BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · contributes to the following directives from Forest Service Manual

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

for the

Columbia County and Plum Creek Land Exchange

U.S. Forest Service

Osceola National Forest

Columbia County, Florida

Prepared by

Matthew D. Trager (primary contact)

Forest Planner, National Forests in Florida

[email protected], 850-523-8582

and

Jeff Gainey

Wildlife Program Manager, National Forests in Florida

May, 2014

mailto:[email protected]

National Forests in Florida ~ Columbia County and Plum Creek Land Exchange

Biological assessment Page 2

Contents Page

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3

Background ................................................................................................................................. 3

Proposed action and affected area ............................................................................................... 3

Rail spur easement .................................................................................................................. 3

FNST easement ....................................................................................................................... 5

Consultation history .................................................................................................................... 6

2. Analysis framework .................................................................................................................... 6

Analysis objectives ..................................................................................................................... 6

Related activities ......................................................................................................................... 6

Species considered ...................................................................................................................... 7

3. Effects of rail spur construction on federally threatened and endangered species ..................... 8

Red-cockaded woodpecker ......................................................................................................... 8

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 8

Effects of proposed action ...................................................................................................... 9

Eastern indigo snake ................................................................................................................... 9

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 9

Effects of proposed action .................................................................................................... 10

4. Effects of FNST easement on federally threatened or endangered species .............................. 10

5. Literature cited .......................................................................................................................... 10

6. Summary of determinations and signature of preparers ........................................................... 12

Appendix 1. Red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat ............................................................ 13

Recovery standard ..................................................................................................................... 13

Standard for managed stability ................................................................................................. 14



1. Introduction

Background

Columbia County, Florida (“Columbia Co.”) and Plum Creek Timberlands, L.P. (“Plum Creek”)

are pursuing development of the 500 acre North Central Florida Rural Area of Critical Economic

Concern Catalyst Project (the “RACEC Catalyst Project”) south of the Osceola National Forest

(“Osceola NF”). The RACEC Catalyst Project is a collaborative effort by a 14-county region to

build economic diversity and provide new jobs through development of an “inland port”

providing regional transportation, storage and distribution infrastructure. Currently, the planned

location of the development is on Plum Creek’s Lake Butler Forest east of Lake City, Florida.

Proposed action and affected area

A land exchange between Plum Creek and the U.S. Forest Service is being proposed as a way to

simultaneously provide rail access through the southern part of the Osceola National Forest for

the RACEC Catalyst Project and to provide a permanent legal right to designate and maintain the

Florida National Scenic Trail (FNST) on Plum Creek land.

The Forest Service requested a pre-field habitat evaluation and thorough field survey from the

Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) for both the rail spur and trail sites. The pre-field

assessment and results of field work, in conjunction with published records and staff experience

in the area, provide the best available scientific information about the site. The final report from

FNAI is available upon request.

Rail spur easement

Under the proposed exchange, a right-of-way easement on the Osceola NF would be conveyed to

Columbia Co. for construction of a rail spur connecting the RACEC Catalyst Project site (part of

the larger 2,600-acre mixed use development owned by Plum Creek) to the CSX Railroad

mainline. The easement would be approximately 1,700 feet long and 100 feet wide; the total

area of the easement would be approximately 6.3 acres. The southernmost 700 feet (~ 1.6 acres)

of the rail spur easement would be in compartment 28, stand 23 of the Osceola National Forest,

and the northern 1,000 feet (~4.7 acres), including the interchange and diverging tracks, would

occur in compartment 28, stand 11. The vicinity and detail maps on the following page show the

location of the proposed rail spur easement.



Both stands 11 and 23 are slash pine plantations planted in 1982. However, soil conditions,

hydrological conditions and some remnant vegetation provide sufficient information to assess the

natural communities present before slash pine was planted. Approximately 70% of the rail spur



parcel is mesic flatwoods with a moderately dense shrub layer consisting primarily of saw

palmetto (Serenoa repens) and gallberry (Ilex glabra). Occasional shrub species include gopher

apple (Licania michauxii), Chapman’s oak (Quercus chapmanii), running oak (Quercus pumila),

coastalplain staggerbush (Lyonia fruticosa), and shiny blueberry (Vaccinium myrsinites). In some

areas typical mesic flatwoods groundcover species remain and include wiregrass (Aristida

stricta), Curtiss’ dropseed (Sporobolus curtissii), and lopsided Indiangrass (Sorghastrum

secundum).

Approximately 15% of the parcel consists of drier scrubby flatwoods with dominant shrubs

including saw palmetto, water oak (Quercus nigra), Chapman’s oak, sand live oak (Quercus

geminata), turkey oak (Quercus laevis), gopher apple, and sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum).

Because of past disturbance it is difficult to definitively determine if portions of the scrubby

flatwoods community may have been sandhill, a rare natural community on Osceola NF. The rail

spur scrubby flatwoods groundcover is sparse and typically includes tall nutgrass (Scleria

triglomerata) and a few small populations of wiregrass. The remaining portion of the rail spur

parcel consists of wet flatwoods with a thick shrub layer dominated by gallberry, saw palmetto,

large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), and sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana). The groundcover is sparse

with occasional small populations of Curtiss’ dropseed and chalky broomsedge (Andropogon

virginicus var. glaucus) (FNAI 2014).

The proposed rail spur easement is adjacent to wetlands and review of National Wetlands

Inventory data suggested less than an acre of forested wetlands could occur in the area.

However, field surveys by qualified personnel found no areas that could be delineated as

wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act.

FNST easement

The easement for the FNST would be 10 feet wide (5 feet on either side of the trail’s centerline)

and would extend for a distance of approximately 10 miles along the western boundary of Plum

Creek’s Lake Butler Forest. Approximately half of this distance (totaling 6.27 acres) would

formally be included in the exchange to comply with equal value requirements in Forest Service

land exchange regulations (36 CFR 254.3(c)). The other half would be conveyed by a donation

from Plum Creek to the Forest Service to allow a continuous path for the FNST. The interest in

land to be conveyed to the United States would be a permanent public trail easement that would

run with the land in perpetuity (i.e., the easement would remain even if Plum Creek sold the

land). When connected to existing portions of the FNST, the expectation is that the section of

trail currently running through Plum Creek’s Lake Butler Forest would be relocated to the

easement.

The proposed FNST route on Plum Creek property primarily runs along the western edge of

short rotation pine plantations. Years of mechanical site preparation on what was formerly mesic

and wet flatwoods natural communities have impacted the groundcover. No wiregrass or other

typical flatwoods herbaceous species were observed along the proposed hiking trail route.

Additional natural communities encountered along the corridor included basin swamp, dome

swamp, floodplain swamp, mesic hammock, bottomland forest, blackwater stream and

depression marsh. The trail was routed 15 times onto adjacent gravel or woods roads when a



wetland was encountered for a total road distance of approximately 1.2 miles. However, the trail

still traverses portions of 11 natural wetlands for a total of 0.35 miles (FNAI 2014).

Consultation history

Plum Creek provided information to the USFWS regarding the proposed construction of the

North Florida Intermodal Park site and met with agency staff on September 16, 2013. In a Dec.

18, 2013 letter, USFWS suggested that there would be no adverse effects to federally listed

species from the project, but recommended contacting the Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission for permitting and mitigation of impacts to gopher tortoises and

recommended following indigo snake protection measures. The letter also recognized that the

related action of rail spur development on the Osceola National Forest would be subject to ESA

Section 7 consultation. USFWS and Forest Service staff had several short and informal

conversations regarding the proposed exchange and rail spur construction in early 2014.

The site of the proposed rail spur is within the boundaries of the Priority 4 project that underwent

ESA Section 7 consultation in 2012-2013, concluding with USFWS concurrence that the

modified proposed action (primarily timber harvest) was not likely to adversely affect federally

listed species (USFWS Log No. 41910-2013-I-0246).

2. Analysis framework

Analysis objectives

The purpose of this biological assessment is to analyze and disclose potential effects of the

proposed actions on endangered and threatened species or their habitat, and to ensure that land

management decisions are made with the benefit of such knowledge. Specifically, this document

contributes to the following directives from Forest Service Manual 2672.41:

1. To comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act - that actions of Federal

agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed species.

2. To provide a process and standard which will ensure that endangered and threatened species

receive full consideration in the decision making process.

Related activities

Previously approved Forest Service activities within and adjacent to the proposed rail spur

easement area include thinning of some plantations, mowing or rollerchopping of palmetto in

some stands and ongoing prescribed fire. These activities have already undergone Section 7

consultation and the USFWS concurred with the determination that these activities were not

likely to adversely affect federally listed species. Effects of these activities were documented in

the Biological Assessment for the Priority 4 project (concurrence received Aug. 22, 2013,

USFWS Log No. 41910-2013-I-0246)

The action (actual exchange of easements) would not have any environmental effects, but the

expected activities resulting from the exchange (construction of a railroad spur and construction,

rerouting and connecting a trail) and donation of trail easement may affect a range of resources.



Therefore, in the analysis below, the proposed uses of the easements are considered as connected

actions when evaluating the environmental effects of the exchange.

On the rail spur easement, construction would entail clearing all trees and vegetation within the

easement, excavating to a depth of approximately 3ft below the rail line, leveling and stabilizing

the bed of the track with ballast and using a variety of heavy equipment that would compact and

rut soil throughout the area. Maintenance of the rail spur would be similar to that along the CSX

main line, including herbicide use, brush removal and occasional repair. Developing the rail

spur would increase train frequency on the CSX line through the Osceola National Forest,

though the magnitude of that increase is unknown. The location of the rail spur would require an

at-grade railroad crossing on Highway 90 which, although it is beyond Forest Service

jurisdiction, would nevertheless have reasonably foreseeable indirect effects.

On the trail easement, construction and maintenance of a trail would likely involve removing

vegetation from a corridor up to 10ft wide, with larger areas cleared for parking and a camp site.

The trail would be designated for foot travel only, so indirect effects of the exchange would

likely include hiking and camping along the easement. Designating connections between the

proposed trail easement and other sections of the FNST is beyond the scope of this project and,

given the fragmented nature of the FNST and uncertainty regarding the location and timing of

new trail segments, such designations are not considered connected actions for purposes of this

analysis.

Species considered

The following sources of information were used to determine which species to include in this

analysis and the potential effects of the project:

Review of USFS location records for listed species.

Review of Florida Natural Areas Inventory records within the project area.

Field survey by Florida Natural Areas Inventory staff.

Annual monitoring of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the project area

In coordination with the USFWS Jacksonville field office, the list of species below was initially

considered for this project:

Species USFWS status

Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) Endangered

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Endangered *

Wood stork (Mycteria americana) Endangered

Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) Threatened *

Frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) Threatened

American alligator (Alligator mississipiensis) Threatened

Due to potential occurrence in the project area and potential effects of the proposed rail spur construction

on individuals and suitable habitat, only species noted with an asterisk (red-cockaded woodpecker and

eastern indigo snake) are analyzed in detail in this biological assessment.



Other federally listed species (Florida panther, frosted flatwoods salamander, wood stork, and

American alligator) were considered but eliminated from detailed evaluation. There are no

recent records of Florida panthers in the Osceola National Forest, nor is there suitable habitat

(USFWS 1995). Therefore, the proposed activities will have no effect on this species. The

American alligator is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act due to similarity of

appearance to several endangered species. However, none of these species occur on the Osceola

National Forest and, therefore, the potential effects of the proposed activities on alligators are not

considered further. The wood stork does not occur in the project area. Therefore, the proposed

activities will have no effect on this species. Known flatwoods salamander habitat on the

Osceola is located about 6 miles east of the project area; breeding activity has not been observed

in about 14 years. Therefore, implementation of the proposed activities would have no direct or

indirect effects on this species.

There is no critical habitat within the project area and there are no threatened or endangered plant

species on the Osceola National Forest.

3. Effects of rail spur construction on federally threatened and endangered species

Red-cockaded woodpecker

Introduction

The goal of RCW management on the Osceola National Forest is to provide sufficient quantity

and quality of habitat to support recovery of the population. In 2013, approximately 143 active

clusters were present on the Osceola and during most of the last decade the population grew 5-

15% per year. In 2012 and 2013, growth of new active clusters was less than most previous

years (1-3 per year), but the number of potential breeding groups increased to 129 from 124 in

2011. The population is monitored annually and is an important donor population for the RCW

translocation program.

The southern part of the Osceola NF between Hwy. 90 and I-10 contains the highest density and

largest number of RCW clusters on the forest. At the time of this analysis, there were

approximately 67 active RCW clusters in that area, as well as several inactive or recruitment

clusters. On average, clusters in the area are located within 2 km. (~1.24 mi.) of 11.7 other

clusters (range = 2 to 20). High cluster density may be conducive to social interactions and

activation of new clusters and may indicate high-quality habitat (USFWS 2003, p. 49 and

USFWS 2005, p. 8, and references therein). The RCW in this area have established several new

clusters in recent years.

Most of the currently active clusters have been continuously occupied for at least 5 yr. and there

has been some population growth despite very high cluster density in parts of the project area

and removal of fledglings for the translocation program. Over the past 5 yr., approximately half

of the active clusters have consisted of a pair and one helper, with the other half consisting of a

potential breeding pair; a small number of clusters have consisted of a pair with two helpers or

only a single male. The 44 clusters in the Priority 4 project area (between I-10 and Hwy 90) that

were monitored in detail in 2012 had an average of 1.3 fledglings, further indicating a fairly

healthy population (S. Lauerman, unpublished data). In the past five years, fledglings have been

taken out of 30 of the 59 clusters in that area for the translocation program. In fact, of the 100



fledglings translocated from the Osceola National Forest, 53 came from the 67 currently active

clusters in this project area.

The proposed rail spur would be within ½ mile of two clusters (98F and 98G) but would be

located within the foraging partition of only cluster 98F.

Effects of proposed action

The potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed activities were evaluated in relation to

the following two management goals:

Provide adequate nesting and foraging habitat. Forest management may have indirect

effects on RCW through alteration of foraging habitat. If the proposed rail spur is

constructed, approximately 6.3 acres of potential habitat (i.e., young pine stand) will be

lost. The rail spur will not isolated suitable foraging habitat from the cluster center or

adjacent suitable stands by more than 200ft., and therefore is not expected to fragment

cluster 98F’s foraging habitat. Construction of the rail spur would not prevent

implementation of previously approved forest management activities (thinning and

prescribed fire) that would benefit RCW habitat. More detailed foraging habitat analysis

is in Appendix 1.

Limit disturbance within clusters as much as possible, especially during nesting

season (April 1 – July 31). The area proposed for the rail spur is within the ¼ mile

foraging partition of cluster 98F, but it on the other side of existing railroad tracks and is

over 300ft from any currently active cavity trees. Because the activity would be

constructed outside of the cluster, no limits on timing of construction activities will be

imposed. It is likely that the area would have more frequent rail traffic if the spur is

constructed, but given the close proximity of many clusters to the existing rail line, it

appears that the RCW in this area have habituated to rail traffic.

In conclusion, construction of the rail spur will remove approximately 6.3 acres of potential

foraging habitat that does not currently meet foraging habitat standards. Some disturbance to

foraging birds is expected when mature stands within one half mile of cluster centers are thinned.

However, this will be very temporary in nature and should be inconsequential to RCW foraging

behavior. Project activities will not negatively affect breeding behavior. Although minor and

temporary direct effects on RCW may result from project implementation, conditions in the

project area will be improved by reasonably foreseeable thinning of overstocked stands, restoring

groundcover and increasing the frequency of prescribed fire as approved in the Priority 4 project.

Based on the lack of direct effects and the results of the foraging habitat analysis

(Appendix 1) for the proposed action, this project is not likely to adversely affect red-

cockaded woodpeckers within the project area.

Eastern indigo snake

Introduction

Adult indigo snakes are commonly associated with gopher tortoises and have similar habitat

preferences. A Georgia study (Speake et al. 1978) found 77% of indigo snake dens were in

tortoise burrows, 18% were under decayed stumps and logs and 5% were under plant debris.



Adult activities during winter and early spring are around high pineland ridges; as the season

progresses, use of wetland habitats increases (Speake et. al. 1978). Juveniles can be found in

cypress ponds, flatwoods and bayheads; juveniles often use stumps and root channels for

hibernating in winter and as escape cover in summer. Juvenile use of gopher tortoise burrows is

limited (Smith 1987). Home range size can vary depending on the quality of the habitat but

generally males require 300-400 acres and females require 100-200 acres. Prey items include

snakes, frogs, small mammals, birds, small gopher tortoises and turtles (USFWS 1982).

The last confirmed sighting of and indigo snake on the Osceola NF was 1977 (Enge et al. 2013)

However, suitable habitat exists in the project area and 12 gopher tortoise burrows have been

documented within or near the rail spur parcel. Indigo snakes were not encountered during field

surveys, which included scoping most of the gopher tortoise burrows. However, due to the

presence of suitable habitat, it is possible that indigo snakes could occur in the project area. The

Forest Service will require compliance with all state regulations regarding mitigation and

permitting for gopher tortoise on the proposed rail spur site, and will include indigo snake

projection measures in the exchange agreement if the proposed action is approved.

Effects of proposed action

The proposed activities are unlikely to affect indigo snakes because they are not known to

currently occur on the Osceola NF. In addition, the area incompassing the rail spur parcel is

small (6.3 acres) and suitable habitat is found throughout much of the Osceola NF. Nearby

habitat in much better condition and higher gopher tortoise density is not known to be occupied

by indigo snakes, so the probablility of occupation within the less high quality habitat affected by

the rail spur is low. In conclusion, the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to

adversely affect indigo snakes.

4. Effects of FNST easement on federally threatened or endangered species

No threatened, endangered, or species proposed for listing were observed during field surveys of

the trail easement (FNAI, 2014) and the activities associated with trail construction and

maintenance are very low impact. Therefore, activities related to construction and maintenance

of the trail easement will have no effect on federarally listed species.

5. Literature cited

Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2014. Ecological Inventory of a Proposed Rail Spur and

Trail Extension on Osceola National Forest. (J. Surdick, G. Schultz, and A. Jenkins, contributors).

Report to the United States Forest Service. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL.

Enge, K. M., D. J. Stevenson, M. J. Elliott and J. M. Bauder. 2013. The Historical and Current

Distribution of the Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi). Herpetological Conservation

and Biology 8(2):288−307.

Smith, C. 1987. Ecology of juvenile and gravid eastern indigo snakes in North Florida. M.S.

thesis, University of Florida.



Speake, D. W., J. A. Mc Glincy and T. R. Colvin. 1978. Ecology and management of the

Eastern indigo snake in Georgia: A progress report. Ga. Dept. Nat. Res., Game and Fish Div.

Tech Bull. W 14.

U.S.D.A Forest Service [USDA]. 1999. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for

National Forests in Florida. Management Bulletin R8-MB-83A, February 1999.

U.S.D.A Forest Service [USDA]. 2012. Environmental Assessment for the Suwannee Upper

Basin Analysis Area Priority Area 4 Vegetation Treatments for Ecosystem Restoration,

Hazardous Fuel Removal, and Wildlife Habitat. Osceola National Forest. 62 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 1982. Eastern Indigo Snake Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 23 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 1990. Habitat management guidelines for the wood

stork in the southeast region. 11 pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 1995. Florida Panther Recovery Plan, Second

Revision. Atlanta, GA. 69 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker

(Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 2005. Memorandum: “Implementation Procedures for

Use of Foraging Habitat Guidelines and Analysis of Project Impacts under the Red-cockaded

Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Recovery Plan: Second Revision.” U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Atlanta, GA. 12 pp.


6. Summary of determinations and signature of preparers

Based on the information and analysis above, the following determinations of effects were made

for the activities proposed in this project:

Species Determination

Red-cockaded woodpecker May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Eastern indigo snake May affect, not likely to adversely affect

These determinations were made by qualified staff of the National Forests in Florida based on

the best available science and other relevant information. If approved, construction of the rail

spur could occur several years in the future. If the project is delayed, new information or

changed circumstances related to threatened and endangered species would be reviewed and

consultation would be reinitiated if necessary.

__/s/_Matthew Trager________ Date __May 21, 2014________________

Matthew D. Trager

Forest Planner, National Forests in Florida

(850) 523-8582

[email protected]

__/s/_Jeff Gainey___________ Date __May 21, 2014________________

Jeff W. Gainey

Wildlife Program Manager, National Forests in Florida

(850) 523-8553

[email protected]

A copy of the signed original is available upon request.


Appendix 1. Red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat analysis

The effects of timber harvests in close proximity to the proposed rail spur provide relevant

background for the analysis of the rail spur’s effects on foraging habitat. The data presented

below were generated from the RCW foraging habitat analysis conducted for the Priority 4

project on the Osceola National Forest. That project proposed and authorized thinning of stands

within the foraging partition of RCW cluster 98F, which also contains the area of the proposed

rail spur. Therefore, this information provides as context for evaluating the effects of rail spur

construction in the context of current conditions and reasonably foreseeable future conditions.

The proposed rail spur is located entirely within the foraging partition of cluster 98F.

Approximately 4.3 acres of the rail spur are within the ¼ mile partition and the remaining 2 acres

are within the ½ mile partition.

Table 1. Partition size and area of potential habitat (i.e., pine stands of any age on Forest Service

property)

Quarter Mile Partition Half Mile Partition

Cluster Partition Size Potential habitat

Partition Size Potential habitat

98F 99.4 ac. 92.1 ac. 291.8 ac. 231.2 ac.

In this project area, adjacent RCW foraging partitions, wetlands and an existing railroad right of

way limit potential habitat to 92.1 acres within the ¼ mile partition. Implementation of the

proposed action would reduce the area of potential foraging habitat in the ¼ mile partition from

92.1 to 87.8 acres and in the ½ mile partition (inclusive of the area in the ¼ mile partition) from

231.2 to 224.9 acres. Habitat in the ¼ mile partition is contiguous with habitat in the ½ mile

condition so in this case it is appropriate to include adjacent stands within ½ mile of the cluster

as foraging habitat. Implementation of the proposed exchange and subsequent construction of

the rail spur would not prevent the cluster from attaining the recommended area of habitat

meeting the Managed Stability Standard.

Recovery standard

The recovery standard for foraging habitat is recommended for RCW populations on all federal

lands and other properties that are managed for population growth. Habitat meeting this standard

is generally characterized by “some large old pines, low densities of small and medium pines,

sparse or no hardwood midstory, and a bunchgrass and forb groundcover” (USFWS 2003, p.

188). The recovery standard habitat criteria closely align with the National Forests in Florida

desired conditions for RCW habitat management areas, including this project area (USDA Forest

Service 1999, p. 4.37-4.41). The recovery standard suggests that in areas of medium or high

productivity (such as most of the Osceola NF), each group of RCWs should have 120 ac. of good

quality foraging habitat. The analysis below used the stand-level evaluation of GQFH described

above in a GIS model that defined foraging partitions and allocated foraging habitat to clusters as

described in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003, p. 195).


Table 2. Current and future area (in ac.) of GQFH available to RCW clusters within ¼ and ½

mile partitions. Partition sizes and area of potential habitat are in Table 1.

Quarter Mile Partitions Half Mile Partitions

Cluster Current GQFH

Future GQFH Current GQFH

Future GQFH

98F 0.0 30.1 5.5 68.3

Implementation of the proposed rail spur would have no effect on the amount of GQFH available

to this cluster because the construction would not be located in a stand that meets the Recovery

Standard criteria or would meet the criteria after implementation of the activities approved in the

Priority 4 project.

Standard for managed stability

In the context of RCW habitat management on Forest Service lands, the standard for managed

stability may be used to provide additional data regarding current and potential future foraging

habitat when habitat does not meet the recovery standard (USFWS 2005, p. 4-5). Reduction of

foraging habitat below the criteria of the managed stability standard is generally considered to be

an adverse effect on that cluster.

The criteria for foraging habitat meeting the stability standard are similar to those for GQFH but

are slightly less stringent (USFWS 2003, p. 292-293). For the purposes of this analysis, stands

were considered as foraging habitat under this standard when criteria a – e and g were met;

criterion f applies to partition-level analysis and was applied in that context below. Because all

relevant stands met criteria a and d, the analysis focused on the four aspects of pine size and

density described in criteria b, c and e.

RCW partitions evaluated under the stability standard should have at least 75 ac. of foraging

habitat with a total basal area of trees with dbh >10 in. of at least 3,000 ft2 within the ¼ mile

partition (USFWS 2003, p. 292-293). Foraging habitat within the ½ mile partition may be

considered depending on habitat connectivity and the conditions of individual partitions.

Table 3. Current and future area (in acres) of foraging habitat and total basal area (ft2) available

to RCW clusters within ¼ and ½ mile partitions.

Quarter Mile Partitions Half Mile Partitions

Cluster Current Foraging

Area

Current Total BA

Future Foraging

Area

Future Total BA

Current Foraging

Area

Current Total BA

Future Foraging

Area

Future Total BA

98F 35.8 1864.0 65.9 3321.9 45.1 2379.9 108.0 5421.5

After implementation of the timber harvest treatments proposed in the Priority 4 project, cluster

98F would meet the foraging habitat recommendations under the Managed Stability Standard.

Construction of the rail spur would have no effect current or short-term future foraging habitat

because it would occur in stands that do not meet foraging criteria currently and are not expected

to meet the criteria following implementation of reasonably foreseeable forest management

activities (see map below).



Stands conditions for ¼ and ½ mile partition for Cluster 98F. Future conditions were estimated for after implementation of the activities proposed in the

Priority 4 project, so the values in the analysis above were based on the additional effects of rail spur construction.

Stands in ¼ mi. partition

Current condition

Trees/acre by size (dbh in inches) Basal area (ft2/acre) by size class

Stand Stand type Year of origin

Total acres

Acres in partition Total 5-9.9

10-13.9 14+ Total 5-9.9

10-13.9 14+

BA/ac 10in+

Total BA

10in+ Recovery standard

Stability standard Proposed treatment

0280020 Pines >30yr 1917 14 3.4 113.5 62.9 33.0 17.6 66.0 18.0 26.0 22.0 48.0 164.5 No Yes Select tree thinning

0280011 Pines >30yr 1982 72 26.2 349.0 333.0 16.0 0.0 96.0 86.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 No No Second row thinning

0980005 Pines >30yr 1942 101 30.1 109.3 42.7 37.5 29.1 86.3 13.8 30.0 42.5 72.5 0.0 No No Select tree thinning

0980004 Pines >30yr 1897 38 32.4 79.0 21.4 43.6 14.1 57.5 5.0 35.0 17.5 52.5 1699.5 No Yes No treatment

0280024 Wetland Unknown 35 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No No treatment

0980008 Wetland 1927 141 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No No treatment


Future condition Trees/acre by size (dbh in inches) Basal area (ft2/acre) by size class


Total acres


10-13.9 14+ Total 5-9.9

10-13.9 14+

BA/ac 10in+

Total BA

10in+ Recovery standard

Stability Standard

0280020 Pines >30yr 1917 14 3.4 84.1 43.6 22.9 17.6 52.5 12.5 18.0 22.0 40.0 137.1 No Yes

0280011 Pines >30yr 1982 72 26.2 174.5 166.5 8.0 0.0 48.0 43.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 No No

0980005 Pines >30yr 1942 101 30.1 47.5 9.7 8.6 29.1 52.5 3.1 6.9 42.5 49.4 1485.2 Yes Yes

0980004 Pines >30yr 1897 38 32.4 79.0 21.4 43.6 14.1 57.5 5.0 35.0 17.5 52.5 1699.5 No Yes

0280024 Wetland Unknown 35 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No

0980008 Wetland 1927 141 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No

0980009 Wetland 1924 121 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No


Stands in ½ mi. partition

Current condition



Total acres


10-13.9 14+ Total 5-9.9

10-13.9 14+

BA/ac 10in+

Total BA

10in+ Recovery Standard

Stability Standard Treatment

0280023 Pines <30yr Unknown 38 34.3 366.9 320.5 46.4 0.0 130.0 100.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 No No Second row thinning

0280020 Pines >30yr 1917 14 3.4 113.5 62.9 33.0 17.6 66.0 18.0 26.0 22.0 48.0 164.5 No Yes Select tree thinning

0280011 Pines >30yr 1982 72 31.7 349.0 333.0 16.0 0.0 96.0 86.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 No No Second row thinning

0980005 Pines >30yr 1942 101 62.8 109.3 42.7 37.5 29.1 86.3 13.8 30.0 42.5 72.5 0.0 No No Select tree thinning

0980004 Pines >30yr 1897 38 36.3 79.0 21.4 43.6 14.1 57.5 5.0 35.0 17.5 52.5 1903.6 No Yes No treatment

0980010 Pines >30yr 1910 62 5.5 56.4 3.1 30.3 22.9 58.6 1.4 25.7 31.4 57.1 311.8 Yes Yes Select tree thinning

0280024 Pines <30yr Unknown 35 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No No treatment





Future condition



Total acres


10-13.9 14+ Total 5-9.9

10-13.9 14+

BA/ac 10in+

Total BA

10in+ Recovery Standard

Stability Standard

0280023 Pines <30yr Unknown 37.7 34.3 183.5 160.2 23.2 0.0 65.0 50.0 15.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 No No

0280020 Pines >30yr 1917 13.7 3.4 84.1 43.6 22.9 17.6 52.5 12.5 18.0 22.0 40.0 137.1 No Yes

0280011 Pines >30yr 1982 72.2 31.7 174.5 166.5 8.0 0.0 48.0 43.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 No No

0980005 Pines >30yr 1942 100.6 62.8 47.5 9.7 8.6 29.1 52.5 3.1 6.9 42.5 49.4 3100.4 Yes Yes

0980004 Pines >30yr 1897 38.4 36.3 79.0 21.4 43.6 14.1 57.5 5.0 35.0 17.5 52.5 1903.6 No Yes

0980010 Pines >30yr 1910 62.3 5.5 48.9 2.4 23.5 22.9 52.5 1.1 20.0 31.4 51.4 280.4 Yes Yes




0980008 Wetland 1927 141.0 29.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No

0980009 Wetland 1924 121.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 No No

Documents

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · contributes to the following directives from Forest Service Manual