BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
for the
Columbia County and Plum Creek Land Exchange
U.S. Forest Service
Osceola National Forest
Columbia County, Florida
Prepared by
Matthew D. Trager (primary contact)
Forest Planner, National Forests in Florida
[email protected], 850-523-8582
and
Jeff Gainey
Wildlife Program Manager, National Forests in Florida
May, 2014
National Forests in Florida ~ Columbia County and Plum Creek Land Exchange
Biological assessment Page 2
Contents Page
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3
Background ................................................................................................................................. 3
Proposed action and affected area ............................................................................................... 3
Rail spur easement .................................................................................................................. 3
FNST easement ....................................................................................................................... 5
Consultation history .................................................................................................................... 6
2. Analysis framework .................................................................................................................... 6
Analysis objectives ..................................................................................................................... 6
Related activities ......................................................................................................................... 6
Species considered ...................................................................................................................... 7
3. Effects of rail spur construction on federally threatened and endangered species ..................... 8
Red-cockaded woodpecker ......................................................................................................... 8
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 8
Effects of proposed action ...................................................................................................... 9
Eastern indigo snake ................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9
Effects of proposed action .................................................................................................... 10
4. Effects of FNST easement on federally threatened or endangered species .............................. 10
5. Literature cited .......................................................................................................................... 10
6. Summary of determinations and signature of preparers ........................................................... 12
Appendix 1. Red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat ............................................................ 13
Recovery standard ..................................................................................................................... 13
Standard for managed stability ................................................................................................. 14
National Forests in Florida ~ Columbia County and Plum Creek Land Exchange
Biological assessment Page 3
1. Introduction
Background
Columbia County, Florida (“Columbia Co.”) and Plum Creek Timberlands, L.P. (“Plum Creek”)
are pursuing development of the 500 acre North Central Florida Rural Area of Critical Economic
Concern Catalyst Project (the “RACEC Catalyst Project”) south of the Osceola National Forest
(“Osceola NF”). The RACEC Catalyst Project is a collaborative effort by a 14-county region to
build economic diversity and provide new jobs through development of an “inland port”
providing regional transportation, storage and distribution infrastructure. Currently, the planned
location of the development is on Plum Creek’s Lake Butler Forest east of Lake City, Florida.
Proposed action and affected area
A land exchange between Plum Creek and the U.S. Forest Service is being proposed as a way to
simultaneously provide rail access through the southern part of the Osceola National Forest for
the RACEC Catalyst Project and to provide a permanent legal right to designate and maintain the
Florida National Scenic Trail (FNST) on Plum Creek land.
The Forest Service requested a pre-field habitat evaluation and thorough field survey from the
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) for both the rail spur and trail sites. The pre-field
assessment and results of field work, in conjunction with published records and staff experience
in the area, provide the best available scientific information about the site. The final report from
FNAI is available upon request.
Rail spur easement
Under the proposed exchange, a right-of-way easement on the Osceola NF would be conveyed to
Columbia Co. for construction of a rail spur connecting the RACEC Catalyst Project site (part of
the larger 2,600-acre mixed use development owned by Plum Creek) to the CSX Railroad
mainline. The easement would be approximately 1,700 feet long and 100 feet wide; the total
area of the easement would be approximately 6.3 acres. The southernmost 700 feet (~ 1.6 acres)
of the rail spur easement would be in compartment 28, stand 23 of the Osceola National Forest,
and the northern 1,000 feet (~4.7 acres), including the interchange and diverging tracks, would
occur in compartment 28, stand 11. The vicinity and detail maps on the following page show the
location of the proposed rail spur easement.
National Forests in Florida ~ Columbia County and Plum Creek Land Exchange
Biological assessment Page 4
Both stands 11 and 23 are slash pine plantations planted in 1982. However, soil conditions,
hydrological conditions and some remnant vegetation provide sufficient information to assess the
natural communities present before slash pine was planted. Approximately 70% of the rail spur
National Forests in Florida ~ Columbia County and Plum Creek Land Exchange
Biological assessment Page 5
parcel is mesic flatwoods with a moderately dense shrub layer consisting primarily of saw
palmetto (Serenoa repens) and gallberry (Ilex glabra). Occasional shrub species include gopher
apple (Licania michauxii), Chapman’s oak (Quercus chapmanii), running oak (Quercus pumila),
coastalplain staggerbush (Lyonia fruticosa), and shiny blueberry (Vaccinium myrsinites). In some
areas typical mesic flatwoods groundcover species remain and include wiregrass (Aristida
stricta), Curtiss’ dropseed (Sporobolus curtissii), and lopsided Indiangrass (Sorghastrum
secundum).
Approximately 15% of the parcel consists of drier scrubby flatwoods with dominant shrubs
including saw palmetto, water oak (Quercus nigra), Chapman’s oak, sand live oak (Quercus
geminata), turkey oak (Quercus laevis), gopher apple, and sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum).
Because of past disturbance it is difficult to definitively determine if portions of the scrubby
flatwoods community may have been sandhill, a rare natural community on Osceola NF. The rail
spur scrubby flatwoods groundcover is sparse and typically includes tall nutgrass (Scleria
triglomerata) and a few small populations of wiregrass. The remaining portion of the rail spur
parcel consists of wet flatwoods with a thick shrub layer dominated by gallberry, saw palmetto,
large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana). The groundcover is sparse
with occasional small populations of Curtiss’ dropseed and chalky broomsedge (Andropogon
virginicus var. glaucus) (FNAI 2014).
The proposed rail spur easement is adjacent to wetlands and review of National Wetlands
Inventory data suggested less than an acre of forested wetlands could occur in the area.
However, field surveys by qualified personnel found no areas that could be delineated as
wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act.
FNST easement
The easement for the FNST would be 10 feet wide (5 feet on either side of the trail’s centerline)
and would extend for a distance of approximately 10 miles along the western boundary of Plum
Creek’s Lake Butler Forest. Approximately half of this distance (totaling 6.27 acres) would
formally be included in the exchange to comply with equal value requirements in Forest Service
land exchange regulations (36 CFR 254.3(c)). The other half would be conveyed by a donation
from Plum Creek to the Forest Service to allow a continuous path for the FNST. The interest in
land to be conveyed to the United States would be a permanent public trail easement that would
run with the land in perpetuity (i.e., the easement would remain even if Plum Creek sold the
land). When connected to existing portions of the FNST, the expectation is that the section of
trail currently running through Plum Creek’s Lake Butler Forest would be relocated to the
easement.
The proposed FNST route on Plum Creek property primarily runs along the western edge of
short rotation pine plantations. Years of mechanical site preparation on what was formerly mesic
and wet flatwoods natural communities have impacted the groundcover. No wiregrass or other
typical flatwoods herbaceous species were observed along the proposed hiking trail route.
Additional natural communities encountered along the corridor included basin swamp, dome
swamp, floodplain swamp, mesic hammock, bottomland forest, blackwater stream and
depression marsh. The trail was routed 15 times onto adjacent gravel or woods roads when a
National Forests in Florida ~ Columbia County and Plum Creek Land Exchange
Biological assessment Page 6
wetland was encountered for a total road distance of approximately 1.2 miles. However, the trail
still traverses portions of 11 natural wetlands for a total of 0.35 miles (FNAI 2014).
Consultation history
Plum Creek provided information to the USFWS regarding the proposed construction of the
North Florida Intermodal Park site and met with agency staff on September 16, 2013. In a Dec.
18, 2013 letter, USFWS suggested that there would be no adverse effects to federally listed
species from the project, but recommended contacting the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission for permitting and mitigation of impacts to gopher tortoises and
recommended following indigo snake protection measures. The letter also recognized that the
related action of rail spur development on the Osceola National Forest would be subject to ESA
Section 7 consultation. USFWS and Forest Service staff had several short and informal
conversations regarding the proposed exchange and rail spur construction in early 2014.
The site of the proposed rail spur is within the boundaries of the Priority 4 project that underwent
ESA Section 7 consultation in 2012-2013, concluding with USFWS concurrence that the
modified proposed action (primarily timber harvest) was not likely to adversely affect federally
listed species (USFWS Log No. 41910-2013-I-0246).
2. Analysis framework
Analysis objectives
The purpose of this biological assessment is to analyze and disclose potential effects of the
proposed actions on endangered and threatened species or their habitat, and to ensure that land
management decisions are made with the benefit of such knowledge. Specifically, this document
contributes to the following directives from Forest Service Manual 2672.41:
1. To comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act - that actions of Federal
agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed species.
2. To provide a process and standard which will ensure that endangered and threatened species
receive full consideration in the decision making process.
Related activities
Previously approved Forest Service activities within and adjacent to the proposed rail spur
easement area include thinning of some plantations, mowing or rollerchopping of palmetto in
some stands and ongoing prescribed fire. These activities have already undergone Section 7
consultation and the USFWS concurred with the determination that these activities were not
likely to adversely affect federally listed species. Effects of these activities were documented in
the Biological Assessment for the Priority 4 project (concurrence received Aug. 22, 2013,
USFWS Log No. 41910-2013-I-0246)
The action (actual exchange of easements) would not have any environmental effects, but the
expected activities resulting from the exchange (construction of a railroad spur and construction,
rerouting and connecting a trail) and donation of trail easement may affect a range of resources.
National Forests in Florida ~ Columbia County and Plum Creek Land Exchange
Biological assessment Page 7
Therefore, in the analysis below, the proposed uses of the easements are considered as connected
actions when evaluating the environmental effects of the exchange.
On the rail spur easement, construction would entail clearing all trees and vegetation within the
easement, excavating to a depth of approximately 3ft below the rail line, leveling and stabilizing
the bed of the track with ballast and using a variety of heavy equipment that would compact and
rut soil throughout the area. Maintenance of the rail spur would be similar to that along the CSX
main line, including herbicide use, brush removal and occasional repair. Developing the rail
spur would increase train frequency on the CSX line through the Osceola National Forest,
though the magnitude of that increase is unknown. The location of the rail spur would require an
at-grade railroad crossing on Highway 90 which, although it is beyond Forest Service
jurisdiction, would nevertheless have reasonably foreseeable indirect effects.
On the trail easement, construction and maintenance of a trail would likely involve removing
vegetation from a corridor up to 10ft wide, with larger areas cleared for parking and a camp site.
The trail would be designated for foot travel only, so indirect effects of the exchange would
likely include hiking and camping along the easement. Designating connections between the
proposed trail easement and other sections of the FNST is beyond the scope of this project and,
given the fragmented nature of the FNST and uncertainty regarding the location and timing of
new trail segments, such designations are not considered connected actions for purposes of this
analysis.
Species considered
The following sources of information were used to determine which species to include in this
analysis and the potential effects of the project:
Review of USFS location records for listed species.
Review of Florida Natural Areas Inventory records within the project area.
Field survey by Florida Natural Areas Inventory staff.
Annual monitoring of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the project area
In coordination with the USFWS Jacksonville field office, the list of species below was initially
considered for this project:
Species USFWS status
Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) Endangered
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Endangered *
Wood stork (Mycteria americana) Endangered
Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) Threatened *
Frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) Threatened
American alligator (Alligator mississipiensis) Threatened
Due to potential occurrence in the project area and potential effects of the proposed rail spur construction
on individuals and suitable habitat, only species noted with an asterisk (red-cockaded woodpecker and
eastern indigo snake) are analyzed in detail in this biological assessment.
National Forests in Florida ~ Columbia County and Plum Creek Land Exchange
Biological assessment Page 8
Other federally listed species (Florida panther, frosted flatwoods salamander, wood stork, and
American alligator) were considered but eliminated from detailed evaluation. There are no
recent records of Florida panthers in the Osceola National Forest, nor is there suitable habitat
(USFWS 1995). Therefore, the proposed activities will have no effect on this species. The
American alligator is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act due to similarity of
appearance to several endangered species. However, none of these species occur on the Osceola
National Forest and, therefore, the potential effects of the proposed activities on alligators are not
considered further. The wood stork does not occur in the project area. Therefore, the proposed
activities will have no effect on this species. Known flatwoods salamander habitat on the
Osceola is located about 6 miles east of the project area; breeding activity has not been observed
in about 14 years. Therefore, implementation of the proposed activities would have no direct or
indirect effects on this species.
There is no critical habitat within the project area and there are no threatened or endangered plant
species on the Osceola National Forest.
3. Effects of rail spur construction on federally threatened and endangered species
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Introduction
The goal of RCW management on the Osceola National Forest is to provide sufficient quantity
and quality of habitat to support recovery of the population. In 2013, approximately 143 active
clusters were present on the Osceola and during most of the last decade the population grew 5-
15% per year. In 2012 and 2013, growth of new active clusters was less than most previous
years (1-3 per year), but the number of potential breeding groups increased to 129 from 124 in
2011. The population is monitored annually and is an important donor population for the RCW
translocation program.
The southern part of the Osceola NF between Hwy. 90 and I-10 contains the highest density and
largest number of RCW clusters on the forest. At the time of this analysis, there were
approximately 67 active RCW clusters in that area, as well as several inactive or recruitment
clusters. On average, clusters in the area are located within 2 km. (~1.24 mi.) of 11.7 other
clusters (range = 2 to 20). High cluster density may be conducive to social interactions and
activation of new clusters and may indicate high-quality habitat (USFWS 2003, p. 49 and
USFWS 2005, p. 8, and references therein). The RCW in this area have established several new
clusters in recent years.
Most of the currently active clusters have been continuously occupied for at least 5 yr. and there
has been some population growth despite very high cluster density in parts of the project area
and removal of fledglings for the translocation program. Over the past 5 yr., approximately half
of the active clusters have consisted of a pair and one helper, with the other half consisting of a
potential breeding pair; a small number of clusters have consisted of a pair with two helpers or
only a single male. The 44 clusters in the Priority 4 project area (between I-10 and Hwy 90) that
were monitored in detail in 2012 had an average of 1.3 fledglings, further indicating a fairly
healthy population (S. Lauerman, unpublished data). In the past five years, fledglings have been
taken out of 30 of the 59 clusters in that area for the translocation program. In fact, of the 100
National Forests in Florida ~ Columbia County and Plum Creek Land Exchange
Biological assessment Page 9
fledglings translocated from the Osceola National Forest, 53 came from the 67 currently active
clusters in this project area.
The proposed rail spur would be within ½ mile of two clusters (98F and 98G) but would be
located within the foraging partition of only cluster 98F.
Effects of proposed action
The potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed activities were evaluated in relation to
the following two management goals:
Provide adequate nesting and foraging habitat. Forest management may have indirect
effects on RCW through alteration of foraging habitat. If the proposed rail spur is
constructed, approximately 6.3 acres of potential habitat (i.e., young pine stand) will be
lost. The rail spur will not isolated suitable foraging habitat from the cluster center or
adjacent suitable stands by more than 200ft., and therefore is not expected to fragment
cluster 98F’s foraging habitat. Construction of the rail spur would not prevent
implementation of previously approved forest management activities (thinning and
prescribed fire) that would benefit RCW habitat. More detailed foraging habitat analysis
is in Appendix 1.
Limit disturbance within clusters as much as possible, especially during nesting
season (April 1 – July 31). The area proposed for the rail spur is within the ¼ mile
foraging partition of cluster 98F, but it on the other side of existing railroad tracks and is
over 300ft from any currently active cavity trees. Because the activity would be
constructed outside of the cluster, no limits on timing of construction activities will be
imposed. It is likely that the area would have more frequent rail traffic if the spur is
constructed, but given the close proximity of many clusters to the existing rail line, it
appears that the RCW in this area have habituated to rail traffic.
In conclusion, construction of the rail spur will remove approximately 6.3 acres of potential
foraging habitat that does not currently meet foraging habitat standards. Some disturbance to
foraging birds is expected when mature stands within one half mile of cluster centers are thinned.
However, this will be very temporary in nature and should be inconsequential to RCW foraging
behavior. Project activities will not negatively affect breeding behavior. Although minor and
temporary direct effects on RCW may result from project implementation, conditions in the
project area will be improved by reasonably foreseeable thinning of overstocked stands, restoring
groundcover and increasing the frequency of prescribed fire as approved in the Priority 4 project.
Based on the lack of direct effects and the results of the foraging habitat analysis
(Appendix 1) for the proposed action, this project is not likely to adversely affect red-
cockaded woodpeckers within the project area.
Eastern indigo snake
Introduction
Adult indigo snakes are commonly associated with gopher tortoises and have similar habitat
preferences. A Georgia study (Speake et al. 1978) found 77% of indigo snake dens were in
tortoise burrows, 18% were under decayed stumps and logs and 5% were under plant debris.
National Forests in Florida ~ Columbia County and Plum Creek Land Exchange
Biological assessment Page 10
Adult activities during winter and early spring are around high pineland ridges; as the season
progresses, use of wetland habitats increases (Speake et. al. 1978). Juveniles can be found in
cypress ponds, flatwoods and bayheads; juveniles often use stumps and root channels for
hibernating in winter and as escape cover in summer. Juvenile use of gopher tortoise burrows is
limited (Smith 1987). Home range size can vary depending on the quality of the habitat but
generally males require 300-400 acres and females require 100-200 acres. Prey items include
snakes, frogs, small mammals, birds, small gopher tortoises and turtles (USFWS 1982).
The last confirmed sighting of and indigo snake on the Osceola NF was 1977 (Enge et al. 2013)
However, suitable habitat exists in the project area and 12 gopher tortoise burrows have been
documented within or near the rail spur parcel. Indigo snakes were not encountered during field
surveys, which included scoping most of the gopher tortoise burrows. However, due to the
presence of suitable habitat, it is possible that indigo snakes could occur in the project area. The
Forest Service will require compliance with all state regulations regarding mitigation and
permitting for gopher tortoise on the proposed rail spur site, and will include indigo snake
projection measures in the exchange agreement if the proposed action is approved.
Effects of proposed action
The proposed activities are unlikely to affect indigo snakes because they are not known to
currently occur on the Osceola NF. In addition, the area incompassing the rail spur parcel is
small (6.3 acres) and suitable habitat is found throughout much of the Osceola NF. Nearby
habitat in much better condition and higher gopher tortoise density is not known to be occupied
by indigo snakes, so the probablility of occupation within the less high quality habitat affected by
the rail spur is low. In conclusion, the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect indigo snakes.
4. Effects of FNST easement on federally threatened or endangered species
No threatened, endangered, or species proposed for listing were observed during field surveys of
the trail easement (FNAI, 2014) and the activities associated with trail construction and
maintenance are very low impact. Therefore, activities related to construction and maintenance
of the trail easement will have no effect on federarally listed species.
5. Literature cited
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2014. Ecological Inventory of a Proposed Rail Spur and
Trail Extension on Osceola National Forest. (J. Surdick, G. Schultz, and A. Jenkins, contributors).
Report to the United States Forest Service. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL.
Enge, K. M., D. J. Stevenson, M. J. Elliott and J. M. Bauder. 2013. The Historical and Current
Distribution of the Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi). Herpetological Conservation
and Biology 8(2):288−307.
Smith, C. 1987. Ecology of juvenile and gravid eastern indigo snakes in North Florida. M.S.
thesis, University of Florida.
National Forests in Florida ~ Columbia County and Plum Creek Land Exchange
Biological assessment Page 11
Speake, D. W., J. A. Mc Glincy and T. R. Colvin. 1978. Ecology and management of the
Eastern indigo snake in Georgia: A progress report. Ga. Dept. Nat. Res., Game and Fish Div.
Tech Bull. W 14.
U.S.D.A Forest Service [USDA]. 1999. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for
National Forests in Florida. Management Bulletin R8-MB-83A, February 1999.
U.S.D.A Forest Service [USDA]. 2012. Environmental Assessment for the Suwannee Upper
Basin Analysis Area Priority Area 4 Vegetation Treatments for Ecosystem Restoration,
Hazardous Fuel Removal, and Wildlife Habitat. Osceola National Forest. 62 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 1982. Eastern Indigo Snake Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 23 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 1990. Habitat management guidelines for the wood
stork in the southeast region. 11 pp.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 1995. Florida Panther Recovery Plan, Second
Revision. Atlanta, GA. 69 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2005. Memorandum: “Implementation Procedures for
Use of Foraging Habitat Guidelines and Analysis of Project Impacts under the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Recovery Plan: Second Revision.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Atlanta, GA. 12 pp.
Biological assessment Page 12
6. Summary of determinations and signature of preparers
Based on the information and analysis above, the following determinations of effects were made
for the activities proposed in this project:
Species Determination
Red-cockaded woodpecker May affect, not likely to adversely affect
Eastern indigo snake May affect, not likely to adversely affect
These determinations were made by qualified staff of the National Forests in Florida based on
the best available science and other relevant information. If approved, construction of the rail
spur could occur several years in the future. If the project is delayed, new information or
changed circumstances related to threatened and endangered species would be reviewed and
consultation would be reinitiated if necessary.
__/s/_Matthew Trager________ Date __May 21, 2014________________
Matthew D. Trager
Forest Planner, National Forests in Florida
(850) 523-8582
__/s/_Jeff Gainey___________ Date __May 21, 2014________________
Jeff W. Gainey
Wildlife Program Manager, National Forests in Florida
(850) 523-8553
A copy of the signed original is available upon request.
Biological assessment Page 13
Appendix 1. Red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat analysis
The effects of timber harvests in close proximity to the proposed rail spur provide relevant
background for the analysis of the rail spur’s effects on foraging habitat. The data presented
below were generated from the RCW foraging habitat analysis conducted for the Priority 4
project on the Osceola National Forest. That project proposed and authorized thinning of stands
within the foraging partition of RCW cluster 98F, which also contains the area of the proposed
rail spur. Therefore, this information provides as context for evaluating the effects of rail spur
construction in the context of current conditions and reasonably foreseeable future conditions.
The proposed rail spur is located entirely within the foraging partition of cluster 98F.
Approximately 4.3 acres of the rail spur are within the ¼ mile partition and the remaining 2 acres
are within the ½ mile partition.
Table 1. Partition size and area of potential habitat (i.e., pine stands of any age on Forest Service
property)
Quarter Mile Partition Half Mile Partition
Cluster Partition Size Potential habitat
Partition Size Potential habitat
98F 99.4 ac. 92.1 ac. 291.8 ac. 231.2 ac.
In this project area, adjacent RCW foraging partitions, wetlands and an existing railroad right of
way limit potential habitat to 92.1 acres within the ¼ mile partition. Implementation of the
proposed action would reduce the area of potential foraging habitat in the ¼ mile partition from
92.1 to 87.8 acres and in the ½ mile partition (inclusive of the area in the ¼ mile partition) from
231.2 to 224.9 acres. Habitat in the ¼ mile partition is contiguous with habitat in the ½ mile
condition so in this case it is appropriate to include adjacent stands within ½ mile of the cluster
as foraging habitat. Implementation of the proposed exchange and subsequent construction of
the rail spur would not prevent the cluster from attaining the recommended area of habitat
meeting the Managed Stability Standard.
Recovery standard
The recovery standard for foraging habitat is recommended for RCW populations on all federal
lands and other properties that are managed for population growth. Habitat meeting this standard
is generally characterized by “some large old pines, low densities of small and medium pines,
sparse or no hardwood midstory, and a bunchgrass and forb groundcover” (USFWS 2003, p.
188). The recovery standard habitat criteria closely align with the National Forests in Florida
desired conditions for RCW habitat management areas, including this project area (USDA Forest
Service 1999, p. 4.37-4.41). The recovery standard suggests that in areas of medium or high
productivity (such as most of the Osceola NF), each group of RCWs should have 120 ac. of good
quality foraging habitat. The analysis below used the stand-level evaluation of GQFH described
above in a GIS model that defined foraging partitions and allocated foraging habitat to clusters as
described in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003, p. 195).
Biological assessment Page 14
Table 2. Current and future area (in ac.) of GQFH available to RCW clusters within ¼ and ½
mile partitions. Partition sizes and area of potential habitat are in Table 1.
Quarter Mile Partitions Half Mile Partitions
Cluster Current GQFH
Future GQFH Current GQFH
Future GQFH
98F 0.0 30.1 5.5 68.3
Implementation of the proposed rail spur would have no effect on the amount of GQFH available
to this cluster because the construction would not be located in a stand that meets the Recovery
Standard criteria or would meet the criteria after implementation of the activities approved in the
Priority 4 project.
Standard for managed stability
In the context of RCW habitat management on Forest Service lands, the standard for managed
stability may be used to provide additional data regarding current and potential future foraging
habitat when habitat does not meet the recovery standard (USFWS 2005, p. 4-5). Reduction of
foraging habitat below the criteria of the managed stability standard is generally considered to be
an adverse effect on that cluster.
The criteria for foraging habitat meeting the stability standard are similar to those for GQFH but
are slightly less stringent (USFWS 2003, p. 292-293). For the purposes of this analysis, stands
were considered as foraging habitat under this standard when criteria a – e and g were met;
criterion f applies to partition-level analysis and was applied in that context below. Because all
relevant stands met criteria a and d, the analysis focused on the four aspects of pine size and
density described in criteria b, c and e.
RCW partitions evaluated under the stability standard should have at least 75 ac. of foraging
habitat with a total basal area of trees with dbh >10 in. of at least 3,000 ft2 within the ¼ mile
partition (USFWS 2003, p. 292-293). Foraging habitat within the ½ mile partition may be
considered depending on habitat connectivity and the conditions of individual partitions.
Table 3. Current and future area (in acres) of foraging habitat and total basal area (ft2) available
to RCW clusters within ¼ and ½ mile partitions.
Quarter Mile Partitions Half Mile Partitions
Cluster Current Foraging
Area
Current Total BA
Future Foraging
Area
Future Total BA
Current Foraging
Area
Current Total BA
Future Foraging
Area
Future Total BA
98F 35.8 1864.0 65.9 3321.9 45.1 2379.9 108.0 5421.5
After implementation of the timber harvest treatments proposed in the Priority 4 project, cluster
98F would meet the foraging habitat recommendations under the Managed Stability Standard.
Construction of the rail spur would have no effect current or short-term future foraging habitat
because it would occur in stands that do not meet foraging criteria currently and are not expected
to meet the criteria following implementation of reasonably foreseeable forest management
activities (see map below).
Biological assessment Page 15
Biological assessment Page 16
Stands conditions for ¼ and ½ mile partition for Cluster 98F. Future conditions were estimated for after implementation of the activities proposed in the
Priority 4 project, so the values in the analysis above were based on the additional effects of rail spur construction.
Stands in ¼ mi. partition
Current condition
Trees/acre by size (dbh in inches) Basal area (ft2/acre) by size class
Stand Stand type Year of origin
Total acres
Acres in partition Total 5-9.9
10-13.9 14+ Total 5-9.9
10-13.9 14+
BA/ac 10in+
Total BA
10in+ Recovery standard
Stability standard Proposed treatment
0280020 Pines >30yr 1917 14 3.4 113.5 62.9 33.0 17.6 66.0 18.0 26.0 22.0 48.0 164.5 No Yes Select tree thinning
0280011 Pines >30yr 1982 72 26.2 349.0 333.0 16.0 0.0 96.0 86.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 No No Second row thinning
0980005 Pines >30yr 1942 101 30.1 109.3 42.7 37.5 29.1 86.3 13.8 30.0 42.5 72.5 0.0 No No Select tree thinning
0980004 Pines >30yr 1897 38 32.4 79.0 21.4 43.6 14.1 57.5 5.0 35.0 17.5 52.5 1699.5 No Yes No treatment
0280024 Wetland Unknown 35 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No No treatment
0980008 Wetland 1927 141 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No No treatment
0980009 Wetland 1924 121 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No No treatment
Future condition Trees/acre by size (dbh in inches) Basal area (ft2/acre) by size class
Stand Stand type Year of origin
Total acres
Acres in partition Total 5-9.9
10-13.9 14+ Total 5-9.9
10-13.9 14+
BA/ac 10in+
Total BA
10in+ Recovery standard
Stability Standard
0280020 Pines >30yr 1917 14 3.4 84.1 43.6 22.9 17.6 52.5 12.5 18.0 22.0 40.0 137.1 No Yes
0280011 Pines >30yr 1982 72 26.2 174.5 166.5 8.0 0.0 48.0 43.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 No No
0980005 Pines >30yr 1942 101 30.1 47.5 9.7 8.6 29.1 52.5 3.1 6.9 42.5 49.4 1485.2 Yes Yes
0980004 Pines >30yr 1897 38 32.4 79.0 21.4 43.6 14.1 57.5 5.0 35.0 17.5 52.5 1699.5 No Yes
0280024 Wetland Unknown 35 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No
0980008 Wetland 1927 141 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No
0980009 Wetland 1924 121 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No
Biological assessment Page 17
Stands in ½ mi. partition
Current condition
Trees/acre by size (dbh in inches) Basal area (ft2/acre) by size class
Stand Stand type Year of origin
Total acres
Acres in partition Total 5-9.9
10-13.9 14+ Total 5-9.9
10-13.9 14+
BA/ac 10in+
Total BA
10in+ Recovery Standard
Stability Standard Treatment
0280023 Pines <30yr Unknown 38 34.3 366.9 320.5 46.4 0.0 130.0 100.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 No No Second row thinning
0280020 Pines >30yr 1917 14 3.4 113.5 62.9 33.0 17.6 66.0 18.0 26.0 22.0 48.0 164.5 No Yes Select tree thinning
0280011 Pines >30yr 1982 72 31.7 349.0 333.0 16.0 0.0 96.0 86.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 No No Second row thinning
0980005 Pines >30yr 1942 101 62.8 109.3 42.7 37.5 29.1 86.3 13.8 30.0 42.5 72.5 0.0 No No Select tree thinning
0980004 Pines >30yr 1897 38 36.3 79.0 21.4 43.6 14.1 57.5 5.0 35.0 17.5 52.5 1903.6 No Yes No treatment
0980010 Pines >30yr 1910 62 5.5 56.4 3.1 30.3 22.9 58.6 1.4 25.7 31.4 57.1 311.8 Yes Yes Select tree thinning
0280024 Pines <30yr Unknown 35 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No No treatment
0280501 Pines <30yr Unknown 192 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No No treatment
0980500 Pines <30yr Unknown 82 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No No treatment
0980008 Wetland 1927 141 29.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No No treatment
0980009 Wetland 1924 121 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No No treatment
Future condition
Trees/acre by size (dbh in inches) Basal area (ft2/acre) by size class
Stand Stand type Year of origin
Total acres
Acres in partition Total 5-9.9
10-13.9 14+ Total 5-9.9
10-13.9 14+
BA/ac 10in+
Total BA
10in+ Recovery Standard
Stability Standard
0280023 Pines <30yr Unknown 37.7 34.3 183.5 160.2 23.2 0.0 65.0 50.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 No No
0280020 Pines >30yr 1917 13.7 3.4 84.1 43.6 22.9 17.6 52.5 12.5 18.0 22.0 40.0 137.1 No Yes
0280011 Pines >30yr 1982 72.2 31.7 174.5 166.5 8.0 0.0 48.0 43.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 No No
0980005 Pines >30yr 1942 100.6 62.8 47.5 9.7 8.6 29.1 52.5 3.1 6.9 42.5 49.4 3100.4 Yes Yes
0980004 Pines >30yr 1897 38.4 36.3 79.0 21.4 43.6 14.1 57.5 5.0 35.0 17.5 52.5 1903.6 No Yes
0980010 Pines >30yr 1910 62.3 5.5 48.9 2.4 23.5 22.9 52.5 1.1 20.0 31.4 51.4 280.4 Yes Yes
0280024 Pines <30yr Unknown 35.2 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No
0280501 Pines <30yr Unknown 191.6 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No
0980500 Pines <30yr Unknown 81.6 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No
0980008 Wetland 1927 141.0 29.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No
0980009 Wetland 1924 121.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No