a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Environmental Assessment for the Saint Marys Ecological Restoration Project Phase 2 . For More Information

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service June 2017

Environmental Assessment Saint Marys Ecological Restoration Project Phase 2

National Forests in Florida Osceola National Forest Baker County, Florida

Environmental Assessment for the Saint Marys Ecological Restoration Project Phase 2

For More Information Contact:

Ivan Green, District Ranger 24874 U.S. Highway 90 Sanderson, FL, 32087

386-752-2577

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

mailto:[email protected]

Environmental Assessment for the Saint Marys Ecological Restoration Project Phase 2

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Existing Conditions and the Need for Action .................................................................. 2 1.2 Desired Conditions ................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 The Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 4 1.4 The Forest Plan, Other Authorities, and Direction for Desired Conditions .......................... 4 1.5 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................... 6 1.6 Decision to Be Made ............................................................................................................. 7

2. The Proposed Action ................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Timber Thinning ................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Replacing Slash Pine Plantations with Longleaf................................................................... 8 2.3 Other Activities Related to the Proposed Action .................................................................. 8 2.4 Project Design Criteria .......................................................................................................... 9

3. Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Soils and Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 11 3.3. Management Indicator Species .......................................................................................... 12 3.4 Management Indicator Species – Plants ............................................................................. 13 3.5 Federally Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened (PET) Plant Species ............................... 13 3.6 R8 Regional Forester’s list of Sensitive Plants ................................................................... 13 3.7 Management Indicator Species - Wildlife ........................................................................... 14 3.8 Proposed, Endangered or Threatened Wildlife ................................................................... 15 3.9 R8 Regional Forester’s list of Sensitive Wildlife................................................................ 19 Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives for the Natural Community and Wildlife ................... 20 3.10 Effects on Commitment of Resources ............................................................................... 23 3.11 Forestry Economics ........................................................................................................... 23 3.12 Effects on Recreational Experience .................................................................................. 24 3.13 Effects on Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 24 3.14 Effects on Visual Quality .................................................................................................. 24 3.15 Environmental Justice and Civil Rights ............................................................................ 25 3.16 Public Safety ..................................................................................................................... 25

4. Consultation and Coordination .................................................................................................. 26 Appendix 1. The Proposed Action ................................................................................................ 29 Treatment....................................................................................................................................... 30

Appendix 2. Federally listed, Sensitive or Management Indicator Species ............................. 39 Table 1. Design criteria to be used to protect resources. ................................................................. 9 Table 2. Management Indicator Species applicable to this EA ..................................................... 12 Table 3. Harvest Treatments.......................................................................................................... 30 Table 4. Silvicultural Treatments .................................................................................................. 34 Table 5. Reconstruction ................................................................................................................ 36 Table 7. Management Indicator Species - Plants and Animals ..................................................... 40 Table 8. Federally listed species relevant to this EA ..................................................................... 40 Table 9. Region 8 Sensitive Wildlife Species relevant to this EA ................................................ 40 Table 10. Region 8 Sensitive plant species ................................................................................... 41 Figure 1. Location of the Osceola National Forest .......................................................................... 1 Figure 2. A transition to a healthier ecosystem. .............................................................................. 2 Figure 3. Saint Marys Phase 2 Proposed Action ........................................................................... 38 Figure 4. Project Area Haul Routes ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Environmental Assessment for the Saint Marys Ecological Restoration Project Phase 2 Page 1

Section 1. Introduction

1. Introduction The National Forests in Florida’s Osceola National Forest (OSC) covers approximately 240,000 acres held in public trust under the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. The OSC District office is located on U.S. Highway 90 approximately 12 miles east of Lake City, Florida, and about an hour’s driving time west of Jacksonville (Figure 1). The Interstate 10 corridor, roughly parallel to Highway 90, runs east and west through the lower section of the Forest. Visitors can’t access the Forest directly from the interstate, but must use exits onto Highway 90 near Sanderson or Lake City.

Figure 1. Location of the Osceola National Forest

Visitors to the area are met with a flat expansive terrain of pines, saw palmettos and scattered tall shrubs. The pine forests are intermixed with many pine/hardwood wetlands and swamps. Early settlers to this region describe the region as a “treed grassy plain” with large scattered pines and a low groundcover of herbaceous plants and bunch grasses. However, past human activities using extensive reforestation with slash pine and fire exclusion have left the forest with thick stands of suppressed pines and an understory dominance of woody shrubs and palmettos. These conditions substantially degrade wildlife habitat and alter natural ecosystem processes, particularly that of fire. This project continues restoration work within the Saint Marys Landscape Analysis Area, first evaluated for habitat improvement needs in 2005. A decision for the Saint Marys Ecological Restoration Project Phase 1 was signed in November 2015. The Phase 1 project covered timber thinning in three forest compartments for a total of 1,285 acres and about 120 acres of restoration cuts followed by replanting of longleaf pine. The sites proposed for the Saint Marys Phase 2 project address the same issues that required action for Phase 1:

1. A high number of pine stems per acre; 2. Excessive saw palmetto and woody shrubs in the understory; 3. The dominance of slash pine on sites that were historically longleaf forests; and



4. Heavy fire fuel loads that interfere with the application of moderate prescribed fire and increase risks of resource damage or danger to private property in the event of wildfires.

K. NeSmith

Figure 2. A transition to a healthier ecosystem.

The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action, as well as the consequences that would result from no action.

1.1 Existing Conditions and the Need for Action The OSC lies within the South Atlantic Coastal Plain flatwoods ecosystem which is fire-adapted and fire-dependent (Brockway 1997). One of the systems’ most defining characteristics without human alteration is its dependence on a regular occurrence of fire, resulting in scattered pines and a low groundcover of herbaceous plants and grasses (Frost 1998).

A recent timber thinning along with frequent prescribed-burning has stimulated this patch of lopsided indiangrass in one OSC stand.



Research and empirical evidence shows unequivocally that the longleaf pine/bunch grass vegetation community depends on frequent spring and summer fires (often more frequently than every 3 years) for desired ecosystem structure, function, and biodiversity. The ability to implement an appropriate fire regime figures large in the development of this project; fire facilitates seeding and flowering of groundcover species, reduces competing woody shrubs, and clears away the accumulation of dead vegetation (duff layer). In turn, low herbaceous plants, grasses and scattered needlecast play a crucial role when they exist as a continuous layer of fire fuel to carry low-intensity fires across the landscape. We are proposing this project in order to open up thick, overgrown stands needed for a healthy groundcover and to improve conditions to allow safe prescribed burning. Such activities are crucial if we want to provide for public safety and the protection of local infrastructure, support endemic wildlife populations, increase healthy vegetation communities, and restore ecosystem processes needed for a sustainable longleaf pine/flatwoods.

1.2 Desired Conditions This EA tiers to the Saint Marys Phase 1 EA and is in line with other restoration projects for the OSC that have been implemented or are being developed with similar goals as listed below. The major goals of the proposed action are to:

• Restore longleaf pine to appropriate sites; • Allow or mimic natural processes and patterns needed to maintain a rich diversity of

native plants and animals, particularly the sustainable application of an appropriate fire regime;

• Transition from a midstory dominated by shrubby hardwoods and saw palmetto to stands with at least a 40% groundcover of low, herbaceous plants and bunch grasses;

• Move forest conditions toward species composition and structure that reflects a healthy, functioning flatwoods ecosystem;

• Lower fire fuel loads to reduce risks to human safety, infrastructure and natural resources in the event of wildfire;

• Improve aesthetic qualities and provide for nature-based experiences that welcome forest users.

The Osceola staff hopes to work towards re-establishing natural processes or re-create conditions that, in the absence of human activity, would exist due to such ecosystem processes. Successful implementation of the proposed project activities would result in the following desired conditions:

1. Average stand basal areas (BA) between 40 and 60 square feet/basal area per acre for thinned mature stands;

2. Tree spacing sufficient to allow use of mowers to keep fuel loads down when prescribed burning isn’t possible due to weather or other obstacles;

3. Opening up the tree canopy so sunlight can reach native grasses and herbaceous plants; 4. Corridors of improved RCW habitat linking active clusters and recruitment areas; 5. Protected enclaves of higher, drier sites that are suitable for native oaks and associated

wildlife species;



6. Multi-aged pine stands providing for the ongoing recruitment of pines into the 14” diameter-at-breast (“dbh”) height class;

7. Patches of longleaf pine regeneration in mature stands.

1.3 The Proposed Action Treatment strategies that would serve project objectives are well-established by previous management actions and research findings. They include:

1. Use of restoration cuts to convert approximately 157 acres of slash pine plantations to longleaf pine;

2. Thin approximately 2,769 acres of mature pine stands that are currently at about 90 BA with an emphasis on retaining existing longleaf pine;

3. Thin approximately 1,511 acres of existing slash pine plantations; 4. One seed-tree removal for 16 acres; 5. Thinning in proposed longleaf pine plantations when needed to release saplings and accelerate

diameter-growth; 6. Enlarge existing natural openings (to about .25 to about .5 acres per each 10-acre site) in longleaf

pine areas for creation of longleaf regeneration patches; 7. Mowing thick woody shrub layers and palmetto in both plantations and mature stands to allow

seasonally appropriate prescribed burning and reduce competition for native ground cover; 8. Light roller-chopping followed by prescribed burning within six months in both plantations and

mature stands to reduce dominance of saw palmetto; 9. Mowing near wetland transition zones to facilitate prescribed burning towards the edges of

wetlands to reduce woody shrubs; 10. Removal of off-site loblolly pines and any dense stands of small-diameter hardwoods such as

water oaks (Quercus nigra) in upland sites where there has been an extended history of fire-suppression;

11. Retain enclaves of native oaks where elevated, drier sites transition into oak/pine vegetation communities.

1.4 The Forest Plan, Other Authorities, and Direction for Desired Conditions The Forest Plan Project outcomes and management strategies for project goals are defined by or derived from the 1999 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Florida (Forest Plan), current peer-reviewed scientific literature, and research and publications developed by specialists working with South Atlantic Coastal Plain pine flatwoods ecosystems and related vegetation communities. All sites proposed for treatment are within management areas (MA 7.1, or MA 7.3) categorized in the Forest Plan to allow for management longleaf and slash pine (p. 4-39). The conditions created by the proposed action relate directly to management direction given in the Forest Plan: maintain or restore ecosystem composition, manage for viable native wildlife and plant species, and to provide for the natural range of variability in all ecosystems (pp. 2-3, 2-4, 2-5).



Additional direction under the Forest Plan provides for the protection of archeological, historical and cultural sites. Forestwide Standards and Guidelines HE-1 through HE-17 describes procedures to protect sites and to comply with Florida state and Federal requirements. The decision that will be made in response to this EA, whether for the Proposed Action, or the No Action alternative, will be subject to relevant federal and state regulations. In particular, the following list of documents and regulatory items provide guidance for the planning and implementation of management strategies on the OSC.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account the potential impacts of activities on historic properties. Proposed activities for the OSC are evaluated and submitted for comment to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003 Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker The OSC RCW population is designated as part of a recovery population, in combination with the RCW populations located in the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in southeastern Georgia, approximately 40 miles north of the Forest. This means OSC RCW numbers will be evaluated in order to determine status of recovery by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The 2003 Recovery Plan provides specific habitat criteria and management direction for RCW on federal, state and private lands. Existing legislation, especially the Endangered Species Act (Section 7), requires that federal agencies conserve listed species and maintain biodiversity within their lands (2003 Recovery Plan, p. 133).

The National Fire Plan In September 2000, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and the Interior developed a plan to respond to that year’s devastating wildfires in order to reduce the impacts of these wildland fires on rural communities and to ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the future. The report is entitled “Managing the Impacts of Wildfire on Communities and the Environment: A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000”, or simply, the “National Fire Plan”. The National Fire Plan continues to be an integral part of the Forest Service today. One of the key points of the National Fire Plan is to reduce hazardous fuels and provide for the protection of communities from wildfire. Across the nation, wildfire has grown on the landscape and is predicted to get worse. This EA addresses hazardous fuels by thinning overstocked pine stands, mowing heavy fuels, and promoting the growth of finer fuels such as wiregrass, other native grasses, and herbaceous, non-woody groundcover vegetation. The following documents and reports will be used to assess current conditions and the need for treatment.

Osceola National Forest Ecological Condition Model (ECM) In 2009 a Forest-wide Landscape Scale Assessment was conducted on the Osceola to evaluate landscape ecological conditions based on comparisons between existing and desired conditions. Findings of the assessment were expressed as a detailed GIS-based (digitally-created maps and analysis) computer model that has quantified and mapped ecologically-based criteria for the entire OSC. The Ecological Condition Model (ECM) uses five condition classes or “Tiers” for describing the deviation from desired conditions, using criteria based on past fire intensities, fire frequencies, associated groundcover condition, and forest structure and stand age.



The Tiers describe the full range of forest conditions ranging from healthy, functioning areas (Tiers 1 and 2), to transitional areas (Tier 3), and to substantially degraded sites (Tiers 4 and 5). Areas that can be classified as Tier 1 or Tier 2 are in excellent to good condition, and need little in the way of management other than regular maintenance through prescribed burning. Tier 3 areas are in fair condition and primarily need increased fire frequency/ intensity or timber thinning. Tier 4 sites are in poor to very poor condition. Tier 5 designates pine plantations requiring continued substantial restoration activities. The higher scores are due to either undesirably high or low basal areas, a heavy understory of saw palmetto or woody shrubs due to a lack of fire, and a poor representation of herbaceous groundcover. The two highest ECM tiers (4 and 5) represent sites in need of substantial restoration efforts including dramatically increased fire frequency to achieve restoration, light roller-chopping in areas where saw palmetto exceeds cover of approximately 30%, and conversion of stands from off-site pine species to longleaf pine, where appropriate. Results from the ECM indicate that about 40% of the OSC flatwoods are in Tier 3 while about 47% are in Tiers 4 and 5. For the Saint Marys project area, most of the mature sites fall into Tiers 2 and 3. Thinning will facilitate mowing and prescribed fire needed to restore the herbaceous groundcover. However, stands probably won’t meet conditions for Tier 1 until saw palmetto has been reduced to 30% or less. This transition will eventually happen with a combination of prescribed burning, mowing, and light-roller chopping if needed. Fire is our most environmentally-appropriate and cost-effective tool for restoring and maintaining the longleaf/bunch grass ecosystem. The proposed action contributes to an appropriate fire regime, both in allowing effective summer burning and in reducing heavy fuels that contribute to extreme wildfire events. This EA tiers to the Saint Marys Phase 1 EA and is in line with other restoration projects for the OSC that have been implemented or are being developed with similar goals.

1.5 Public Involvement The Saint Marys landscape-scale analysis area were originally designated during the OSC shift towards landscape-scale analysis in 2005. The development of the project was listed as a proposal on the OSC Schedule of Proposed Actions on July 1, 2013 and updated periodically during subsequent analysis, including plans to break up the Saint Marys analysis area into separate EAs. A Decision to implement the Proposed Action for the Saint Marys Ecological Restoration Phase 1 (Forest Compartments 37, 39, and 52; PALS database #41184) was signed 11/24/2015. The Proposed Action for this EA, Saint Marys Ecological Restoration Phase 2 (PALS database # 47839), was developed to implement a land management plan and is therefore subject to the process for public comment and administrative review described in 36 CFR 218, subparts A and B. Pursuant to Forest Service regulations for public involvement and administrative review of agency decisions (36 CFR 218), a 30-day opportunity was initiated by a legal notice in the Newspaper of Record, the Lake City Reporter on 5/4/2017. A draft analysis of this document was made available at that time.



All of the activities proposed in this EA have been conducted in other areas and in similar ecosystem communities of the OSC. Discussions with interdisciplinary team members, other specialists and past comments from the public have been supportive of similar activities for ecosystem restoration and management.

1.6 Decision to Be Made Based on this Environmental Analysis, the District Ranger will make the decision whether to implement the Proposed Action, or to select the No Action Alternative. The No Action alternative would preclude any forest stand thinning. However, prescribed fire and similar hazardous fuels removal, where possible under the existing conditions, have been approved in other NEPA decisions and would continue. An open, sunlit forest with a low, biologically diverse groundcover and regular moderate to low- intensity fire is elemental to ecosystem health in the longleaf/flatwoods natural community. The use of timber thinning and prescribed fire for achieving these conditions are well-supported by research as well as past projects on the OSC. Therefore, this EA will focus on the analysis of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternatives: “When there are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources (NEPA, section 102(2)(E)) , the EA need only analyze the proposed action and proceed without consideration of additional alternatives.” (36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(i)).


Section 2. The Proposed Action

2. The Proposed Action 2.1 Timber Thinning Maps and tables are provided in Appendix 1 of this document. The thinning in mature stands would be implemented as single-tree selection, removing off-site slash pine or loblolly pine and choosing the healthiest, highest quality longleaf pine as “leave trees”. Old flat-topped longleaf pine, and trees once used for production of turpentine would be preserved, as well as some suppressed longleaf pine to provide for diversity in forest structure. Some existing openings might be selected for enlargement to about .25 to about .5 acres to mimic natural gaps that naturally create a multi-aged forest. Sites would be chosen based on concentrations of mature slash pine or loblolly pine that can be removed, naturally-occurring gaps that can easily be enlarged, and where there is a sufficient number of cone-producing longleaf pine in the adjacent area that could provide for natural regeneration. Some gaps may leave individual longleaf pine trees within the gap as a seed source that can be enlarged to provide for patches of natural longleaf pine regeneration. One stand was previously managed for reforestation as a seed-tree unit. Now the older seed trees will be removed. This stand was harvested in 2005 with an overstory of slash pine trees left to provide a seed source. Now the overstory pine will be removed. Slash pine plantations selected for thinning would have some sequence of planted rows removed. In the next ten to fifteen years it is anticipated that these plantations would again be thinned after sufficient diameter growth to reduce density and to soften the appearance of a planted forest.

2.2 Replacing Slash Pine Plantations with Longleaf Some younger slash pine plantations have been selected to be clearcut for removing all slash pine followed by replanting with longleaf pine. After the harvest these restoration cuts would be single-drum roller chopped to break up woody debris, followed by prescribed burning to prepare for longleaf planting. Sites selected for planting with native grass may be site-prepped before planting, similar to the preparation used before planting pine with one or a combination of single-drum roller chopping to break up harvest debris followed by prescribed burning. Some areas in the project site may be selected for planting to a native grass seed mix, such as wiregrass (Aristida sp.) and lopsided indiangrass (Sorgastrum secundum). The purpose may be for restoration of native groundcover in mature stands, or to create “nurseries” for future harvest. Log landings, skid trails or right-of-ways are all possible sites for planting.

2.3 Other Activities Related to the Proposed Action Related activities would include any needed road reconstruction. Location of roads to be used for haul routes and any needed reconstruction would be completed as sale areas are planned and before timber contracts are opened to the public for bidding. For the OSC, roads and haul routes used during project activities are selected to minimize disturbances to RCW clusters and to protect cultural resources. If approved, the implementation



of project activities will span several years. However, site conditions or unexpected weather events frequently delay the implementation of projects.

2.4 Project Design Criteria Table 1 describes the incorporation of project implementation practices to protect natural resources during management activities. Table 1. Design criteria to be used to protect resources.

Resource Design Criteria Soil and Water Quality Utilize Florida BMPs.

Suspend harvesting when ground conditions are excessively wet to minimize rutting and compaction. Location of skid trails, loading ramps, log decks and harvesting routes will be designated by the Forest Service in a manner to minimize soil compaction. Scatter logging slash on-site to minimize nutrient loss. Constraints will be set to limit piles to no higher than two feet above ground. Minimize stream crossings and designate before harvesting; If no other route of travel for equipment is available, equipment will cross wet areas and swamp strands perpendicular to the course of drainage. Ruts and berms or mounds left from repeated movement of equipment will be filled in or smoothed to restore a more even soil surface topography.

Visual Resources When possible, log landings and skid trails will be situated in areas to reduce visual impacts.

Plants – Listed or FS Region 8 Sensitive Plant Species and Plant Diversity

Use methods that will minimize soil displacement surface in the treated area, with the objective of maintaining the integrity of the native vegetation (especially wiregrass) over time. Seed or seed mixes used to stabilize soil after project activities will be either native to the southeast U.S. or, if no other option is available, a suitable species that is noninvasive. Avoid patches of longleaf pine regeneration. Relict longleaf trees (old, flat-topped trees), old turpentine trees, and snags (about 2 per acre) will be preserved.

Prevention of the introduction or spread of nonnative invasive plant species (NNIS)

Any mulch, fill, or seed used to stabilize or restore disturbed sites will be taken from weed-free sites. Nonnative plant species may be found on Forest Service land due to use of horticulture plants on private homesteads, illegal dumping, or inadvertant introduction by equipment. Any exotic species found will be be evaluated according to the Forestwide NNIS EA. Contractors must clean equipment before entering the OSC to remove any seeds, plants, plant fragments, or dirt and debris. Only equipment inspected by the Forest Service will be allowed to work in the project area. OSC crews returning from off-forest areas must clean equipment before returning to project work within the OSC. Contractors and OSC crews must also clean equipment before moving from a site within the OSC known to have NNIS infestations.



Resource Design Criteria Wildlife - Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened (PET) Species

RCW – USFWS 2003 Recovery Plan Guidelines will be followed to protect clusters and birds from damage or disturbance (Recovery Plan, p. 181). Heavy equipment will not be allowed within active RCW cluster boundaries during the nesting season (April 1 – July 31). At any time of the year, no heavy equipment will be allowed inside cluster boundaries within 2 hours of sunrise/sunset. The boundaries will be marked before project activities are implemented. Updated location maps must be available to COR staff and contract inspectors before activities begin. Staff responsible for inspecting related contract work will also check with the District Biologist and contract specialists working with RCW populations prior to activities to discuss potential nesting activity and nesting chronology. Implement USFWS standard eastern indigo snake protection measures (Appendix B). Harvesting crews will be advised of the potential occurrence of indigo snakes. Any indigo snakes encountered during activities will be protected and moved from the area by Forest Service staff or designated personnel. The appropriate Forest Service staff will be notified of sightings. Heavy fuels in wetland transition zones may be mowed provide soils are dry enough to allow the use of equipment.

FS Region 8 Sensitive Wildlife Species and Wildlife Diversity

Educate field personnel and contractors in gopher tortoise burrow identification. In potential gopher tortoise habitat, prohibit parking equipment within 25 feet of known gopher tortoise burrows. Equipment operators will be instructed to maintain a 25 foot distance during operations when previously unknown burrows are encountered.

Heritage Resources Protect resources under direction of District Archeologist prior to all activities as necessary to meet NHPA Section 106 compliance before implementation.


Section 3. Environmental Consequences

3. Environmental Consequences This section discusses the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to those environments resulting from the No Action alternative or from implementation of the Proposed Action.

3.1 Air Quality No Action Under the No Action Alternative, prescribed fire and management of heavy fire fuels due to palmetto and shrubs would still be implemented under other NEPA decisions. However, wildfire in existing dense timber stands could produce heavy smoke similar to conditions seen during the 2007 Bugaboo Wildfire, when local air quality alerts were issued due to poor air quality.

The Proposed Action The potential impact to air quality from the Proposed Action may be impacted due to machinery exhaust. Exhaust from timber harvesting equipment would cause a temporary effect on air quality. These effects would be expected to be minimal, short-term, and localized, with negligible direct and no indirect effects. Due to the localized and temporary nature of machinery-related exhaust, there would be no cumulative impacts from either alternative on air quality.

3.2 Soils and Water Quality No Action There would be no changes to soils or water resources under the No Action Alternative, with no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts.

The Proposed Action Direct and indirect impacts on soils and water quality related to project activities are expected to be short-lived and restricted to activity sites. The flat topography of the area (slopes are 0 to 2%) acts to minimize erosion and contain sediment release to the immediate project site during management activities. Local soil types have the lowest potential for erosion and sediment delivery to watercourses and tend to resist compaction from heavy equipment due to the high sand content. Timber Harvesting Timber harvesting would have some short-term, direct effects on soil. Harvesting equipment can cause rutting of the soil but this can be minimized by suspending harvesting activity during wet periods. No commercial harvesting would occur in wetlands or riparian areas; wetland crossings would be constructed only when unavoidable. Effects can be minimized by following the FDACS BMP Site Management Recommendations for area soils, Forestwide Standards and Guidelines of the Forest Plan, page 3-7, and Project Design Criteria in Table 1.



Road Reconstruction Some runoff can be expected to occur during the roadwork, but because of the flat topography of the project areas most of the resulting sediment release will be contained in the immediate project area and is not expected to raise sediment levels in any streams. The reconstruction work may involve some culvert replacement or contouring roadside ditches to reshape the roadbed. All work would adhere to Florida BMPs and Forest Service Standards as described in Forestwide Standards and Guidelines of the Forest Plan, page 3-7. Any roadside ditches that must be reworked will maintain gentle slopes to minimize erosion and accelerate revegetation. Wetland and stream crossings will be constructed only when unavoidable. No indirect effects to water quality would be expected because of the flat topography and wetland vegetation that acts as a filter along streambeds. Additionally, work typically takes place when soils are drier and rutting can be avoided. Most drains and small creeks on the Osceola are dry at these times; there would be no migration of sediment into permanent water bodies. Preparation for Re-planting Sites for re-planting back to native longleaf pine or native grasses may require preparation to break up woody debris. This may be prescribed-burning or single-drum roller chopping, or both. Impacts would be similar to those described for timber harvesting.

3.3. Management Indicator Species In 2011, Forest Plan Amendment 10 revised the list for plant and animal Management Indicator Species (MIS) in order to select species more closely linked to specific habitats and to remove redundancies where several species were members of the same biological community. Table 2. Management Indicator Species applicable to this EA

Habitat Species or groups Bog, Seepage Slope, Depression Marsh, and Wet Prairie/Savannahs

perennial fire-dependent graminoids woody shrubs/trees

Mesic Flatwoods and Wet Flatwoods red-cockaded woodpecker Bachman’s sparrow saw palmetto woody shrubs/trees perennial fire-dependent graminoids

Some species were added that could serve as negative indicators to demonstrate when ecosystem components were not optimal. Table 2 lists plant and animal species used in this EA to discuss potential impacts to the habitats that could be affected, either negatively or in a beneficial way, by the proposed action. For example, the dominance of



woody shrubs in forest stands has been referenced several times in this EA as a deterrent to a healthy low groundcover and as an impediment to an appropriate fire regime.

3.4 Management Indicator Species – Plants Two of the plants analyzed under the R8 Foresters Sensitive plant list, Pineland dropseed (Sporobolus curtissii) and Florida toothache grass (Ctenium floridanum) are in the category of perennial fire-dependent graminoids and can serve to indicate the health of the pine flatwoods ecosystem as MIS. The discussion of potential impacts to these plants is discussed below in the section on R8 sensitive plant species.

3.5 Federally Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened (PET) Plant Species Because no federally threatened plants have been found or are expected to occur on the OSC, there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from the implementation of the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action

3.6 R8 Regional Forester’s list of Sensitive Plants The R8 Regional Forester’s list of Sensitive Species (Appendix 2) was updated in January 2002 and numerous plant species were added. Sensitive plants known or likely to occur on the OSC are all components of the pine flatwoods community, an open, fire-maintained ecosystem. The absence of fire and related conditions that prevail when dense tree canopies shade groundcover, are primary factors in their lack of occurrence and subsequent listing.

The No Action Alternative Currently, high pine densities create a dense tree canopy, reducing sunlight at the forest floor and inhibiting the growth of a low herbaceous understory. This would continue to be detrimental to sensitive and endemic plants. Dense timber stands would make prescribed burning difficult to implement. Without a regular cycle of fire, R8 Sensitive plant species wouldn’t have conditions favorable for growth. A direct, negative effect would be the reduced time available for safe effective prescribed burning needed to restore and maintain the native ecosystem.

The Proposed Action Timber Harvesting Timber harvesting activities will directly affect site vegetation, including any sensitive plants. These impacts tend to be concentrated on skid trails, and log landings. The use of designated skid trails and log landings to remove timber would affect some of the vegetation along travel-ways. Individual plants located in these areas could be crushed, broken, uprooted or buried. Most perennial species can be expected to survive if they are not uprooted. The perennial grasses and forbs would be expected to recover quickly, since they will sprout after being broken off. Use of the Project Design Criteria (Table 1) would minimize risks to site vegetation; most areas disturbed during harvesting will re-vegetate naturally. Several areas may be selected for replanting to native grasses if needed.



Thinning opens up the pine canopy and increases the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor. Sensitive plants that can’t tolerate shade created by taller, woody vegetation or a dense pine canopy would immediately benefit from the increased sunlight. Road Reconstruction Following the guidelines provided by the Florida BMPs and the FEIS for Vegetation Management, reconstruction of existing forest roads should have little effect on sensitive plants or their habitat. Preparation for Re-planting Sites for re-planting back to native longleaf pine or wiregrass may require preparation to break up large woody debris. This may be accomplished by the use of prescribed-burning or single-drum roller chopping, or both. Impacts would be similar to those described for timber harvesting. Potential impacts from project activities would be reduced by following silviculture BMPs and by displacing no more than 10% of surface soil (Forest Plan, VG-18).The Plant Biological Evaluation for this project finds that the Proposed Action May Impact Individuals, but is Not Likely to Cause a Trend Toward Federal Listing or a Loss of Viability for sensitive plant species. Potential cumulative impacts to plants come from the repeated use of heavy equipment. After harvest and possible roller chopping to reduce palmetto dominance, re-entry into project sites would not occur again for ten to fifteen years. Forest Service specialists conducting botanical surveys have concluded that endemic vegetation, including sensitive and MIS plants, can maintain sustainable population levels after forest management activities such as the Proposed Action analyzed in this EA are implemented, as long as BMPs are followed and sufficient design criteria are implemented to minimize impacts. For these reasons, no adverse cumulative effects to sensitive and MIS plant species are anticipated.

3.7 Management Indicator Species - Wildlife RCW will be discussed under the federally listed wildlife section and the Bachman’s sparrow will be addressed in the sensitive wildlife species section so specific effects to these two species will not be repeated here. However, both are excellent indicators (Table 2) of a healthy pine flatwoods vegetation community and require similar ecosystem processes, particularly an appropriate fire regime, that serves so many other native plants and animals. The No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would eliminate the benefits of habitat diversity created by the reduction of pine density and a more open crown canopy. New growth from low forbs and herbaceous plant species would become less available due to the lack of sunlight reaching the forest floor. This would be an indirect negative effect by reducing arthropod populations and result in lower foraging quality for Bachman’s Sparrow.



The Proposed Action Reducing the dense canopy cover would provide indirect beneficial effects as increased sunlight allows for the growth of more herbaceous plants. There would be beneficial effects in the long term when prescribed burning activities become easier to implement due to removal of excessive fuel loads. When fuel loads are lower, risks of extreme fire behavior are reduced, and parameters for conducting prescribed burning are less restrictive. When there are more “windows of opportunity” for burning, it is easier to maintain a regular fire cycle. Regular burning means there is more high quality foraging for quail, white-tailed deer, turkey and other endemic wildlife dependent on a healthy, herbaceous ground cover. Forest thinning is one of several factors identified as being favorable to wildlife (Marion 1982). Although bird communities may change from early-successional species to shrub-associated species as pine plantations age, abundance and richness of avifauna increases in thinned stands with greater variance in vegetation structure than in stands that had not been thinned (Allen et al. 1996).

3.8 Proposed, Endangered or Threatened Wildlife The Forest Plan provides the following guidance for managing federally listed species and analyzing how projects may affect them: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is responsible for listing proposed, endangered, and threatened species. The Forest Service cooperates with that agency's efforts in conserving these species. The Forest Service conducts activities and programs to assist in the identification and recovery of threatened and endangered plant and animal species. Site-specific evaluations are conducted for any proposed activity that may take place within habitat for these species or near known populations. Measures are taken to avoid adverse effects (USDA 1999a, p. 3.17-3.18). To comply with requirements for interagency consultation in Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, a biological assessment (BA) was prepared to determine the effects of the proposed action on federally listed species. No species proposed for listing occur in the project area. The findings of the BA are listed below. Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana)


Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi)


Frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum)


The analysis in the BA for each species is summarized below along with the effects of all other alternatives. Based on known occurrences of listed species and suitable habitat in or near the project area, the species included in the BA are the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides



borealis), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) and wood stork (Mycteria americana). The rationale for not analyzing other species that may occur or are known to occur on the Osceola National Forest is provided in the BA.

Red-cockaded woodpecker The Osceola National Forest contains a large population of RCW that has continued to grow despite regular removal of fledglings for the species’ translocation program. In 2003, when the revised RCW Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003) was finalized, an estimated 63 active clusters inhabited the forest. Currently, the forest provided habitat for 145-152 active clusters. The St. Marys project area contains cavity trees or foraging habitat of 9 RCW clusters. Because implementation would follow guidance in the RCW Recovery Plan to minimize impacts to RCW, including seasonal limits on timber harvest and avoiding cavity trees, the proposed action will have no direct effects on RCW. The BA includes a detailed foraging habitat analysis used to evaluate indirect effects mediated by habitat modification. Overall, this analysis shows that implementation of the proposed timber harvest activities would not reduce foraging habitat below the cluster-level Managed Suitablility Standard (MSS) for foraging habitat (at least 75 ac. meeting the structural criteria with >3,000 sqft of >10 in. dbh trees) for any clusters or further reduce habitat for clusters already below the standard. Because the proposed timber harvest will result in stand structure meeting the MSS criteria for many stands that are currently too dense (i.e., >80 BA), the foraging habitat for most clusters increase following implementation. Two clusters currently deficient in foraging habitat (52A and 52B) would have a reduction in > 10 in. dbh trees within the ¼-mi. partition but would still meet the 3,000 sqft standard within the ½-mi. partition. The forest management activities proposed in the St. Marys project, when combined with past, present, and future management activities, are expected to be beneficial for RCWs. The proposed thinning treatments and woody vegetation control would open up the canopy stimulating groundcover. Trees in the thinned stands would continue to grow and stand structure would move toward the criteria for good quality foraging habitat described in the RCW Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003, p. 188-189). Previously approved and ongoing prescribed burning would improve and maintain these more open conditions favored by the RCW. In conclusion, all USFWS guidance for minimizes potential disturbance to RCWs will be followed. 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 because timber harvest and hauling will not be conducted in clusters during the breeding season. Conditions in the project area would be improved by thinning overstocked stands, restoring groundcover and increasing the frequency of prescribed fire. The BA found that implementing the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect RCW.



The no action alternative would have no direct effects on RCW because no proposed activities would be implemented. Indirect effects would include persistence of dense stands and palmetto-dominated understory that are not characteristic of high-quality RCW habitat.

Eastern indigo snake The historical range of this species extended throughout the lower Coastal Plain of the southeastern United States, from southern South Carolina through Georgia to the Florida Keys, and west to southern Alabama and perhaps southeastern Mississippi. However, the current range includes only southern Georgia and Florida; the species is very rare or extirpated in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Recent reintroductions have been made in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Mississippi. Habitat includes sandhill regions dominated by mature longleaf pines, turkey oaks, and wiregrass; flatwoods; most types of hammocks; coastal scrub; dry glades; palmetto flats; prairie; brushy riparian and canal corridors; and wet fields. Occupied sites are often near wetlands and frequently are in association with gopher tortoise burrows (NatureServe2013). In the northern part of its range, including north Florida where this project is located, the indigo snake is highly dependent on gopher tortoise burrows as a refuge from cold winter temperatures (Moler 1992). Although suitable habitat exists in the St. Marys project area, the eastern indigo snake is extremely rare or absent on the OSC with the last confirmed sighting in 1977 (Enge et al. 2013). Although suitable habitat exists in the St. Marys project area, the eastern indigo snake is extremely rare or absent on the Osceola National Forest with the last confirmed sighting in 1976 or 1977 (Enge et al. 2013). Species specific surveys have not been conducted for this proposed project, but this species is unlikely to occur in the project area because preferred habitat is very limited. However, due to potential occurrence and presence of suitable habitat, it is possible that indigo snakes either currently occur or could occur in the analysis area in the future. If any actions are approved in the St. Marys project area, coordination measures for implementation would include following the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s eastern indigo snake protection measures as well as state guidelines for avoiding harm to gopher tortoises or their burrows. The proposed activities are unlikely to directly affect indigo snakes because they are not known to currently inhabit the project area and if they were present it is unlikely that implementation of project activities would harm individuals or degrade habitat. Long-term indirect effects would be positive as timber thinning and increased application of prescribed fire would improve conditions throughout the project area. This should increase the gopher tortoise population currently found along the southern edge of the project area and indirectly support better indigo snake habitat. In conclusion, the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect indigo snakes. The no action alternative would have no direct effects on indigo snakes because no proposed activities would be implemented. Indirect effects would include persistence of dense stands and palmetto-dominated understory that are not characteristic of high-quality indigo snake habitat.



Frosted flatwoods salamander This species’ range includes the lower southeastern Coastal Plain of the United States from southern South Carolina southward to Marion County (north-central Florida) and disjunctly westward through southern Georgia and northern Florida to the Apalachicola and Flint rivers (mid-Panhandle of Florida and northward) (NatureServe 2013). Habitat consists of pine flatwoods communities with wiregrass groundcover and scattered wetlands often dominated by cypress and gum. Frosted flatwoods salamanders usually breed in ephemeral ponds that lack predatory fish and have emergent vegetation (Hipes et al 2001). Threats include conversion of pine flatwoods habitat for agriculture, silviculture, or commercial/residential development; drainage or enlargement (with subsequent introduction of predatory fishes) of breeding ponds; habitat alteration resulting from suppression of fire; mortality and collecting losses associated with crayfish harvest; and highway mortality during migration (NatureServe 2013). In 2009 the USFWS designated critical habitat for the frosted flatwoods salamander, including approximately 550 ac. around historical breeding ponds in compartment 77 in the southeastern corner of the forest and approximately 160 ac. around a single pond east of the forest outside the proclaimed boundary. No recent breeding activity has been observed at either of these sites, which are, respectively, 4 miles south and 2 miles southeast of the St. Marys project area. Several surveys in the 1990s found salamander larvae in the ponds in compartment 77 but none have been found since 1996. There are no known occurrences of frosted flatwoods salamanders in this project area and habitat conditions are currently not suitable for this species. The nearest records are from breeding ponds approximately 2 mi. southeast (off of the forest) and 4 mi. south; salamanders have not been found at these sites since the 1990s. Therefore, implementation of the proposed activities would have no direct effects on this species. Long-term indirect effects would be positive as application of prescribed fire would improve potential breeding habitat within wetland ecotones of the project area. In conclusion, the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect flatwoods salamanders. The no action alternative would have no direct effects on RCW because no proposed activities would be implemented. Indirect effects would include persistence of woody vegetation in isolated wetlands that could be potential breeding sites and sub-optimal upland habitat.

Wood stork Habitat preferences for breeding and foraging of wood storks are described in the USFWS habitat management guidelines (USFWS 1990). Wood storks nest in colonies and forage in shallow water areas. In general, the decline of this species is due to water control projects, which altered the hydroperiod and reduced the available food. Some nesting sites have been lost through habitat degradation. Nesting wood storks usually do most of their feeding away from the colony site (>5 miles), but considerable stork activity does occur close to the colony during two periods in the nesting cycle. Adult storks collect most nesting material in and near the colony, usually within 2500 feet. Additionally, newly fledged storks spend 1-4 weeks during the fledging process flying locally in the colony area and perching in nearby trees. These birds return daily to their



nests to be fed. It is essential that these fledglings experience little or no disturbance within as much as one-half mile from the colony. Birds from colonies outside the Osceola National Forest occasionally forage in the Forest's wetlands when water conditions are favorable. Additionally, a historic rookery has been identified northeast of Ocean Pond south of the St. Marys project area. Nesting was documented for the first time on the Osceola National Forest in April 1997. More recently, in the spring of 2012 a small wood stork rookery was found in the southwestern corner of the Osceola approximately 14 miles from this project area. The proposed activities would have no direct effects on wood storks because the nearest rookery is outside of the analysis area and the proposed action would not occur in potential roosting, breeding or foraging habitats. Long-term indirect effects would be positive; increasing prescribed fire within the project area would decrease woody shrubs along wetland edges and increase preferred feeding habitat of open wetlands. In conclusion, the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect wood storks. The no action alternative would have no direct effects on wood storks because no proposed activities would be implemented. Indirect effects would include persistence of woody vegetation in and surrounding wetlands that could potentially be future breeding or foraging sites.

3.9 R8 Regional Forester’s list of Sensitive Wildlife The R8 sensitive species Sherman’s fox squirrel, Bachman’s sparrow, gopher tortoise, striped newt, Florida pine snake, and the Arogos skipper are all linked to open, fire-maintained pine flatwoods. The presence of a low groundcover of endemic bunch grasses and forbs is critical, either for nesting, foraging, or for the physical vegetative structure that allows access across forest stands or which facilitates beneficial fire. The Bachman’s Sparrow prefers open pine stands with low scattered bunch grasses for nesting sites and foraging. The distribution of the Arogos skipper is linked to two grasses in particular: lopsided indiangrass (Sorghastrum secundum) and Andropogon sp. The absence of these grasses removes food and structure needed for natal development for the skipper. Like the federally listed frosted flatwoods salamander, the striped newt travels to ephemeral ponds in the pine flatwoods for breeding. A thick layer of duff on the forest floor and heavy shrub and saw palmetto stems blocks access to the ponds. The gopher tortoise is generally found in more xeric flatwoods where the water table is lower. Probably the most critical component of good gopher tortoise habitat, however, is frequent fire that is needed for a dominant herbaceous groundcover. The replacement of longleaf pine by slash pine has caused the loss of nutritious longleaf seeds needed by Sherman’s fox squirrel. Heavy, large longleaf pine seeds are a favorite food and an important source of protein for Sherman’s fox squirrels and other small



mammals. In turn, an abundance of small mammals supports Florida pine snake populations. For all of the above species, open, fire-maintained stands with a low grassy, herbaceous groundcover represent high-quality habitat. The SE big-eared bat may possibly occur in the OSC but its primary habitat occurs further north in the region. However, the species can roost under the bark of large trees; thinning dense pine stands would retain the physical structure of a mature forest.

The No Action Alternative Prescribed burning that would continue under previous NEPA decisions would, in part, reduce heavy ground cover and midstory, but the dense pine canopy would remain as unfavorable habitat for wildlife species. The No Action alternative would likely result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for most of the R8 Sensitive Species.

The Proposed Action Based on the findings from similar projects, we anticipate that for the R8 Sensitive Species Sherman’s fox squirrel, Bachman’s sparrow, SE big-eared bat and the Arogos skipper the Proposed Action may impact individuals but is not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of population viability.

Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives for the Natural Community and Wildlife Generally, cumulative impacts from timber activity, whether beneficial or negative, peak as the direct and indirect effects of two or more projects intersect at some point on a time spectrum or some geographic location, then begin to diminish as planted areas grow or the growth of thinned timber increases volume and density levels back towards pre-project conditions. Potential cumulative impacts relate to changes in forest fragmentation, forest seral stage, and forest structure and composition. Past experience with similar projects allows us to reasonably select the Saint Marys Restoration area as the extent of impact with regards to temporal and spatial cumulative effects. The nature of local soils, the flat topography of the pine flatwoods, and the mosaic of swamps and wetlands throughout the uplands eliminate many potential negative impacts of a cumulative nature. Potential cumulative effects on soils and water resources would involve impacts to soil productivity and sediment loads due to repeat entries into areas for future projects or migration of sediment from other project sites. Again, the physical characteristics of OSC soils and topography confine impacts to immediate project sites. Local soils have little propensity to migrate or compact. The extensive, thick underground roots of palmetto and bunch grass rhizomes help hold soils in place. Additionally, re-entry into specific project sites is not anticipated for at least 10 to 15 years after each action. The localized nature of any potential impacts to soils or water resources and the geographic separation of activities from previous project sites will prevent adverse cumulative impacts to soils and water resources.



Forest Seral Stages and Fragmentation With this proposal, several stands have been evaluated for clearcutting and restoration to longleaf pine with a total of about 157 acres proposed for reforestation. In combination with Saint Marys Phase 1, this totals up to about 290 acres. With the current proposal, the total number of acres in restoration cuts remains at about 5% of the total project area. Restoration cuts fill the niche of early successional forests (Hoctor 2006). Natural ecological disturbance has a role in the southern flatwoods ecosystem and provides heterogeneity in vegetation structure that benefits a number of bird species (Brawn 2001). Fire, wind events, and tree mortality from bug kill are factors that created patch openings in the presettlement forest. At about 7 years after planting, early-successional avian species begin to use the restoration cuts. Different assemblages of species dominate each growth phase as regeneration occurs. Also, implementation of three or more restoration cuts is rarely concurrent, given the complexities of project bidding, weather, harvester preferences and timber mill quotas. Even if these cuts were implemented at the same time, the matrix of different vegetation communities maintains habitat for wildlife species (Allen 1996). All planned and proposed restoration cuts are scattered and would be bounded by intact forest stands as well as myriad swamp strands and wetlands. These tracts of forests and swamps continue to provide cover for bears, deer and other wildlife. The creation of several successional stages as reforestation activities progress would not present adverse cumulative effects. Additionally, the small amount of land involved in clearcutting at any given time will have negligible direct, indirect or cumulative effects on wildlife. Forest Species Composition Species composition may be changed slightly as longleaf pine is selected as “leave trees” over slash pine, depending on the site and existing stand densities. While preference for longleaf will increase the number of individual trees available to RCW in the future, the change would be too gradual to create any adverse cumulative effects. Forest Structure In immature plantations, pine stem volumes can reach pre-project volumes within about 10 years depending on tree age, degree of thinning, and site conditions. However, past thinnings usually resulted in a post-project BA of about 70 square foot/acre. For RCW, the proposed degree of thinning in this analysis will take pine volumes to a range of 40 to 60 BA in order to comply with the 2003 RCW Recovery Plan. The lower BA will most likely delay re-entry into the stands for subsequent thinnings needed to maintain an open park-like condition that the RCW prefers; the proposed stands will probably not be re-evaluated for another twenty years or longer. For mature pine stands, the post-project BA will remain close to targeted levels for several more decades. The goal of management is to continue thinning dense pine stands for larger contiguous stands of quality wildlife habitat.



As more stands are thinned under this EA, we anticipate beneficial cumulative effects to the RCW by opening up these dense stands. Forest Fragmentation Cumulative effects of reforestation cuts need to be evaluated in terms of forest fragmentation. As stated previously, the areas selected for clearcutting in this EA represent about 5% of the total project area. It is anticipated that the timber management activities proposed in this EA will continue to benefit endemic plants and wildlife, with no adverse cumulative effects due to forest fragmentation or forest structure.

The No Action Alternative The dense pine stands would continue to represent unsuitable habitat for RCW and remain as obstacles to exchange and dispersal of birds between clusters. Additionally, without thinned stands to create flyway corridors, new additional recruitment stands would remain unavailable as potential roosting and nesting sites. Recent gains in the RCW population would be offset as fire fuels increase and further impact habitat restoration efforts. If current conditions continue, dense pine stands and heavy fire fuels will continue to suppress nutritious wildlife forage such as herbaceous plants and seed-bearing grasses, reduce the availability of prey for RCW and indigo snakes, and restrict movement to other areas suitable as habitat. The Proposed Action Cumulatively, the combination of the Proposed Action and similar projects will continue to move towards the desired conditions of open stands and a low, herbaceous groundcover favored by RCW. These conditions more closely resemble presettlement South Atlantic Coastal Plain pine flatwoods important to Bachman’s sparrow.

Cumulative Effects to Plants Federally Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened (PET) Plant Species Because no federally threatened plants have been found or are expected to occur on the OSC, there would be no cumulative effects from the implementation of the No Action Alternative or the Proposed Action

R8 Regional Forester’s list of Sensitive Plants and Management Indicator Species

The No Action Alternative Although prescribed fire would continue with the No Action Alternative under the Saint Marys Prescribed Burn EA, constraints to burning would remain due to the presence of heavy fire fuels and a regular fire regime would be harder to maintain. Most of the plants that have been listed as sensitive are fire-maintained; prescribed fire on a 3-to-5 year cycle is needed to reduce woody shrubs and to stimulate native groundcover. Currently, high pine densities create a dense tree canopy, reducing sunlight at the forest floor and inhibiting the growth of a low herbaceous understory. This would continue to be detrimental to sensitive and endemic plants, seeding would be delayed or eliminated. Over time, local populations of sensitive plants could be extirpated from the area.



The adverse effects of high pine densities and lack of prescribed burning would continue through time, and stands in the Saint Marys area would not be restored back to a healthy ecosystem.

3.10 Effects on Commitment of Resources An irreversible (one-way) commitment of resources occurs when resources are affected in a manner (consumption or loss) which cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the extreme long term. Examples include extirpation of an endangered species, and mining of minerals and fossil fuels. Another example would be if soil or water is contaminated and cannot be decontaminated. An irretrievable commitment of a resource occurs when resources are lost for a period of time. One example would be the timber productivity of a road right-of-way. If a renewable resource is lost for a period of time because of an allocation decision it is an irretrievable commitment.

The No Action Alternative There will be no irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources with this alternative.

The Proposed Action In the Proposed Action some timber would be removed with harvest thinnings and clearcuts. While this is an irretrievable commitment of resources (lost for a period of time), it is not irreversible (one-way) since tree growth would replace lost volumes. Heavy equipment used during tree removal and road maintenance activities could lead to soil compaction, soil erosion, loss of soil productivity, increased stream sedimentation, and a reduction in water quality. These would be irretrievable losses. Harvesting under the FDACS BMPs would prevent these possible losses.

3.11 Forestry Economics The No Action Alternative There would be no changes to the area’s current economic status.

The Proposed Action The Proposed Action is estimated to provide 30,000 CCF (1 unit is 100 cubic feet of wood) for a value of about 1.3 million.



3.12 Effects on Recreational Experience None of the areas being analyzed in this EA are directly adjacent to developed recreation sites. Dispersed recreation opportunities that may occur closer to proposed project sites primarily involve hunting, hiking, recreational driving or horseback riding.

The No Action Alternative There would be no effects on recreation from the No Action Alternative.

The Proposed Action Stand 10 in Forest Compartment 39 occurs in the area of the Seventeen Mile hunt camp which is popular during hunting season. The camp will be temporarily closed during implementation of harvest activities for public safety, and users will be directed to other camping areas. There would be some detraction from the natural setting within project areas for two to three months due to the presence of harvest and road re-construction activities. Harvest traffic would temporarily increase along forest roads used as haul routes. There would be no negative cumulative effects to recreation as a result of the Proposed Action. Ultimately, more open stands provide a broader view of the landscape and are more aesthetically pleasing.

3.13 Effects on Cultural Resources The No Action Alternative There would be no impact to Cultural Resources under the No Action Alternative.

The Proposed Action All project area have been surveyed for cultural resources (as prescribed by Section 106 of the NHPA) and consultation is complete with the by Florida’s State Historic Preservation Office and consulting tribes. All areas containing cultural resources will be marked for avoidance before ground-disturbing project activities begin. If unanticipated cultural resources are discovered during the proposed action, work will stop until the site has been delineated and any necessary mitigation completed. As a result, this alternative is not expected to have any adverse effect on cultural resources.

3.14 Effects on Visual Quality The No Action Alternative There would be no changes to visual quality.

The Proposed Action. A temporary negative impact on visual quality would result from activities in the areas proposed for restoration cuts. Scattered logging slash and remnant hardwood stems can create a raw appearance after a clearcut. This appearance would be less striking as native vegetation grows in, and the visual appearance of these cuts would improve steadily as planted longleaf continued to grow.



Initially after treatment, the use of row thinning in the plantations will result in an artificial appearance. However, this visual effect will soften with natural mortality and subsequent re-entries in the next twenty years to twenty-five years. When activities are complete, the mature stands will have a more open appearance, and immediately provide beneficial scenic qualities.

3.15 Environmental Justice and Civil Rights The Forest Service must consider the impacts of all proposals on consumers, civil rights, minority groups, and women under Forest Service Manual (FSM) 1730 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15-24.

The No Action Alternative Failure to implement the Proposed Action would result in a continued risk of wildfire to private communities adjacent to the OSC.

The Proposed Action. The Proposed Action does not favor or affect any one particular group. Past actions that are similar to the Proposed Alternative have shown that these actions do not affect one group of people differently from any other group and should have no effect on civil rights, minorities, or women. There are no foreseeable changes in the management of the forest or surrounding private lands that would adversely affect the civil rights of people in the future.

3.16 Public Safety The No Action Alternative The heavy fuel load associated with dense timber stands would continue to increase risks of extreme fire behavior and severity, a safety issue for adjacent homeowners and firefighters involved in wildfire suppression.

The Proposed Action All activities are monitored by Forest Service personnel to minimize risks to any forest users during implementation of project work. Thinning timber stands and related fuel reduction activities would lower risks of extreme wildfire behavior. These actions would increase safety for visitors and residents in the OSC.


Section 4. Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives Page 26 of 47

4. Consultation and Coordination The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this environmental assessment: ID Team Members, Osceola District:

Jonathan Robinson, TMA Christopher Lydick, Archeologist Pete Myers, Fire Management Officer Debra Stucki, Recreation Planner Clay Coleman, Engineering Technician Cynthia Thompson, NEPA Coordinator


Page 27 of 47

Literature Cited/Additional Resources Allen, Arthur W.; Y.Y. Bernal, and R.J. Moulton. 1996. Pine Plantations and Wildlife in the Southeastern United States: An Assessment of Impacts and Opportunities. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Biological Service. Information and Technical Report 3. Bailey, R. 1995. Descriptions of the Ecoregions of the United States. http://www.fs.fed.us/land/ecosysmgmt/index.html Brawn, Jeffrey D. et al. 2001. The Role of Disturbance in the Ecology and Conservation of Birds. Annu.Rev.Ecol Syst. 32:251-76. Brockway, Dale G. et al. 2006.Longleaf Pine Regeneration Ecology and Methods. In The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem. Ecology, Silviculture, and Restoration. Jose, S., Jokela, E. and Miller, D. eds. Springer Series on Environmental Management. Buckner, E. Prehistory of the Southern Forest. Forest Farmer. July/August 1995. 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. Ford, W. Mark; K. Russell, and C.E. Moorman., eds. 2002. Proceedings: the Role of Fire for Nongame Wildlife Management and Community Restoration: Traditional Uses and New Directions: 2000 September 15; Nashville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-288. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 145 p. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Sciences. Silviculture Best Management Practices. Revised 2003. Frost, Cecil C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: a first approximation. In Leonard Brennan and Teresa L. Pruden (eds.) Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, No. 20. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. Hipes, D., D.R. Jackson, K. NeSmith, D. Printiss, and K. Brandt. 2001. Field guide to the rare animals of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Tallahassee, FL. Hermann, S.M. 2001. A Brief Overview of Fire and Season on Burn in Native Longleaf Pine Ecosystems. in Longleaf Alliance Report No. 5. p. 53. Proceedings of the Third Longleaf Alliance Regional Conference, July 2001. Hoctor, et al. 2006. Spatial Ecology and Restoration of the Longleaf Pine Evosystem. In The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem. Ecology, Silviculture, and Restoration. Jose, S., Jokela, E. and Miller, D. eds. Springer Series on Environmental Management.


Page 28 of 47

Moler, P. E. 1992. Eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi. pp. 181-186 in Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Vol. III, Amphibians and Reptiles. P. E. Moler, ed. Univ. Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. 291 pp. NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: July 24, 2013). Noel, Jill M.; W.J. Platt and E. B. Moser. Structural Characteristics of Old- and Second-Growth Stands of Longleaf Pine (Pinus Palustris) in the Gulf Coastal Region of the U.S.A. 1997. Conservation Biology, Pages 533-548. Volume 12, No. 3. Outcalt, Kenneth W. 2000. The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem of the South. Native Plants Journal Vol. 1, No.1. Shibu, Jose; Eric J. Jokela, and Deborah L. Miller, eds. 2006. The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem. Ecology, Silviculture, and Restoration. Stanturf, J.A. et all. 2003. Southern Forest Resource Assessment. Background Paper: Fire in Southern Forest Landscapes. Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Southern Region. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. 1989. Management Bulletin R8-MB-23. Record of Decision for Supplement of October 2002. Management Bulletin R8-MB-98B. USDA Forest Service. Forest Service Southern Region. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests in Florida. Management Bulletin R8-MB-83A. February 1999. 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. 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]. 2009. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander; Designation of Critical Habitat for Frosted Flatwoods Salamander and Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander; Final Rule. Federal Register. 74(26):6700-6773.


Appendix 1. The Proposed Action


Table 3. Harvest Treatments

Mgmt. Area Treatment Compartment Stand Acres BA

7.3 Thin Pine to 50 BA 9 3 165 90

6 99 85

10 78 80

19 207 90

20 36 110

10 1 56 80

5 15 60

6 92 120

9 31 120

11 21 90

12 93 110

14 17 90

16 158 80

31 1 265 68

5 140 92

14 58 72

21 76 72

32 141 80

34 2 66 80

11 37 90

15 49 100

20 28 80



Thin Pine to 50 BA 32 39 80

33 160 90

35 5 53 90

7 82 110

12 78 80

13 104 100

17 137 80

23 94 90

29 64 80

53 1 273 120

4 49 90

9 43 250

12 9 230

28 10 70

7.3 Row Thinning 9 8 62 120

12 73 90

13 53 110

17 13 100

21 67 100

10 2 45 190

13 56 120

15 34 140

19 50 150

21 14 100

23 11 210



Row Thinning 26 31 190

31 6 23 90

7 25 133

8 19 110

9 16 113

10 19 107

11 24 73

12 30 113

13 39 98

15 34 90

16 59 50

30 57 96

34 5 61 100

10 51 120

13 56 140

17 6 100

22 74 60

35 1 84 110

6 76 90

14 70 130

18 65 80

20 55 120

53 7 47 90

14 69 110

15 33 100



Restoration Cut 9 7 8 70

10 3 38 210

31 4 39 116

18 72 62

Seed Tree Removal 31 3 16


Table 4. Silvicultural Treatments

Mgmt. Area Treatment Compartment Stand Acres Total

7.3 Site Prep w/ Drum Chopper, Burn, Plant LLP*, Release LLP 9 7 8

10 3 38

31 4 39

18 72

*LLP = Longleaf Pine


Mgmt. Area Treatment Comp Stand Cert Stems per acre

7.3 Release w/ Hand Tools 9 7

10 3

31 4

18


Table 5. Reconstruction

Road Number

Miles in Comp.

Present Status (open or closed)

Maintenance Level Miles of Road Work

202 5.53

Open ML 3

5.53

20201 0.42

Admin ML 2 0.42

20207 1.42

Open ML 2 1.42

20209 0.81 Admin ML 2 0.81 20210

0.16 Open

ML 2 0.16 20211

0.50 Open

ML 2 0.50 20212

0.46 Admin

ML 2 0.46 202-A

1.30 Open

ML 2 1.30 202-B

1.63 Open

ML 2 1.63 202-G

2.18 Open

ML 2 2.18 202-H

1.55 Open

ML 2 1.55 203

0.47 Open

ML 3 0.47 20301

0.56 Open

ML 2 0.56 204

2.07 Open

ML 3 2.07 20404

0.36 Admin

ML 2 0.36 204-A

1.14 Admin

ML 2 1.14 204-B

1.23 Open

ML 2 1.23 205

3.31 Open

ML 3 3.31 20502

0.47 Admin

ML 2 0.47 20503

0.63 Open

ML 2 0.63 205-A

1.67 Open

ML 2 1.67 231

4.06 Open

ML 3 4.06 23103

0.76 Open

ML 2 0.76 23107 0.44 Admin ML 2 0.44 23108

2.19 Open

ML 2 2.19 231-A

0.90 Admin

ML 2 0.90


231-B 1.00

Admin ML 2 1.00

231-E 2.09

Open ML 2 2.09

250-AA 1.24

Open ML 2 1.24

250-G 1.60

Admin ML 2 1.60

250-V 2.00

Open ML 2 2.00

250-X 1.33

Open ML 2 1.33

276 7.85

Open ML 3

6.7

27601 0.56

Admin ML 2 0.56

27606 0.75

Admin ML 2 0.75

27615 0.44

Admin ML 3 0.44

276-K 0.29

Admin ML 2 0.29

276-L 0.32

Open ML 2 0.32

294-A 2.05

Open ML 2 2.05

BAK-125 3.00

Open ML 5 0

BAK-229 2.00

Open ML 5 0

BAK-250 15.86

Open ML 5 0

*This should include maintenance for the sale and reconstruction.


Figure 3. Saint Marys Phase 2 Proposed Action


Appendix 2. Federally listed, Sensitive or Management Indicator Species


Table 6. Management Indicator Species - Plants and Animals

Habitat Species or groups Bog, Seepage Slope, Depression Marsh, and Wet Prairie/Savannahs

perennial fire-dependent graminoids woody shrubs/trees

Mesic Flatwoods and Wet Flatwoods red-cockaded woodpecker Bachman’s sparrow Northern bobwhite quail saw palmetto woody shrubs/trees perennial fire-dependent graminoids

Table 7. Federally listed species relevant to this EA

Red-cockaded woodpecker Wood Stork Indigo Snake Frosted flatwoods salamander

Table 8. Region 8 Sensitive Wildlife Species relevant to this EA

Sherman’s fox squirrel Bachman’s sparrow, Gopher tortoise Striped newt Florida pine snake Arogos skipper


Table 9. Region 8 Sensitive plant species

Scientific Name Common Name Agalinis divaricata Pinelands false foxglove Agrimonia incisa Incised Groovebur Andropogon arctatus Pinewoods bluestem Aristida rhizomophora Florida threeawn grass Arnoglossum floridanum Florida cacalia Asclepias viridula Southern Milkweed Berlandiera subacaulis Florida Greeneyes Calopogon multiflorus Many flowered grasspink Cleistes bifaria Small spreading pogonia Coreopsis nudata Georgia Tickseed Ctenium floridanum Florida toothache grass Forestiera godfreyi Godfrey’s swampprivet Galactia microphylla Small Leafed Milkpea Litsea aestivalis Pondspice Matelea pubiflora Trailing milkvine Micranthemum glomeratum Manatee mudflower Myriophyllum laxum Piedmont Water Milfoil Najas filifolia Needleleaf waternymph Paronychia rugelii Rugel’s nailwort Physalis arenicola Cypresshead groundcherry Physalis carpenterii Carpenter’s groundcherry Phlox floridana Florida Phlox Pieris phillyreifolia Climbing Fetterbush Pinckneya bracteata Fevertree Plantago sparsiflora Pineland plantain Polygala leptostachys Slender spike milkwort Pteroglossapsis ecristata Wild Coco Rhynchospora breviseta Shortbristle beaksedge Rhynchospora macra Large beakrush Rudbeckia nitida Shiny coneflower Ruellia noctifloria Night flowering Ruellia Schoenolirion albiflorum White sunnybells Silphium simpsonii Simpson’s rosinweed Spiranthes longilabris Giant spiral ladies’-tresses Sporobolus curtissii Pineland dropseed Sporobolus floridanus Florida Dropseed Tridens carolinianus Carolina fluffgrass Verbesina heterophylla Diverseleaf Crownbeard Xyris drummondii Drummond’s yelloweyed grass


Appendix 3. Eastern indigo snake protection measures

STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 12, 2013

The eastern indigo snake protection/education plan (Plan) below has been developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in Florida for use by applicants and their construction personnel. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the applicant shall notify the appropriate USFWS Field Office via e-mail that the Plan will be implemented as described below (North Florida Field Office: [email protected]; South Florida Field Office: [email protected]; Panama City Field Office: [email protected]). As long as the signatory of the e-mail certifies compliance with the below Plan (including use of the attached poster and brochure), no further written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS is needed and the applicant may move forward with the project. If the applicant decides to use an eastern indigo snake protection/education plan other than the approved Plan below, written confirmation or “approval” from the USFWS that the plan is adequate must be obtained. At least 30 days prior to any clearing/land alteration activities, the applicant shall submit their unique plan for review and approval. The USFWS will respond via e-mail, typically within 30 days of receiving the plan, either concurring that the plan is adequate or requesting additional information. A concurrence e-mail from the appropriate USFWS Field Office will fulfill approval requirements. The Plan materials should consist of: 1) a combination of posters and pamphlets (see Poster Information section below); and 2) verbal educational instructions to construction personnel by supervisory or management personnel before any clearing/land alteration activities are initiated (see Pre-Construction Activities and During Construction Activities sections below). POSTER INFORMATION Posters with the following information shall be placed at strategic locations on the construction site and along any proposed access roads (a final poster for Plan compliance, to be printed on 11” x 17” or larger paper and laminated, is attached): DESCRIPTION: The eastern indigo snake is one of the largest non-venomous snakes in North America, with individuals often reaching up to 8 feet in length. They derive their name from the glossy, blue-black color of their scales above and uniformly slate blue below. Frequently, they have orange to coral reddish coloration in the throat area, yet some specimens have been reported to only have cream coloration on the throat. These snakes are not typically aggressive and will attempt to crawl away when disturbed. Though indigo snakes rarely bite, they should NOT be handled. SIMILAR SNAKES: The black racer is the only other solid black snake resembling the eastern indigo snake. However, black racers have a white or cream chin, thinner bodies, and WILL BITE if handled. LIFE HISTORY: The eastern indigo snake occurs in a wide variety of terrestrial habitat types throughout Florida. Although they have a preference for uplands, they also utilize some wetlands and agricultural areas. Eastern indigo snakes will often seek shelter inside gopher


tortoise burrows and other below- and above-ground refugia, such as other animal burrows, stumps, roots, and debris piles. Females may lay from 4 - 12 white eggs as early as April through June, with young hatching in late July through October. PROTECTION UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW: The eastern indigo snake is classified as a Threatened species by both the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. “Taking” of eastern indigo snakes is prohibited by the Endangered Species Act without a permit. “Take” is defined by the USFWS as an attempt to kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or engage in any such conduct. Penalties include a maximum fine of $25,000 for civil violations and up to $50,000 and/or imprisonment for criminal offenses, if convicted. Only individuals currently authorized through an issued Incidental Take Statement in association with a USFWS Biological Opinion, or by a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the USFWS, to handle an eastern indigo snake are allowed to do so. IF YOU SEE A LIVE EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: • Cease clearing activities and allow the live eastern indigo snake sufficient time to move away from the site without interference; • Personnel must NOT attempt to touch or handle snake due to protected status. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent, and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • If the snake is located in a vicinity where continuation of the clearing or construction activities will cause harm to the snake, the activities must halt until such time that a representative of the USFWS returns the call (within one day) with further guidance as to when activities may resume. IF YOU SEE A DEAD EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE ON THE SITE: • Cease clearing activities and immediately notify supervisor or the applicant’s designated agent, and the appropriate USFWS office, with the location information and condition of the snake. • Take photographs of the snake, if possible, for identification and documentation purposes. • Thoroughly soak the dead snake in water and then freeze the specimen. The appropriate wildlife agency will retrieve the dead snake. Telephone numbers of USFWS Florida Field Offices to be contacted if a live or dead eastern indigo snake is encountered: North Florida Field Office – (904) 731-3336 Panama City Field Office – (850) 769-0552 South Florida Field Office – (772) 562-3909


PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 1. The applicant or designated agent will post educational posters in the construction office and throughout the construction site, including any access roads. The posters must be clearly visible to all construction staff. A sample poster is attached. 2. Prior to the onset of construction activities, the applicant/designated agent will conduct a meeting with all construction staff (annually for multi-year projects) to discuss identification of the snake, its protected status, what to do if a snake is observed within the project area, and applicable penalties that may be imposed if state and/or federal regulations are violated. An educational brochure including color photographs of the snake will be given to each staff member in attendance and additional copies will be provided to the construction superintendent to make available in the onsite construction office (a final brochure for Plan compliance, to be printed double-sided on 8.5” x 11” paper and then properly folded, is attached). Photos of eastern indigo snakes may be accessed on USFWS and/or FWC websites. 3. Construction staff will be informed that in the event that an eastern indigo snake (live or dead) is observed on the project site during construction activities, all such activities are to cease until the established procedures are implemented according to the Plan, which includes notification of the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The contact information for the USFWS is provided on the referenced posters and brochures. DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 1. During initial site clearing activities, an onsite observer may be utilized to determine whether habitat conditions suggest a reasonable probability of an eastern indigo snake sighting (example: discovery of snake sheds, tracks, lots of refugia and cavities present in the area of clearing activities, and presence of gopher tortoises and burrows). 2. If an eastern indigo snake is discovered during gopher tortoise relocation activities (i.e. burrow excavation), the USFWS shall be contacted within one business day to obtain further guidance which may result in further project consultation. 3. Periodically during construction activities, the applicant’s designated agent should visit the project area to observe the condition of the posters and Plan materials, and replace them as needed. Construction personnel should be reminded of the instructions (above) as to what is expected if any eastern indigo snakes are seen. POST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Whether or not eastern indigo snakes are observed during construction activities, a monitoring report should be submitted to the appropriate USFWS Field Office within 60 days of project completion. The report can be sent electronically to the appropriate USFWS e-mail address listed on page one of this Plan.

Documents

a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Environmental Assessment for the Saint Marys Ecological Restoration Project Phase 2 . For More Information