, eastern indigo snake and sand skink, the Service acknowledges the potential for changes to occur in the action area, but presently has no basis to evaluate if or how these changes are affecting these species. Nor does our present knowledge Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 26 allow the Service to project what the future effects from global climate change may be or the magnitude of these potential effects.

Species Response to the Proposed Actions

Eastern indigo snake

The Biological Assessment for the 1999 LRMP identifies “ground-penetrating mechanical site preparation, heavy equipment use, and/or off-road vehicle use” as potential causes for eastern indigo snake mortality. While eastern indigo snakes are unlikely to be killed by slow-moving heavy machinery associated with timber harvest and post-harvest roller-chopping, there would exist some potential for individuals occupying gopher tortoise burrows that collapse from heavy machinery to be killed. The chances of this occurring are mitigated by Standard & Guideline WL-11, which was implemented in the 1999 LRMP Plan and expanded in LRMP Amendment #8 (US Forest Service 2009). This Standard & Guideline establishes a buffer of 25 feet (7.6 meters) between known tortoise burrows and heavy equipment operation, log landings, designated skid trails, and equipment parking. This standard is wider than a recent recommendation of a 15-foot (4.6 meter) buffer (Smith et al. 2015). Standard & Guideline WL- 10 also mitigates potential harm to eastern indigo snakes by educating personnel, cooperators, and contractors on identifying the species and protecting them from harm (by moving around them) if encountered.

Pre-burn chopping would not be ground-penetrating to the degree of post-harvest chopping, as there would be standing vegetation prior to chopping as opposed to just logging slash. Deeper ground penetration could occur in areas with open bare ground, but this would be over a fraction of the burn unit. Based on the lower amount of ground disturbance from chopping in this context, the presence of gopher tortoise burrows as refugia, and the Guidelines in place to protect those refugia, the chances of mortality from pre-burn roller-chopping is extremely low. Although the activities associated with potential harm or mortality are also conducted in the 8.2 MAs, these activities would be occurring more frequently over time in the proposed 8.4 MA and thus the expected amount of exposure would be greater than associated with the current Forest Plan. This difference is insignificant since the exposure risk is small to begin with, and the additional exposure would be marginal (a maximum of two additional pre-burn chopping events over a 50- year period).

Prescribed burning activities would introduce a very low risk of mortality or injury due to the slow progression of prescribed burns in the scrub, the agility of the species, and the presence of gopher tortoise burrows in the scrub serving a refugia from fire and the implementation of Standard and Guidelines WL-10 & 11. However, juvenile eastern indigo snakes use dense vegetation for cover rather than underground refugia and may be injured or killed during firebreak construction, mechanical treatment, and application of prescribed fire. Any eastern indigo snakes in a burn project area may incur a brief period of disturbance to its patterns of feeding, breeding, or sheltering. Disturbance from prescribed burns will occur for only 1 to 2 Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 27 days on each of the burn units, and the burns will be conducted in mosaic patterns, providing areas of refuge for indigo snakes. Fire treatments could conceivably kill or injure snakes, but the precautions to be taken make it very likely that snakes would successfully flee fires or escape into underground refugia. The eastern indigo snake inhabits fire-adapted vegetation, so the use of prescribed fire as a habitat restoration and maintenance tool within MA 8.4 is expected to be beneficial to the eastern indigo snake and will result in a net conservation benefit. .

The landscape-scale increase of early successional scrub would indirectly benefit the eastern indigo snake by increasing and maintaining suitable habitat for the gopher tortoise and maintaining habitat quality for small vertebrate prey species such as lizards, frogs, and small mammal species. Timber harvest activities would indirectly benefit the eastern indigo snake by creating a variety of open microhabitats that would attract prey species and assist in body temperature regulation. Pre-burn chopping and prescribed burning would stimulate ground cover abundance and diversity and increase habitat quality for gopher tortoises. Increased tortoise abundance would indirectly benefit the eastern indigo snake by providing refugia and egg-laying sites. Home ranges would likely shift as some stands grow and others are harvested or otherwise set back to early successional states.

Sand Skink

Timber harvest and chopping operations introduce some risk of harm or mortality to sand skinks from heavy machinery operations. Mature sand pine scrub is not ideal sand skink habitat, but open sandy areas on the periphery of harvest stands may contain skinks, but the chances of mortality would be insignificant based on the extremely limited exposure potential. Post-harvest chopping introduces a higher degree of risk due to the deeper ground penetration from the chopping blades and the more favorable habitat conditions for the species at the time of treatment. However, sand skinks are slow to colonize new habitat because of their slower movement abilities, and the shorter span of time between harvest actions and post-harvest chopping (typically 3-6 months) does not allow much time for skinks to colonize, so potential effects would be limited.

Pre-burn chopping presents a lower risk of harm or mortality for sand skinks. The species spends much of its time burrowed from one to 8 inches deep in sandy soils (Christman 1992) and thus would not be at risk of being crushed, especially when the chopper is not penetrating deeply into the ground. Individuals on the surface or occupying open bare sandy areas may be killed if present where the chopper blades make direct contact with the ground. These occasions would be chance encounters. As discussed above in the eastern indigo snake section, there would be a maximum of two additional pre-burn chopping events over a 50-year period when comparing the proposed Amendment with the current Forest Plan, a negligible increase in mortality risk.

The sand skink is a fire-adapted species, depending upon fire to maintain its habitat in a suitable condition. Furthermore, this species is fossorial and habitat maintenance burning in MA 8.4 would occur when habitat is “waning” when and where skinks would not be abundant. Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 28

However, sand skink mortality resulting from prescribed burning to maintain scrub habitat has been observed on the Lake Wales Ridge. Despite the low risk, it is reasonable to presume that because of the scope of burning that would occur over time, there is potential of mortality to individual skinks. Since the sand skink inhabits fire-adapted/dependent vegetation, the use of prescribed fire as a habitat restoration and maintenance tool within MA 8.4 is expected to be beneficial to the species indigo snake and will result in a net conservation benefit.

The landscape-scale increase of early successional scrub would yield significant benefits for the sand skink. Maintaining scrub in an early successional state over time would maintain constant habitat suitability for the sand skink. Scrub stands subject to reforestation activities experience a loss of habitat suitability over an extended period of time until re-harvested. Local abundances should increase because sand skinks present in young scrub would no longer have to emigrate from stands as the root systems of young or mature sand pines would not limit their movement as stands aged. This is crucial for a species with limited dispersal ability such as the sand skink. Large early successional openings may also allow for interaction between previously separated local populations, thereby increasing genetic diversity.

Florida scrub-jay

Timber harvest, post-harvest chopping, and post-harvest burning activities would not introduce any significant direct effects to the scrub-jay because the habitat would not be suitable at the time of treatment. Minor temporary noise disturbance may occur to scrub-jays with active territories near treatment stands. Some road maintenance activities may disturb small patches of scrub directly off road edges, but would not be expected to exert any significant direct or indirect effects on scrub-jays. Furthermore, these effects would not be different than those resulting from typical harvest of mature sand pine stands under the current management direction for MA 8.2. .

Pre-burn chopping and maintenance burning performed outside of the nesting/fledgling season would not introduce mortality risk to adult or juvenile scrub-jays because individuals could easily evade machinery. However, these activities could displace scrub-jay groups even in habitat of waning quality. Florida scrub-jays forced to abandon their territories and establish territories in new habitat may experience temporarily increased predation pressure when looking for new habitat. Ensuring suitable habitat is available near stands scheduled to be burned during future project development would minimize the effects of this disturbance.

Maintenance burning or pre-burn chopping performed in occupied habitat during the nesting/fledging season (approximately March 1 to June 30) would introduce mortality risk to a limited amount of eggs, nestlings, and fledglings. Because chopping may be conducted throughout the year, this activity would rarely, if ever, be conducted in suitable breeding habitat during the breeding season. However, nests with eggs or nestlings and very young, immobile fledglings (up to 25 days old) could be killed by prescribed burn operations occurring within active territories. Breeding pairs that have not initiated nesting or are between nesting attempts would lose out on breeding opportunities, but may be able to establish a new territory and could Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 29 attempt to breed nearby. Because maintenance burning and pre-burn chopping would only occur in habitat waning in quality, the number of nests, nestlings, and fledglings that could potentially be impacted would be limited because territory density would be low. Due to the extensive search time required to find nests and the large annual acreage that would be required to be burned for implementation, any mitigations requiring locating individual nests would be prohibitive.

The potential number of affected eggs/nestlings/fledglings would also be further limited by the number of available burning days occurring within the nesting season. Scrub habitat must be burned under a narrow range of conditions to ensure that fireline intensity and flame lengths are high enough to achieve full consumption of the oak layer, but not high enough to threaten containment lines. This is achieved by burning when live woody fuel moistures are below 110% (which is influenced by the state of vegetative development and days since rain), but when drought indexes are low (Custer and Thorsen 1996). This often requires a lack of rain within the past 7-14 days to lower fuel moistures, but sufficient rain within the preceding several weeks or months to lower drought indexes. This often precludes burning the scrub during the wetter months of June and July when daily thunderstorms are common. Relative humidity (desired range of 35-50%) and midflame wind speeds (2-5 mph) are also factors of concern when burning scrub.

Although burning potentially occupied habitat during the nesting season presents a cost in the form of potential mortality to a limited number of eggs/nestlings/fledglings, there are crucial benefits. Performing maintenance burns prior to complete abandonment by scrub-jays is necessary because the species often continues to occupy poor habitat due to the species’ high degree of site fidelity. Maintenance burning occupied scrub habitat waning in quality promotes effective and safe achievement of prescribed burning objectives because poor habitat conditions for the scrub-jay are also unfavorable conditions for burning. As the habitat ages, the oak layer becomes tall and crowded. This tall, crowded arrangement begins to shade out the already sparse ground cover important for carrying fire through the burn unit. Burning when the oak layer is shorter also requires a lower flame height to achieve complete consumption of the oak layer and therefore lower fireline intensity is required, which in turn promotes safe containment of the burn within its boundaries. Additionally, burning initiated during the time period when fire has historically occurred in the scrub also benefits endemic plant species by providing stimuli such as heat and smoke that are important components of their life cycles.

Most importantly, burning scrub before it completely degrades allows the habitat to be more productive for scrub-jays over the long term. As habitat degrades in quality, demographic parameters such as nest success and juvenile/adult survival decrease in response to higher predation pressures. Eventually a point is reached where breeding bird mortality exceeds recruitment. The result is a net loss of birds or a “population sink”. High quality habitat is usually a net producer of birds or a “population source”. If habitat is burned on a rotation that minimizes the time spent as a population sink and maximizes the time spent as a population source, the habitat will provide the greatest amount of conservation value for the species. Therefore, the benefits of burning occupied habitat (maximizing productivity over time, Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 30 promoting successful prescribed burning implementation, mimicking natural fire regimes) easily outweigh the costs (potential for limited amount of egg/nestling/fledgling mortality).

Since the acreage of MA 8.4 is proposed to be significantly increased from the level described in the 1999 LRMP, the actions associated with mortality risk (burning occupied habitat during the nesting season) would also increase beyond the level described in the BA for the 1999 LRMP. As implementation proceeds and scrub acres burned per season increase, the amount of potential exposure to risk would also increase, but so would the ability of the local and greater population to absorb any losses. More importantly, as described above, burning occupied habitat maximizes productivity and permitting burning during the nesting season would allow land managers to burn the acreages needed to maintain all proposed 8.4 MAs in their desired state.

Timber harvest, chopping, and burning all have the indirect effect of creating new early successional scrub habitat. Florida scrub-jays would experience multiple indirect benefits as a result of increased early successional scrub at the landscape level. Multiple adjacent openings could create large blocks of multi-aged suitable habitat. Large blocks minimize the number of territories that border mature forest edge. Increased distance to forest edge has been associated with higher daily nest survival rates for Florida scrub-jays, presumably because snakes use forest edges (Carter et al. 2011). Mature forest edge is also home to aerial predators such as Cooper’s Hawks (Accipiter cooperii) that can limit recruitment as they often target the less agile young of the year.

Increased habitat quantity would also mean that fewer scrub-jays would need to conduct extensive extra-territorial forays in search of new habitat. Such forays are often associated with higher predation pressure as individuals move through an unfamiliar habitat (mature sand pine scrub) with a different suite of predators than in the familiar structure of early successional scrub. Increased habitat quality is likely to translate into increased nest success and increased survival of young. A more open habitat structure provides less cover for ground predators and would allow for less time spent on predator vigilance by group members and more time spent provisioning for themselves and for nestlings.

As an appendix to the BA for this proposed amendment, NFF provided a detailed analysis of estimates for potential mortality resulting from nest destruction and harm resulting from displacement of scrub-jay territories. The appendix documents the benefits of implementing activities. Conversely, the adverse effects to recovery if habitat maintenance activities are not implemented, are also documented. Overall, the proposed amendment to the LRMP, after the proposed management activities will increase Florida scrub-jay habitat on the ONF at any one point of time by approximately 30,000 acres resulting in a net conservation benefit to the Florida scrub-jay and other scrub dependent species.

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 31

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

There is a potential for individual Florida scrub-jays, sand skinks and eastern indigo snakes to be killed by heavy equipment, and prescribed fire. Adverse effects may also occur from temporary loss of habitat. The LRMP provides guidance to use prescribed fire and related vegetation manipulation to conduct important habitat management, restoration, and enhancement actions. By improving habitat conditions, these actions will directly eliminate or reduce a primary threat (i.e., habitat loss and degradation) to these scrub dependent species. The LRMP activities in conjunction with the integrated use of the Standards and Guidelines is expected to benefit the Florida scrub-jay, sand skink, and eastern indigo snake by maintaining, enhancing, and restoring populations and their habitats as well as by reducing the risk of adverse effects.

The overwhelming conservation benefits of implementation of the proposed actions within MA 8.4, including restoration of scrub habitat, maintenance of existing habitat, and enhancement of marginal (waning) habitat will outweigh negative impacts to individuals The implementation of the proposed action will result in more of the threats that adversely affect populations being managed, and more habitat under the appropriate management prescriptions.

Cumulatively, the Service finds that effective implementation of the amended LRMP is anticipated to result in a positive population response by the species. This positive response is expected as threats are reduced, notably in addressing habitat fragmentation and improvement of habitat conditions across the expanded MA. Additionally, the proposed action is expected to limit unfavorable impacts to the species, and to maintain and enhance habitat at both the population and landscape level. In conclusion, the anticipated levels of adverse effects are more than offset by the implementation of the amended LRMP resulting in a net conservation benefit to the species.

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 amended Opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. The action area as defined, occurs exclusively on National Forest land so that there are no state, tribal, local or private actions reasonably certain to occur within the action area that would not be subject to consultation. Therefore, by definition, there are no Cumulative Effects to be considered.

CONCLUSION

Listed species/critical habitat

After reviewing the status of the Florida scrub-jay, eastern indigo snake, and sand skink, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 32 effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion that the amendment of the National Forests in Florida Land and Resource Management Plan to increase Florida scrub-jay management areas on the Ocala National Forest, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of these species. No critical habitat has been designated for these species; therefore, none will be affected.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Sections 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 a 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 such as 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 disrupt 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 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 NFF so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to future clients , as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. NFF has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If NFF (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require clients to adhere to 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 NFF 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)].

Section 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act generally do not apply to listed plants and candidate species. However, limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent the Act prohibits the removal and reduction to possession of Federally listed endangered plants or the malicious damage of such plants on areas under Federal jurisdiction, or the destruction of endangered plants on non-Federal areas in violation of State law or regulations, or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law.

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 33

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE ANTICIPATED

These take statements address the eastern indigo snake, sand skink and Florida scrub-jay.

Eastern indigo snake

The Service anticipates that incidental take may occur throughout the 44,706 acres (18,092 ha) within MA 8.4 that will be managed for Florida scrub-jay habitat under the amended LRMP in the form of harm or harass and direct mortality during habitat restoration and management activities.

The Service anticipates incidental take of the eastern indigo snake will be difficult to detect for the following reasons: (1) wide-ranging distribution, not restricted to specialized habitats; (2) patchy distribution within suitable habitats; and (3) suitable habitat may not be occupied. However, the Service anticipates incidental take of the indigo snake associated with conducting prescribed fires and mechanical treatment on over the life of the amended LRMP on 44,706 acres (18,092 ha). Juvenile indigo snakes may be more vulnerable to management actions because they are less likely to use underground refugia and often rely on above-ground vegetation for cover. Due to the lack of surveys, in conjunction with the wide-ranging activity and use of a variety of habitat types by the eastern indigo snake, it is difficult to determine the exact number of snakes that will be taken. Layne and Steiner (1996) determined the average home range for female indigo snakes to be 19 ha (46 acres) and overlapping male home ranges to be 75 ha (184 acres) on the ABS. However, these home range estimates are derived from studies conducted in very good habitat, but much of the habitat to be treated in MA8.4 will sub optimal and in need of restoration of maintenance. If indigo snakes were present on all of the 44,706 acres (18,092 ha) that could be treated, there could be up to 972 female and 243 male snakes present. However, the Service believes that not all of the 44,706 acres (18,092 ha) are occupied due to infrequent sightings on the ONF that suggests that the populations may be low. Furthermore, indigo snakes are able to find refuge during prescribed fires and other activities, and LRMP Standards and Guidelines provide avoidance and minimization measures. Therefore, the Service anticipates no more than no more than 119 snakes will be harassed and no more than 12 snakes will be injured or killed over the life of the implementation of the amended LRMP. To monitor any incidental take of eastern indigo snakes, the reporting of requirements of dead, injured, or sick, covered animal species (refer to #2 in the Terms and Conditions below) will be followed. The incidental take is expected to be in the form of harm, harassment, and direct mortality.

Sand Skink

Using the elevation and soils criteria described in the Peninsular Florida Species Conservation and Consultation Guide for the Sand Skink and Blue-tailed Mole Skink (USFWS 2012), the ONF has approximately 2,825 acres (1,143 ha) of potential sand skink habitat within the current 8.4 MA. The proposed amendment would add 18,437 acres (7,461 ha) of potential sand skink habitat within proposed 8.4 MA boundaries. The Service anticipates that incidental take may Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 34 occur throughout the total 21,262 acres (8,604 ha) of potential sand skink habitat within MA 8.4 under the amended LRMP in the form of harm or harass during habitat restoration and management activities.

The Service anticipates incidental take of the sand skink will be difficult to detect for the following reasons: (1) its fossorial behavior, with individuals usually just beneath the surface of loose sand; (2) low density within suitable scrub habitat within its limited range; and (3) apparently suitable habitat may not be occupied. However, the Service anticipates incidental take of the sand skink associated with conducting management activities within MA 8.4. Sand skinks inhabit open sand within scrub, but also inhabit litter and shaded areas. Because sand skinks are patchily distributed across the landscape, are underground, and prescribed fires do not burn all open sandy areas occupied by sand skinks, many sand skinks are likely to survive fires. The habitat proposed for burning and chopping will be low quality (waning), with vegetative characteristics that may not be suitable for skinks. Because of their biology, we do not have population estimates for skinks. Therefore, determining an estimate of the number of individuals that may be taken is difficult. We anticipate incidental take will occur over the entire 21,262 acres (8,604 ha) of potential sand skink habitat over the life of the amended LRMP. The incidental take is expected to be in the form of harm, harassment, and direct mortality. Since the intent of the amendment is restore, and maintain the amount of available scrub habitat, the Service believes that any incidental take of sand skink that will occur, will not negatively impact recovery efforts. In fact, proposed action will aid in the recovery of the species and will result in a net conservation benefit.

Florida scrub-jay

The Service anticipates that incidental take of the Florida scrub-jay in the form of harm or harass and direct mortality during habitat restoration and management activities. As described in the, NFF BA, management of the new 8.4 MA would primarily consist of harvesting mature sand pine and resetting vegetation succession in areas that are waning habitat for Florida scrub-jays and other species that prefer open scrub. The Service anticipates incidental take of Florida scrub-jay resulting from management activities associated with resetting succession in waning but potentially occupied (albeit in low densities) habitat. Management activities include roller chopping and prescribed burning during the Florida scrub-jay nesting season as permitted by the proposed modification in the LRMP Standard and Guideline 8.4-4 (see Description of the Proposed Action section of this document). Incidental take is expected to occur in the form of direct mortality to eggs and nestlings due to loss of nests when prescribed burning is conducted in waning (declining) habitat during the nesting season. Incidental is expected to occur in the form of harm or harassment due to displacement of scrub-jay groups when waning (declining), but potentially occupied, habitat is lost from prescribed fire and roller chopping conducted in the non-nesting season.

As habitat restoration and maintenance activities occur in MA 8.4 over time, Florida scrub-jay habitat will increase with a subsequent increase in scrub-jay family groups. However, with this Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 35 increase, the need for maintenance in waning but potentially occupied habitat will also increase. Therefore, the incidental take of Florida scrub-jay will also increase over time. As part of the NFF BA, the Florida scrub-jay effects analysis models potential incidental take of Florida scrub- jays over time resulting from displacement of family groups and mortality. The effects analysis is included as Appendix B in this document. Based on this information, the Service anticipates that incidental take will occur over time, on an annual basis, as shown in Table 2 below:

TABLE 2

Florida scrub-jay Annual Incidental Take

Year % Suitable Acres: Chop/Burn Acres; Burn Waning Potential # of Incidental Take Incidental Take Habitat Waning Habitat Habitat During Jay Groups in Nests Destroyed Groups Displaced Nesting Season MA 8.4 2016 14.3 638 34 242 2 21 2017 13.7 614 29 233 1 20 2018 14.9 666 42 253 2 22 2019 17.0 762 66 289 3 25 2020 19.7 882 96 335 4 29 2021 22.7 1017 129 386 5 33 2022 25.9 1160 165 441 6 38 2023 29.2 1307 201 497 7 42 2024 32.6 1457 239 554 8 47 2025 36.0 1609 277 611 9 52 2026 39.4 1761 317 669 11 57 2027 42.8 1914 354 727 12 62 2028 46.2 2067 392 785 13 67 2029 49.7 2220 430 844 14 72 2030 53.1 2374 468 902 15 76 2031 56.5 2527 506 960 17 81 2032 60.0 2680 545 1019 18 86 2033 63.4 2834 584 1077 19 91 2034 66.8 2987 621 1135 20 96 2035 70.3 3439 734 1194 22 101 2036 73.0 3439 734 1241 24 105 2037 74.6 3439 734 1268 24 107 2038 75.5 3439 734 1283 24 109 2039 76.1 3439 734 1292 24 109 2040 76.4 3439 734 1297 24 110 2041 76.5 3439 734 1300 24 110 2042 76.6 3439 734 1302 24 110 2043 76.7 3439 734 1303 24 110

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 36

The incidental take identified above is based on proposed management actions occurring in potentially occupied waning habitat and estimated group density from Miller’s (2105) Final Report on Scrub Jay Monitoring protocol for the Ocala National Forest. Miller’s report estimates “ONF specific” Florida scrub-jay densities at 3.2 groups per 100 acres (40.5 ha) in waning habitat. Management actions include (but are not limited to) roller chopping 500 acres of waning habitat per year as indicated in the BA’s scrub jay’s effects analysis. Roller chopping will occur during the scrub-jay’s non nesting season, avoiding impacts to nests in this portion of waning habitat that will be treated.

This take of Florida scrub-jays from mortality and displacement may seem like a substantial impact. However, the Florida scrub-jay Effects Analysis Section of the NFF BA documents that if maintenance of waning habitat is deferred until it becomes unsuitable (thus avoiding short tern adverse impacts to jays occurring in declining habitat), the total available habitat within MA 8.4 will be reduced. Deferring habitat maintenance would result in having less Florida scrub-jay groups on the landscape and would not achieve the desired outcome of the proposed LRMP amendment. Therefore, the Service believes that implementation of proposed actions will result in a net conservation benefit to the Florida scrub-jay

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES

When providing an incidental take statement, the Service is required to give non-discretionary 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 intent of the proposed amendment is to restore and maintain the scrub habitat in an age class upon which the covered species depend. The result of implementation of management activities associated with the proposed amendment will result in a net conservation benefit. Other than required reporting /monitoring requirements outlined in the associated Terms and Conditions below, and implementation of the amended LRMP Standards and Guidelines which are already part of the proposed action, the Service is not aware of any additional reasonable and prudent measures that can identified to minimize the take of the sand skink, eastern indigo snake, and Florida scrub-jay.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, NFF must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures for incidental take described above and outline required reporting and monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary:

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 37

1. Submit an annual report by October 31 regarding information on treatment and management actions conducted the previous year in MA 8.4. Information includes:

a. Number of acres burned during the Florida scrub-jay nesting season (“ONF specific” nesting dates are March 15 to July15) and non-nesting season in suitable, but waning, Florida scrub-jay habitat as indicated by vegetation structure or age, (usually 10-12 years post-harvest), b. Total number of scrub acres in MA 8.4 burned, c. Number of acres chopped in suitable, but waning, Florida scrub-jay habitat as indicated by vegetation structure or age, (usually 10-12 years post-harvest), d. Total number of acres chopped, e. Total number of acres of sand pine harvested and, f. Total area within MA 8.4 that is suitable Florida scrub-jay breeding habitat as indicated by appropriate vegetation structure or, when this information is not available, age (3-12 years following harvest, fire, or chopping).

2. If a dead, injured, or sick covered animal species is discovered in a project area, the incident should be immediately reported by notifying the Jacksonville Ecological Services Field Office at 904-731-3029. In the case of mortality, the specimen should be thoroughly soaked in water and frozen for later analysis of cause of death.

3. Do not roller chop waning habitat, as indicated by vegetation structure of age (usually 10- 12 years post-harvest) during the Florida scrub-jay nesting season (“ONF specific” nesting dates are March 15 to July15).

4. During the two implementation phases of the Amendment (“First 20 Year Catch Up and Transition & Maintenance”); as described in the BA’s Florida scrub-jay effects analysis, prescribe burn and roller chop the appropriate acres of waning habitat to maintain the revised Desired Future Condition for Scrub in MA 8.4.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS/CONSIDERATIONS

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 information.

1. Implement recovery actions for listed federally listed species as indicated in approved recovery plans.

2. Partner with the Service, State Agencies, Universities and other non-government organizations, to further study and monitor group density and annual productivity in scrub stands of different ages in MA 8.4. Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 38

3. Provide and annual report to the Service by October 31 regarding information on treatment and management actions conducted the previous year in on the ONF outside of MA 8.4. Information may include:

a. Total number of scrub acres burned. b. Total number of acres chopped and, c. Total number of acres of sand pine harvested. d. Total area on the ONF outside of MA 8.4 that is suitable Florida scrub-jay breeding habitat as indicated by appropriate vegetation structure or, when this information is not available, age (3-12 years following harvest, fire, or chopping).

4. During the maintenance phase, management of stands within MA 8.4 stands should be carefully evaluated before implementing management actions to set back succession. The preferred management should be prescribed burning. Roller chopping or other mechanical methods of reducing vegetation height should be employed during maintenance of restored habitat only when it is determined that prescribed burning alone will not achieve the desire future condition for scrub (or lack of burning conditions i.e., weather, precludes burning).

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefiting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the conservation recommendations carried out.

REINITIATION NOTICE

This concludes formal consultation on the NFF LRMP amendment. 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.

The Service fully endorses the proposed Forest Plan Amendment 12 for Ocala National Forest. Increasing the acreage of Management Area 8.4 from approximately 3,000 acres to 52,000 acres for management of the scrub vegetative community and revising the Desired Future Condition of Management Area 8.4, validates the Forest Service's interagency cooperation commitment as a Federal agency. Through the utilization of your agency's Federal authority in carrying out programs for endangered and threatened species conservation, this collaboration enables the

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 40

LITERATURE CITED

Andrews, R.M. 1994. Activity and thermal biology of the sand-swimming skink Neoseps reynoldsi: diel and seasonal patterns. Copeia 1994:91-99.

Ashton, K.G. 2005. Life history of a fossorial lizard, Neoseps reynoldsi. Journal of Herpetology 39(3):389-395.

Ashton, K.G. and S.R. Telford, Jr. 2006. Monthly and daily activity of a fossorial lizard, Neoseps ~eyiloldsi. Southeastern Naturalist 5(1): 1 75- 1 83.

Austin, D.F. 1976. Florida scrub. Florida Naturalist. 49(4):2-5.

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.

Bendire, C.E. 1895. Life histories of North American birds. U.S. National Museum Special Bulletin No. 3. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 518 pages.

Bent, A.C. 1946. Life histories of North American jays, crows, and titmice. U.S. National Museum Bulletin 191. U.S, Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.

Breininger, D.R. 1999. Florida scrub-jay demography and dispersal in a fragmented landscape. The Auk 116(2):520-527.

Bowman, R. 1998. Population dynamics, demography, and contributions to metapopulation dynamics by suburban populations of the Florida scrub-jay, Aphelocoma coerulescens. Final report on Project No. NG94-032 to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. 138 pages.

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. 1 page.

Branch, L.C., A.M. Clark, P.E. Moler, and B.W. Bowen. 2003. Fragmented landscapes, habitat specificity, and conservation genetics of three lizards in Florida scrub. Conservation Genetics 4:199–212

Branch, L.C. and D.G. Hokit. 2000. A comparison of scrub herpetofauna on two central Florida sand ridges. Florida Scientist 63(2):108-117.

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 41

Brandley, M., A. Schmitz, and T.W. Reeder. 2005. Partitioned Bayesian analyses, partition choice and the phylogenetic relationships of Scincid lizards. Systematic Biology, 54, 373–390.

Brigham, D. 1973. Scrub jay. Florida Naturalist 46:22.

Byrd, H. 1928. Notes from correspondents: Florida jay. Florida Naturalist 1(4):87.

Burgman, M.A., S. Ferson, and H.R. Akcakaya. 1993. Risk assessment in conservation biology. Chapman and Hall. London.

Breininger, D.R., E.D. Stolen, G.C. Carter, D.M. Oddy and S.A Legare. 2013. Quantifying how territory quality and sociobiology affect recruitment to inform fire management. Animal Conservation. In press.

Breininger, D.R., E.D. Stolen, D.M. Oddy and G.C. Carter. 2010. A model selection approach to predicting whether Florida scrub-jays delay breeding. Condor 112:378-389.

Breininger, D.R., B. Toland, D.M Oddy, and M.L. Legare. 2006. Landcover characterizations and Florida Scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) population dynamics. Biological Conservation 128:169-181.

Breininger, D.R., M.L. Legare, and R.B. Smith. 2004. Edge effects and population viability of eastern indigo snakes in Florida. Pages 299-311 in: H.R. Akcakaya, M. Burgman, O. 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. and G. M. Carter. 2003. Territory quality transitions and source-sink dynamics in a Florida Scrub-Jay population. Ecological Applications 13:516-529.

Breininger, D.R. 2004. An adaptive approach to managing Florida scrub-jay habitat. NASA Technical Memorandum NASA/TM-2004-211532.

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(1):118-128.

Campbell, H.W. and S.P. Christman. 1982. The herpetological components of Florida sandhill and sand pine scrub associations. Pages 163-171 in N.J. Scott, ed. Herpetological communities: A symposium of the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles and the Herpetologist’s League, August 1977. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research Report No. 13

Carrington, M. E. 1999. Post-fire seedling establishment in Florida sand pine scrub. Journal of Vegetation Science 10: 403-412. Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 42

Carson, H.L. 1945. Delayed fertilization in a captive indigo snake with note of feeding and shedding. Copeia 1945(4): 222-224.

Carter, G. M., D. R. Breininger, E. D. Stolen, and D. M. Oddy. 2011. Determinants of nest survival in a managed Florida Scrub-Jay population. Condor 113: 629-636.

Center for Plant Conservation. 1995. An action plan to conserve the native plants of Florida. Missouri Botanical Garden; St. Louis, Missouri.

Christman, S.P. 2005. Densities of Neoseps reynoldsi on the Lake Wales Ridge. Final report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Vero Beach, Florida.

Christman, S.P. 1988. Endemism and Florida’s interior sand pine scrub. Final project report for Project No. GFC-84-101. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; Tallahassee, Florida.

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

Christman, S.P. 1978a. Threatened: sand skink, Neoseps reynoldsi (Stejneger). Pages 40-41 in R.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume 3: amphibians and reptiles. University Press of Florida; Gainesville, Florida

Christman, S.P. 1970. The possible evolutionary history of two Florida skinks. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Science 33(4):291-293.

Christman, S.R. and W.S. Judd. 1990. Notes on plants endemic to Florida scrub. Florida Scientist 53(1):52-73.

Collazos A. 1998. Microhabitat selection in Neoseps reynoldsi, the Florida sand swimming skink. Master’s Thesis, University of South Florida.

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.

Cooper, B.W. 1953. Notes on the life history of the lizard, Neoseps reynoldsi Stejneger. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 16:235-238.

Coulon, A., Fitzpatrick, J.W., Bowman, R., and Lovette, I.J. 2010. Effects of habitat fragmentation on effective dispersal of Florida scrub-jays. Conservation Biology 24(4), 1080- 1088. Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 43

Coulon, A., Fitzpatrick, J.W., Bowman, R., and Lovette, I.J. 2012. Mind the gap: genetic distance increases with habitat gap in of Florida scrub jays. Biology Letters 0, 1-4.

Coulon, A., Fitzpatrick, J.W., Bowman, R., Stith, B.M., Makarewich, C.A., Stenzler, L.M. and Lovette, I.J. 2008. Congruent population structure inferred from dispersal behaviour and intensive genetic surveys of the threatened Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens). Molecular Ecology 17, 1685-1701.

Cox, J. A. 1987. Status and distribution of the Florida Scrub-Jay. Special Publication No. 3, Florida Ornithological Society, Gainesville, FL. 110 pp.

Cox, J.A. and R.S. Kautz. 2000. Habitat conservation needs of rare and imperiled wildlife in Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; Tallahassee, Florida.

Custer, G. and Thorsen, J. 1996. Stand-replacement burn in the Ocala National Forest - a success. Fire Management Notes 56: 7-12.

Davis, J.H. 1967. General map of natural vegetation of Florida. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Experiment Stations, Circular S-178, 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.

Diemer, J.E. and D.W. Speake. 1983. The distribution of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi, in Georgia. Journal of Herpetology 17(3):256-264.

Early, R.N. 1952. The Florida jay. Florida Naturalist 25:57-58.

Enge, K. M., D. J. Stevenson, M. J. Elliott, and J. M. Bauder. 2103. The historical and current distribution of the Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 8: 288-309.

Faulhaber, C.A. 2013. Personal communication. Biologist. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Ocala, Florida.

Fitzpatrick, J.W., B. Pranty, and B. Stith. 1994. Florida scrub jay statewide map, 1992-1993. Archbold Biological Station. Lake Placid, Florida. 14 pages + appendices.

Fitzpatrick, J.W., G.E. Woolfenden, and M.T. Kopeny. 1991. Ecology and development-related habitat requirements of the Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens). Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Comm. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 8. Tallahassee, Florida. Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 44

Fitzpatrick, J.W. and G.E. Woolfenden. 1988. Components of lifetime reproductive success in the Florida scrub-jay. Pages 305-320 in T.H. Clutton-Brock, ed. Reproductive Success. University of Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois.

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. 1 page.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Annual report of the Conservation and Recreation Lands Program. Tallahassee, Florida

Greer, A.E. 2002. The loss of the external ear opening in scincid lizards. Journal of Herpetology 36(4): 544-555.

Griffith, H., A. Ngo, and R.W. Murphy. 2000. A cladistic evaluation of the cosmopolitan genus Eumeces Weigmann (Reptila, Squamata, Scincidae). Russian Journal of Herpetology 7(1): 1- 16.

Grimes, S.A. 1940. Scrub jay reminiscences. Bird-Lore 42:431-436. Grimes, S.A. 1943. Notes from northeast Florida. Florida Naturalist 16: 15-19.

Hartnett, D. C. and D. R. Richardson. 1989. Population biology of Bonamia Grandiflora (Convolvulaceae): effects of fire on plant and seed bank dynamics. Amer. J. Bot. 76: 361-369.

Hill, K.E. 1999. Responses of released populations of the sand skink, Neoseps ueynoldsi, to scrub habitat translocation in central Florida. M.S. Thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007. Climate Change Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability. Working Group II. Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth Assessment.

Jenkins, A.M., Diamond, P.K. and Schultz, G.E. 2007. U.S. Forest Service: Rare plant monitoring, Apalachicola National Forest and Ocala National Forest. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida.

Kautz, R.S. 1993. Trends in Florida wildlife habitat 1936-1987. Florida Scientist 56(1):7-24.

Keegan, H.L. 1944. Indigo snakes feeding upon poisonous snakes. Copeia 1944 (1):59.

Kochman, H.I. 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. Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 45

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.

Larson, V.L. 2012, 2013. Personal communication. Ecologist. Ecospatial Analysts. Merritt Island, Florida.

Lawler, H.E. 1977. The status of Drymarchon corais couperi (Holbrook), the eastern indigo snake, in the southeastern USA. 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.

Lazell, Jr. J.D. 1989. Wildlife of the Florida Keys: a natural history. Island Press; Washington, D.C.

Lindon, H. L. and E. S. Menges. 2008. Effects of smoke on seed germination of fire-prone habitats in Florida. Castanea 73: 106-110.

Longstreet, R.J. 1954. Ornithology of the mosquitoes – part 5. Florida Naturalist 27: 79-88.

Meshaka, W. E., Jr., and J. N. Layne. 2002. Herpetofauna of a long-unburned sandhill habitat in southcentral Florida. Florida Scientist 65:35–50.

McCoy, E.D. 2011. Personal communication. Professor and Associate Chair in the Department of Biology, University of South Florida. Sand skink scrub-jay scrub management field trip to Lake Marion. May 16, 2011.

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

McGowan, K.J. and G.E. Woolfenden. 1990. Contributions to fledgling feeding in the Florida scrub-jay. Journal of Animal Ecology 59:691-707.

McGowan, K.J. and G.E. Woolfenden. 1989. A sentinel system in the Florida scrub-jay. Animal Behavior 37:1000-1006.

Meneken, B.M., A.C.S. Knipps, J.N. Layne, and K.G. Ashton. 2005 . Neoseps reynoldsi (sand skink) longevity. Herpetological Review 36(2): 1 80-1 8 1.

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 46

Miller, K, Faulhaber, C., and J. Garcia. 2015. Scrub-Jay Monitoring Protocol for Ocala National Forest, Final Report. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Conservation Commission, Gainesville, FL. 47 pp.

Miller, K.E. and B.M. Stith. 2002. Florida scrub-jay distribution and habitat in Charlotte County. Final Report. Contract No. 2001000116: Scrub-Jay Survey. December 2002. 204 pages.

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

Moler, P.E. 1985a. Distribution of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi, in Florida. Herpetological Review 16(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 Freshwater Fish Commission; Tallahassee, 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.

Mount, R.H. 1963. The natural history of the red-tailed skink, Eumeces egregius Baird. American Midland Naturalist 70:356-385.

Mumme, R.L. 1992. Do helpers increase reproductive success? An experimental analysis in the Florida scrub jay. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 31:319-328.

Mushinsky, H.R. 2011. Personal communication. Professor and Graduate Director in the Department of Biology, University of South Florida. Sand skink scrub-jay scrub management field trip to Lake Marion. May 16, 2011.

Mushinsky, H.R., E.D. McCoy, and C.E. Rizkalla. 2011a. Effective monitoring of Florida sandskink, Plestiodon reynoldsi, population trends. Interim report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Vero Beach, Florida.

Mushinsky, H.R., E.D. McCoy, A. Catenazzi, E. Britt, A. Schrey, and J.S. Godley. 2011b. Research to benefit the conservation of the Florida sand skink. Final report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Vero Beach, Florida.

Mushinsky, H.R. 2007. Personal communication. Peer review comments from Henry Mushinsky, University of South Florida to Marilyn Knight, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 47

Beach, Florida. 5-Year Review for Eumeces egregius lividus and Neoseps reynoldsi.

Mushinsky, H.R., E.D. McCoy, K. Gianopulos, K. Penney, and C. Meyer. 2001. Biology of the threatened sand skink on restored scrub habitat and its responses to land management practices. Final report to the Disney Wildlife Conservation Fund. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.

Mushinsky, H.R. and E.D. McCoy. 1991. Vertebrate species composition of selected scrub islands on the Lake Wales Ridge of central Florida. Nongame Wildlife Program Project report no. GFC-87-149, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; Tallahassee, Florida.

Mushinsky, H.R. and E.D. McCoy. 1995. Vertebrate species composition of selected scrub islands on the Lake Wales Ridge of Central Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Project Report; Tallahassee, Florida.

Mushinsky, H.R. and E.D. McCoy. 1999. Studies of the sand skink (Neoseps reynoldsi) in central Florida. Report submitted to Walt Disney Imagineering. University of South Florida, Department of Biology; Tampa, Florida.

Myers, R.L. 1990. Scrub and high pine. Pages 150-193 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, eds. Ecosystems of Florida. University Presses of Florida; Gainesville, Florida.

Myers, C.W. and S.R. Telford, Jr. 1965. Food of Neoseps, the Florida sand skink. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Science 28:190-194.

NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at: http://explorer.natureserve.org (Accessed: November 20, 2015 ).

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.

Penney, K.M. 2001. Factors affecting translocation success and estimates of dispersal and movement patterns of the sand skink Neoseps reynoldsi on restored scrub. M.S. Thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. Penney, K.M., H.R. Mushinsky, and E.D. McCoy. 2001. Translocation success of the threatened sand skink. Proceedings from the Florida Scrub Symposium, Orlando Florida.

Schaub, R., R.L. Mumme, and G.E. Woolfenden. 1992. Predation on the eggs and nestlings of Florida scrub jays. The Auk 109(3):585-593.

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 48

Schmitz, A., P. Mausfeld, and D. Embert. 2004. Molecular studies on the genus Eumeces Weigmann. 1834: Phylogenetic relationships and taxonomic implications. Hamadryad 28(1 & 2): 73-89.

Schrey, A.W., A.M. Fox, H.R. Mushinsky, and E.D. McCoy. 2010. Fire increases variance ingenetic characteristics of Florida sand skink (Plestiodon reynoldsi) local populations.Molecular Ecology 20: 56-66.

Shaw, C.E. 1959. Longevity of snakes in the United States as of January 1, 1959. Copeia 1959(4): 336-337.

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

Smith, C.R. 1987. Ecology of juvenile and gravid eastern indigo snakes in north Florida. M.S. thesis, Auburn University; Auburn, Alabama.

Smith, C.R. 1982. Food resource partitioning of fossorial Florida reptiles. Pages 173-178 in N.J. Scott, ed. Herpetological communities: A symposium of the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles and the Herpetologists League, August 1977. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife Research Report No. 13.

Smith, H.M. 2005. Plestiodon: A replacement name for most members of the genus Eumeces in North America. Journal of Kansas Herpetology. (14): pp. 15-16.

Smith, L. L., M. Hinderliter, R. S. Taylor, and J. M. Howze. 2015. Recommendation for gopher tortoise burrow buffer to avoid collapse from heavy equipment. Journal of Wildlife Management 6 (2):xx-xx; e1944-687X. Published online early.

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. Odom, K.A. Riddleberger, and J.C. Ozier eds. Proceedings of the 3rd Southeastern Nongame and Endangered wildlife symposium, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division.

Sprunt, A. 1946. Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens (Bosc), Florida jay. Pages 77-88 in: Bent, A.C. (ed.). Life histories of North American jays, crows and titmice. U.S. National Museum Bulletin number 191. U.S. Government Printing Office; Washington, D.C.

Stallcup, J.A. and G.E. Woolfenden. 1978. Family status and contribution to breeding by Florida scrub-jays. Animal Behavior 26:1144-1156.

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-83-01, Everglades National Park; Homestead, Florida. Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 49

Stith, B.M. 1999a. Metapopulation viability analysis of the Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens): a statewide assessment. Final report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida, Contract No. 1448-40181-98-M324. August 1999. 201 pages.

Stith, B.M. 1999b. Metapopulation dynamics and landscape ecology of the Florida scrub-jay, Aphelocoma coerulescens. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville. 383 pages.

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: McCullough, D.R. (ed.). Metapopulations and wildlife conservation. Island Press; Washington, D.C.

Stout, I.J. and D.T. Corey. 1995. Effects of patch-corridor configurations on nongame birds, mammals and herptiles in longleaf pine-turkey oak sandhill communities. Nongame Project Report No. RFP-86-003, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; Tallahassee, Florida.

Sutton, P.E. 1996. A mark and recapture study of the Florida sand skink Neoseps reynoldsi and a comparison of sand skink sampling methods. Master’s thesis. University of South Florida; Tampa, Florida.

Sutton, P.E., H.R. Mushinsky, and E.D. McCoy. 1999. Comparing the use of pitfall drift fences and cover boards for sampling the threatened Sand Skink (Neoseps reynoldsi). Herpetological Review 30:149–151.

Telford, Jr., S.R. 1996. Multi-Species Recovery Team meeting. February 28, 1996

Telford, Jr., S.R. 1992. Factors affecting the distribution of Neoseps reynoldsi, the sand skink, in Ocala National Forest. Report to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; Atlanta, Georgia.

Telford, Jr., S.R. 1959. A study of the sand skink, Neoseps reynoldsi. Copeia 1959(2):100-119.

Thaxton, J.E. and T.M. Hingtgen. 1994. Response of Florida scrub jays to management of previously abandoned habitat. District 4 Annual Report, Florida Park Service; Tallahassee, Florida.

Toland, B.R. 1999. Current status and conservation recommendations for the Florida scrub-jay in Brevard County. Report to the Brevard County Board of County Commissioners. Brevard County Natural Resources Management Office, Viera, Florida. 40 pages.

Thaxton, J.E. 1998. Personal communication. Biologist. Upland, Inc., Ospery, Florida.

Toland, B.R. 1996. Personal communication. Biologist. FWS. Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 50

Toland, B.R. 1991. Nest site characteristics of a Florida scrub jay population in Indian River County. Abstract. Florida scrub jay workshop. 23-24 May 1991. Ormond Beach, Florida. 1 page.

Turner, W.R., D.S. Wilcove, and H.M. Swain. 2006a. 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. 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. 1993a. Recovery plan for the sand skink and the blue-tailed mole skink. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993b. Final environmental assessment and land protection plan: Proposed establishment of Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Atlanta, Georgia

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Vero Beach, Florida.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Sand skink, 5-Year Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Atlanta, Georgia

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Draft communication plan on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Role in Climate Change.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Eastern Indigo Snake, 5-Year Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2012. Sand Skink and Blue-tailed Mole Skink - Peninsular Florida Species Conservation and Consultation Guide. 27 pp. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Skink/20120206_Skink_Conservation_Consultation_Guide_Fin al.pdf

U.S. Forest Service. 1999. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests in Florida. National Forests in Florida, Tallahassee, FL. Management Bulletin R8-MB-83A. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/florida/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5269793

U.S. Forest Service. 2009. Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact, LRMP Amendment 8. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment Updating Gopher Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 51

Tortoise, Bald Eagle, Flatwoods Salamander and Florida Scrub-Jay Direction. 33 pp. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_007272.pdf

Woolfenden, G.E. and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 1978. The inheritance of territory in group-breeding birds. BioScience 28:104-108.

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

Woolfenden, G.E. and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 1996b. Florida scrub-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.

Woolfenden, G.E. and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 1990. Florida scrub jays: a synopsis after 18 years of study. Pages 241-266 in: Stacey, P.B. 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. 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. 1984. The Florida scrub-jay: demography of a cooperative-breeding bird. Princeton University Press; Princeton, New Jersey.

Woolfenden, G.E. and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 1978. The inheritance of territory in group-breeding birds. BioScience 28(2):104-108.

Woolfenden, G.E. and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 1977. Dominance in the Florida scrub-jay. Condor 79:1-12.

Woolfenden, G.E. 1974. Nesting and survival in a population of Florida scrub jays. The Living Bird 12:25-49.

Woolfenden, G.E. 1975. Florida scrub-jay helpers at the nest. The Auk 92(1):1-15.

Woolfenden, G.E. 1978. Growth and survival of young Florida scrub jays. Wilson Bulletin 90(1):1-18.

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.

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 52

Appendix 1 Proposed 8.4 Management Area

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 53

Appendix 2 National Forests in Florida Florida scrub-jay Effects Analysis

Analysis framework The effects of the Management Area (MA) designation on Florida scrub-jays are best understood as the extent to which land management under the proposed change would deviate from the effects of scrub management already consulted on in the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan Biological Assessment (BA), Forest Plan Biological Opinion (BO) and analysis in Forest Plan amendments considered effects of harvesting ~4,000ac/yr of mature sand pine as well as maintaining open scrub with fire or other vegetation management in the scrub-jay management area (MA 8.4, 2,900ac), the Pinecastle Bombing Range (MA 9.1, 5,500ac) and Juniper Prairie Wilderness (MA 0.2, 8,900ac). Based on these activities, the Forest Plan BA determined that “Implementation of [the Forest Plan]… “MAY AFFECT” the Florida scrub-jay. Scrub-jay nestlings could be killed and nests lost through the use of prescribe fire in suitable scrub-jay habitat.” (FEIS, p. F-36). The effects of the MA designation beyond those already considered result from increased chopping, burning or non-commercial vegetation harvest in areas that are waning but possibly still marginally suitable habitat for Florida scrub-jays. Under the current MA 8.2, these sand pine stands would be restocked and allowed to mature until commercial harvest, which results in habitat degradation until the vegetation structure is no longer suitable for scrub-jay breeding or foraging, but does displace scrub-jays as a direct result of federal agency actions. The suitability of scrub stands for Florida scrub-jay breeding and foraging habitat is a function of the height, density and patchiness of vegetation, particularly oaks. Suitable habitat is discussed in these terms in the Biological Assessment (p. 4 and elsewhere). However, because detailed vegetation structure data are not available for all the stands proposed for designation as MA 8.4, this analysis uses stand age as a proxy for habitat structure. Experience on the Ocala National Forest and recent monitoring efforts suggest that current habitat structure is highly predictable based on time since last sand pine timber harvest, which is the primary mechanism for resetting vegetation succession in most of these stands. As stands are chopped and burned multiple times they may become patchier and retain suitable structure for scrub-jay breeding longer than 12yr, but past vegetation management has produced a predictable relationship between time since harvest and vegetation structure. The activities described below are used here solely for the purpose of informing a robust, objective and quantitative analysis for how management changes would affect the Florida scrub-jay. This Forest Plan amendment does not propose any site-specific management activities and, if approved, implementation of the management strategy Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 54 described here would require future analysis, public involvement and consultation with the USFWS.

Management activities The proposed MA designation will only achieve the desired outcome if management activities are implemented to increase and then maintain the area of open scrub habitat. As described in the proposed action section of the BA, management of the new 8.4 would primarily consist of harvesting mature sand pine and resetting vegetation succession in areas that are waning habitat for Florida scrub-jays and other species that prefer open scrub. The current condition of the 51,850ac proposed for designation as MA 8.4 is primarily oak or pine scrub (44,706ac) with scattered prairies, wetlands, hardwood areas and pine flatwoods. The age structure of scrub stands is fairly typical of the Ocala National Forest, with ~3% (1,200ac) 0-2yr since harvest, ~14% (6,377ac) suitable scrub jay habitat 3-12yr after harvest and ~83% older than 12yr. By contrast, managing to maximize suitable habitat would generate an age structure of ~23% 0-2yr since harvest and 77% 3-12yr since harvest with no stands allowed to degrade to unsuitable habitat conditions through vegetation succession. The shift in management from the current conditions to the desired vegetation structure would be implemented over 20-25yr, and consists of two phases: First ~20yr – catch up - Burn/chop 10%/yr of the 3-12yr age class that is suitable but waning habitat o The acreage burned or chopped will increase gradually from 750 to 3,000ac over 20yr o The goal is to reset vegetation succession before the stand becomes completely unsuitable - Harvest 2,000ac/yr mature sand pine (unsuitable habitat) o Currently, 37,129ac of the 44,706ac of scrub proposed for MA 8.4 is >12yr succession o No 3-12yr post-harvest habitat should transition into >12yr unless the vegetation structure still meets the desired conditions for high-quality scrub-jay habitat o Therefore, in 18-20yr there should be little or no scrub habitat >12y post- succession in MA 8.4 Transition and maintenance - After 18-20yr, the 0-2yr age range will be slightly over-represented, comprising ~30% of the area, due to accelerated harvest of mature sand pine. - However, by chopping/burning 3,439ac of waning habitat each year, the forest will transition to and then maintain an even age distribution from 0-12yr Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 55

succession in which ~3/4 of the area (~34,400ac) will be in the suitable age range at any given time. Figure 1 shows the acreage of the two primary management activities (harvesting mature sand pine and chopping or burning waning habitat) over time. The effects of this management strategy on scrub age structure are shown in Figure 2 below.

Management activities

Harvest sand pine Reset waning habitat

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000 Acres 1500

1000

500

0 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 Year

Figure 1. Management activities in scrub habitat proposed for designation as MA 8.4

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 56

Area of scrub habitat age classes

0-2yr 3-12yr >12yr

40000

35000

30000

25000

20000 Acres 15000

10000

5000

0 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 Year

Figure 2. Acreage of three scrub age classes over time in area proposed for MA 8.4.

Effects on scrub habitat and Florida scrub-jays Implementation of the activities described above would have both indirect and direct effects on Florida scrub-jays. The indirect effects would result from the changes in habitat structure, whereas the direct effects would result from management activities conducted in waning but still suitable habitat where scrub-jays may be maintaining territories or nesting. To estimate the effects of these management activities, we considered the best available information about Florida scrub-jays on the Ocala National Forest from recent monitoring efforts and observations of how past management has affected scrub-jays. Given the large scale of this project, we made some reasonable assumptions about management activities and Florida scrub-jay habitat occupancy based on Miller’s (2015) reports and other published work on scrub-jays: Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 57

 Habitat suitable at 3-12yr post-succession (harvest, chopping or fire)  Estimated group density in relation to stand age from Miller o Overall average within this range is 3.8 groups/100ac o Average of waning habitat (10-12yr post-harvest) is 3.2 groups/100ac  25ac per Florida scrub-jay group  The 2000ac of mature sand pine harvested would have no direct effects on scrub-jays since this would be unsuitable habitat. The indirect effects would be positive since the stands would be suitable for foraging within a year after harvest and suitable for breeding within 3yr.  Resetting vegetation succession would be implemented on 10% of the area in the 3-12yr age class o 500ac of this would be chopped and the rest (variable over time, increasing to ~3,439ac annually) would be prescribed fire o Resetting vegetation succession would displace scrub-jays because that habitat would be waning but still marginally suitable o Prescribed fire would most likely occur during the fall, winter and spring. For purposes of this analysis, we estimated that 25% of the prescribed fire would be conducted during the Florida scrub-jay breeding season of Mar. 1-June 30 and that all the acres burned during this time would have nests at a density of 3.2/100ac

The primary indirect effect of implementing the management actions described above would be increased creation and maintenance of open scrub habitat, which will result in increased habitat capacity for scrub-jays. The management strategy described above will shift the age structure of scrub vegetation in the area from >80% sand pine stands >12yr post-harvest to a matrix of patches with 0-12yr of vegetation succession. The acreage of each age (1yr increments) will be approximately equal, and management activities would be designed to achieve and then perpetuate ~3/4 of the total area in the 3-12yr age class. As shown in Figure 3, this management shift would increase the habitat capacity for scrub-jays to approximately 1,300 groups within 20-25yr.

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 58

Scrub-jay habitat capacity 1400

1200

1000

800 jay groups jay

- 600 Scrub 400

200

0 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 Year

Figure 3. Habitat capacity for scrub jays if management actions in Fig. 1 are implemented, resulting in habitat age distribution shown in Fig. 2.

The direct effects on scrub-jays of implementing the management activities described above include displacement due to chopping or prescribed fire conducted during the non-breeding season and disruption of nesting/destruction of nests from prescribed fire conducted in marginal habitat during the breeding season. The estimates and assumptions described above were used to calculate these effects, which are rounded up to provide a conservative estimate. As shown in Figure 4 below, as the acreage of suitable habitat increases, the number of scrub-jay groups displaced will increase to ~110/yr and the number of nest destroyed will increase to ~24/yr.

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 59

Direct effects on Florida scrub-jays

Scrub-jays groups displaced Scrub-jay nests destroyed 140

120

100

80 jay groups jay

- 60 Scrub 40

20

0 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 Year

Figure 4. Estimates of scrub-jay groups displaced and nests destroyed if the actions in Fig. 1 are implemented.

Although displacing ~8.5% of Florida scrub-jay groups each year may seem like a substantial impact relative to the Florida scrub-jay population size on the Ocala NF, active management provides more long-term scrub jay habitat than alternative strategies. Recent research on Merritt Island convincingly shows that optimal Florida scrub-jay habitat is maintained by resetting succession on stands before they become completely unsuitable for jays (Johnson et al. 2011). Below we briefly consider two alternatives: status quo management for sand pine timber and delayed chopping or burning until the habitat is no longer suitable. This comparison very clearly demonstrates the overall benefits of the proposed management for Florida scrub-jays, and is shown graphically in Figure 5 below. If the 44,706ac area the currently being considered is managed under the status quo with increased harvest of mature sand pine (2,000ac/yr), it would eventually contain Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 60

~20,000ac of suitable Florida scrub-jay habitat in the 3-12yr age range. This could support a scrub jay population of ~760 groups, although the increase would be quite gradual. This would be a substantial increase compared to the current conditions of 6,377ac of suitable habitat, but much less than the 1,304 groups that would be supported by the proposed action. Scrub-jay groups would be displaced due to natural vegetation succession rather than active management, with ~76 groups losing territories each year due to habitat becoming unsuitable. No nests would be destroyed, but research has shown that nests in lower quality habitat (i.e., denser and taller oaks and pines) are less successful than nests in higher-quality habitat. A second alternative would be delaying active management to avoid direct effects on Florida scrub-jays. Under this strategy, stands would be allowed to reach 15yr post- succession before being chopped or burned. Scrub-jays occupy virtually no stands of this age, so the management activities would not displace groups or destroy nests. However, because of the added time in the management cycle (16 instead of 13 years), only 27,942ac would be in the suitable age range compared to 34,389ac under the proposed management strategy. Additionally, 1/10 of the scrub jay groups would be displaced by vegetation succession due to lack of management.

Biological Opinion U.S. Forest Service Southern Region FWS Log No. 04EF1000-2016-F-0215 61

Scrub-jay habitat capacity

Proposed management Delayed management Status quo

1400

1200

1000

800 jay groups jay - 600

Scrub 400

200

0 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 Year

Figure 5. Habitat capacity under three management strategies. Summary of effects Implementation of the proposed management changes may affect, and is likely to adversely affect Florida scrub-jays. Active scrub management, primarily chopping and burning in waning but still suitable habitat, will displace scrub-jay groups from their territories and will result in loss of a small number of nests. However, if left unmanaged, stands where scrub-jays would be displaced would soon be unsuitable due to vegetation succession at a rate equal to the negative effects of proactive scrub management. Additionally, these consequences are incidental to a management strategy that increases habitat for scrub-jays by ~30,000ac and will maintain suitable habitat capable of supporting ~1,300 Florida scrub-jay groups, which is more than currently exist on all protected lands outside of the Ocala National Forest. This habitat capacity will be in addition to suitable habitat created by continued sand pine harvest in MA 8.2 (~2,000ac./yr) as well as continued prescribed fire and wildfire in the Juniper Prairie Wilderness and Pinecastle Bombing Range.