The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 09/29/2009 Item #10A Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 Page 1 of 51 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to consider the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee's Habitat Conservation Plan application for red-cockaded woodpeckers. OBJECTIVE: To have the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee's Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) application for red-cockaded woodpeckers. CONSIDERA TION: The BCC adopted Resolution 2005-174 establishing the Habitat Conservation Plan Ad-hoc Advisory Committee with the primary purpose to assess the feasibility of a Habitat Conservation Plan to address red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs). Subsequent to this resolution, the BCC adopted Resolution 2006-41 to add additional members to the Committee and to broaden the scope of an HCP to be a multi-species plan that, depending on geographical scope, would need to address more listed species than just RCW s. In October of 2008, the BCC adopted Resolution 2008-307 to reduce the number of members from thirteen to nine and directed the committee to complete a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the red- cockaded woodpecker (RCW). The resolution also included that the committee would sunset on September 12, 2009. The committee has developed an HCP for RCWs as directed and asks the Board to consider submitting it to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for review and approval. In a series of motions for additional changes, the committee approved the HCP in a 4:3 vote: Ms. Katz amended the motion to approve the Plan (Draft Habitat Conservation Plan For Red- Cockaded Woodpeckers" dated August 4,2009) subject to the changes discussed herein by the Committee and the language requested by Mr. Anderson be incorporated into Section 1.5 - Plan Area. Second by Mr. Bartareau. The objective of this HCP would be to create an efficient and effective mechanism for providing listed species protection ofRCWs in Collier County consistent with the Endangered Species Act. The HCP is attached to this Executive Summary. Staff reviewed the HCP to ensure it can be implemented according to current regulations. Staff notes the Committee has included that applicants for Agricultural Clearing Notifications would need to comply with the HCP's survey and mitigation requirements (HCP Section 5.6(1)). County Attorney's Office staff has stated that review staff will not be able to mandate this requirement due to state Right to Farm Act regulations. Staff can inform applicants of their responsibilities for Endangered Species Act and other environmental regulatory requirements, but cannot hold Agricultural Clearing Notifications until such permits are obtained by applicants. FISCAL IMP ACT: The majority of County expense for the HCP will be in staff time to solicit agency approval and to implement the HCP. Staff time will be required to move the HCP 1 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 Page 2 of 51 through the approval process with the FWS. The amount of time is dependent on many factors which make it difficult to assess approximately how much staff time would be needed. First, the HCP will need to be certified, meaning it meets the issuance criteria. FWS will need to agree that it is biologically sound and that they agree with the take, minimization and mitigation proposed. A key component for which FWS will be reviewing the HCP is funding assurance. For this HCP, there will need to be funding for staff to facilitate the HCP and money to manage lands for mitigation under Conservation Collier. Another factor of the time required is whether or not it is considered "low effect" under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) rule, which can add an additional two years on the approval time. The final foreseeable time factor will be the amount of time it takes for the County to negotiate with the FWS for a final, approved HCP.As a result of the approved HCP, staff time reviewing permits in the North Belle Meade Overlay (NBMO) can be expected to increase by three to four times the current amount spent by Environmental staff reviewing building permits for the NBMO, approximately five to twenty hours depending on acreage of impacts and amount and type of mitigation needed. However, with an approved HCP, property owners/applicants will have a "One Stop Shop" and would work directly with County staff rather than FWS staff for RCW based impacts and with that overall total review time should be significantly shortened. Additional staff time would be needed for educating property owners, monitoring mitigation sites and coordination with other agencies to oversee implementation and effectiveness of the plan. Staff would also need to maintain GIS maps of the area, and report to the BCC in 10 years. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Amendments to the Conservation and Coastal Management (CCME) and Future Land Use Elements (FLUE) would be needed. Goal 7 of the CCME would need to be changed to reference the HCP in the policy addressing RCW management and the FLUE policy on North Belle Meade Receiving Lands would need to be changed to reference the HCP since this section of the county is exempt from county environmental review. Subsequent Land Development Code amendments would be needed to implement the mitigation requirements of the HCP. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: From the inception of this Committee, the County Attorney expressed concerns that the adoption of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) would expose the County to litigation, both for wrongful issuance of a permit, as well as wrongful denial, in regulating an area that is already regulated by both state and federal law. These concerns remain. This is a legislative matter requiring no ex parte disclosures and simple majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners. Implementing this plan will require amending the Land Development Code. (JAK/STW) RECOMMENDA TION: That the Board of County Commissioners consider the attached Habitat Conservation Plan from the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee and provide direction to the County Manager or his designee for subsequent actions. PREPARED BY: Laura Roys Gibson, Senior Environmental Specialist, Engineering & Environmental Services 2 Page ] of] Agenda Item NO.1 OA September 29, 2009 Page 3 of 51 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: 10A Item Summary: Recommendation to consider the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committees Habitat Conservation Plan application for red-cockaded woodpeckers. (Laura Roys Gibson, Sr. Environmental Specialist, Engineering and Environmental Services Department, CDES) Meeting Date: 9/29/20099:00:00 AM Prepared By Laura A. Roys Environmental Specialist Date Community Development & Environmental Services 8/19/20099:10:55 AM Environmental Services Approved By Judy l'Lilg Operations Analyst Date Community Development & Community Development & 8/20/20094:14 PM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By William D. Lorenz, Jr., P.E. Environmental Services Director Date Community Development & Environmental Services 8/26/200910:50 AM Environmental Services Approved By Steven Williams Assistant County Attorney Date Attorney's Office Attorney's Office 8/31/2009 11 :00 AM Approved By Community Development & Joseph K. Schmitt Environmental Services Adminstrator Date Community Development & Community Development & Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. 8/31/20094:46 PM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 9/4/2009 11 :03 AM Approved By OMB Coordinator OMB Coordinator Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 9/16/20099:25 AM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 9/17/200912:26 PM Approved By Leo E. Ochs, Jr. Deputy County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 9/18/20094:52 PM file:/ /C:\Agendatest\export\] 35-September 29, 2009\ 1 O. COUNTY MANAGER REPORT\]... 9/23/2009 Agenda Item NO.1 OA September 29, 2009 Page 4 of 51 September 15, 2009 To: Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC) From: Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee Re: Draft Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Habitat Conservation Plan This memorandum summarizes the work of the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee (HCPAC) since the Collier County Commission meeting of October 14, 2008. The membership of our committee has changed markedly since our last appearance before this board and Judith Hushon was elected chair and Amber Crooks as vice chair. The HCP AC has met at least monthly and has scheduled numerous subcommittee working sessionslcimeet our September 2009 deadline. As directed, we have prepared a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs). Under this plan, the County will be the holder of an Incidental Take Permit, which will give the County the right to issue permits which may result in "take" of RCW s or their habitat for proposed projects within the North Belle Meade Overlay. Red-cockaded woodpeckers, their nests, and other habitat are regulated by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This HCP, when finalized, will provide relief from liability under the ESA if the County grants building or clearing permits in an RCW area which may potentially result in a "taking" of RCW s. Clearing restrictions are currently established in the Collier County LDC and minimization/mitigation requirements for "taking" of listed species currently exist within the ESA. This HCP will allow for remaining RCW and their habitat to be preserved and will provide a streamlined system for clearing and development to also occur. The goals of the HCP are to provide for: 1. No net loss or to increase and enhance existing RCW population size. 2. To maintain viable RCW habitat through perpetual, pro-active, habitat acquisition and management. 3. To minimize conflicts between private landowners and the RCW management program. The HCP AC recently held a public neighborhood meeting with over 20 stakeholders of the North Belle Meade Overlay area. There was a lively exchange of ideas and many stakeholder comments or concerns have been addressed in this version of the HCP. It is our goal to have this HCP move forward for formal review with the USFWS, a process that can take several years and may result in modification of this present draft before it is presented for your final signature. The term of the HCP AC will have to be extended to accomplish this. With your approval, the HCP AC can also prepare and apply for a Section 6 grant from the USFWS to cover the cost our remaining activities. "",.,- Agenda Item NO.1 OA September 29, 2009 DRAFT Page 5 of 51 HABIT A T CONSERV A TION PLAN FOR RED- COCKADED WOODPECKERS IN COLLIER COUNTY 1. Introduction and Background 1.1 Overview Southern Collier County, Florida is home to a small population of Picoides borealis more commonly known as red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCW); this is a bird species that is currently protected as an "endangered" species under the federal Endangered Species Act and as a "species of special concern" under the Florida Code. To provide for the welfare of these birds and to ensure that development does not further endanger them, Collier County i_s proposing this Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) which calls for maintaining and improving their habitat as well as translocating birds from private to protected lands if they are threatened by development permitted under the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 1.2 Purpose of HCP Effort The goal of this HCP is to ensure the long-term viability of the RCW in Collier County, Florida through the preservation of sufficient nesting and foraging habitat to allow the population to thrive and grow. 1.3 Permit Duration This permit will be in effect for 30 years, but will be subject to review at 10-year intervals to consider RCW population requirements and habitat options. 1.4 Regulatory Framework for the HCP Collier County's LDC contains a section entitled "Protection of Threatened and Endangered Species" (3.04) that includes red-cockaded woodpeckers in addition to a number of other threatened and endangered species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Florida Code. In this section, language referencing the USFWS 2003 Species RecovelY Plan for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker and this Habitat Conservation Plan and its provisions needs to be added. Collier County will be the holder of an Incidental Take Permit, which will give the County the right to issue permits that may result in take of red-cockaded woodpeckers and their habitats and to manage mitigation activities. The concept of "take" is discussed further in Section 4 of this HCP. The terms of this HCP will generally be triggered when a vegetation clearing or agricultural clearing permit application is received, so cross references will be required in those sections of the LDC. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 1 Agenda Item NO.1 OA September 29, 2009 DRAFT Page 6 of 51 In this HCP, a map of areas of concern is proposed for inclusion in section 3.04.02 E of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) along with procedures for determining when various mitigation measures are appropriate. The mitigation measures are based on the parcel size, proposed clearing or habitat-impacting activities, and the location of the parcel. In Collier County the only currently documented occurrences of RCW s on private lands are in the North Belle Meade Overlay (NBMO) area. Section 2.4.1 of this HCP contains details on how this map was constructed. The mitigation requirements are discussed in greater detail in Section 5.6 of this HCP. In addition, those sections dealing with clearing or vegetation removal will need to include cross references to the requirements for RCWs. These include: 2.03.08 Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) ReceivingLands 2.a (3)(1) Allowable Uses-Agricultural Uses 3.a (l)(a) Neutral Lands Agricultural Uses 4.a (l)(a) Sending Lands Agricultural Uses 3.05.00 Vegetation Removal 3.05.02 C Agricultural Exemption 3.05.03 North Belle Meade Overlay (NBMO) 3.05.05 Criteria for Removal of Protected Vegetation 10.02.06 D Agricultural Land Clearing Finally, definitions of Cluster, Foraging Area and Cavity Trees need to be added to section 1.08.02 Definitions. Cavity Tree - Any tree containing 1 or more cavities exhibiting fresh pine resin associated with cavity construction, cavity maintenance, or resin well excavation by red- cockaded woodpeckers. Any tree containing 1 or more artificial or constructed cavities for red-cockaded woodpeckers. Abandoned Cavity Tree - A cavity tree that has not been demonstrated to be in active use by RCW s for five or more years. Cluster - Grouping of at least 4 active and/or inactive suitable cavity trees in proximity to each other supporting a breeding population and including nesting and foraging habitats. A suitable cavity has a single entrance, an entrance tunnel that is not enlarged, a cavity chamber that is not enlarged, a solid base, and is dry and free of debris. The total cluster area is considered to include a minimum convex polygon containing all of the group's cavity trees and the 61 m (200 ft) buffer surrounding that polygon. The minimum cluster area size is 4.05 ha (10 ac). Foraging Area - consists of mature pines with an open canopy, low densities of small pines, little or no hardwood or pine midstory, few or no overstory hardwoods, and abundant native bunchgrass and forb ground covers. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 2 Agenda Item NO.1 OA September 29, 2009 DRAFT Page 7 of 51 Collier County has the right to charge for a vegetation clearing permit and this charge could be specifically modified to cover the cost of a wildlife survey/site inspection by County environmental personnel for properties located in potential habitat areas within the NBMO. 1.5 Plan Area The non-conserved area of Collier County where most of the known RCW habitat is located and where RCW activity has been observed is known as North Belle Meade. The North Belle Meade study area consists of approximately 15,960 acres of mixed use and forested areas within sections 24,25,26 and 36 of Township 49 South, Range 26 East and Sections 13-15 and 19-36 of Township 49 South, Range 27 East and is shown in Figure 1. NORTH BELLE MEADE RCW HABITAT SURVEY Legend RCWHmiltl: RCWC.wti8s _<>'0, ~ RCWC..ntyT'Mf - + WMRC.....01 ~ Axall'linO. . USfW RCW 03 ~ , OIS , j , j M'.. Figure 1 North Belle Meade RCW Habitat Survey There are two main RCW Management Units that are separated by natural or man made features such as cypress forests, open pasture land or development features (Collier County North Belle Meade Overlay Habitat Recovery Plan for the Red- cockaded Woodpecker, 2003). Management Unit A is located in the western portion 8/1812009 rev 8/27/2009 3 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFT Page 8 of 51 of the study area and includes Sections 24,25 and 36 of Township 49 South, Range 26 East and the western portions of Sections 30 and 31 in Township 49 South, Range 27 East. Management Unit B is located to the east and includes Sections 20, 29 and 32 and the eastern portions of Sections 30 and 31, and the western portion of Section 33 in Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Sections 14-15,22-23,26-27,34-35 and the eastern portion of Section 33 in Township 49 South, Range 27 East. Sections 13, 16,21,24,25 and 36 of Township 49 South, Range 27 do not have significant foraging or nesting habitats that would be considered large enough to be viable RCW habitat. The NBMO Management Units are shown on Figure 2 which also contains locations of the known RCW colonies which are shown as well as 0.5 mile buffers around them. The buffer is needed to allow the birds in the colonies to relocate their cavity trees and to forage in the vicinity of their nests. All of the buffer areas except a portion of the foraging area for the Hideout cluster lies within the NBMO. - D HBMO Fig. U North Belle Meade Overlay 0 0 n::w_colony-hcp prOject rcw_cotony_buffer 0.25 mile - - Mile, o 0,25 0,5 1 1.5 2 1'.---" Loon_oj n::w_cotony_buffer 0.5 mite _ Cavity CaVity _ Foraging HCP _West Recovery Unit r:;::;:<~1 HCP ..East Recovery Unit Figure 2 RCW Habitat Areas and Recovery Units This land is generally flat and has a native ecology characterized by hydric and non- hydric pine flatwood or pine-palmetto (Serenoa spp.) uplands. It is located to the north ofI-75. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 4 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFT Page 9 of 51 Lands designated as Receiving Lands in the NBMO, are included in the Management Units solely for the purpose of allowing the owner of Receiving Lands to choose to participate in the County's HCP. Otherwise, these HCP Regulations do not apply to North Belle Meade Overlay Receiving Lands. Those landowners may apply directly to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for a take permit. 1.6 Species to be Covered - Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers About the size of a common cardinal, the red-cockaded woodpecker is approximately 7 inches long (18-20 centimeters) with a wingspan of about 15 inches (35-38 centimeters). Its back is barred with black and white horizontal stripes. The red- cockaded woodpecker's most distinguishing feature is a black cap and nape that encircle large white cheek patches. Rarely visible, except perhaps during the breeding season and periods of territorial defense, the male has a small red streak on each side of its black cap called a cockade, hence its name. Figures 3 and 4 are photographs of male and female RCW s. The red-cockaded woodpecker feeds primarily on beetles, ants, roaches, caterpillars, wood-boring insects, spiders and occasionally fruits and berries (Jackson, 1994). Figure 3 Figure 4 Red-cockaded woodpeckers are a cooperatively breeding species, living in family groups that typically consist of a breeding pair with or without one or two male helpers. Females may become helpers, but do so at a much lower rate than males. The ecological basis of cooperative breeding in this species is the unusually high variation in habitat quality, due to the presence or absence of critical habitat (Walters 1990, Jackson 1994). Because of the cooperative breeding system, red-cockaded woodpecker populations are usually resistant to environmental and demographic variation but are highly sensitive to the spatial arrangement of habitat (Letchner et al. 1998). Colonization of unoccupied habitat is a very slow process under natural conditions because cavities take long periods of time to excavate and birds do not occupy habitat without cavities (Connor and O'Halloran 1987; DeLotelle and Epting 1988). 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 5 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29,2009 DRAFfage 10 of 51 RCW populations are dynamic, preparing and moving to new cavity trees as need arises, e.g., when their current tree is damaged by storms or fire or when the cavity is taken over by another species. This is why it is important to provide for ample nesting and foraging habitat and for corridors between clusters. 1.7 Need for a Recovery Plan Historically, the range of the RCW extended from Florida to New Jersey and Maryland, as far west as Texas and Oklahoma and inland to Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee. Today it is estimated that there are about 5000 groups of red-cockaded woodpeckers, or 10,000 birds from Florida to Virginia and west to southeast Oklahoma and eastern Texas, representing about one percent of the woodpecker's original range (Jackson 1971; Ligon et al. 1986.). They are no longer found in New Jersey, Maryland, Tennessee and Missouri. Within Collier County there are only isolated populations of red-cockaded woodpeckers. Today, most of Florida's red-cockaded woodpeckers are found on large tracts of federal and state land and on private lands adjacent to such areas. Each family group requires many acres of pine associated forests that include large areas of mature open pine habitat and even short-term population stability requires a minimum of about six groups in any area (Beever and Dryden 1992). Populations on public lands are often intensively managed, but those on private lands are important as well. They provide vital links between larger populations. This is especially true for the populations in North Belle Meade that bridge between the other populations on public lands. 2. Environmental Setting of Collier County 2.1 Overview Collier County is located in southwestern Florida. It borders the Gulf of Mexico to the West and South, Lee and Hendry Counties to the north, and Broward and Dade Counties to the east. North Belle Meade is located north and east of 175. Figure 5 shows the location of North Belle Meade within Collier County. All ofthe known remaining red-cockaded woodpecker activity in Collier County occurring on private lands is located in this area. 2.2 Topography/Geology The topography of the North Belle Meade section of Collier County is generally flat, with a slight slope to the southwest. The surface soil is predominately Pineda-Boca- Hallandale with inclusions of Holopaw-Malabar-Basinger-Immokalee. The fine sand 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 6 -,---- ,-- Agenda Item NO.1 OA September 29, 2009 DRAFTage 11 of 51 on the surface tends to be underlain by limestone. The area dead-ends into Route 1-75 that runs E -W. There is a canal to the north of the road and there are periodic culverts connecting the north canal to a similar area on the south side of Route 1-75. _NElIIC> 00-,-, MiI~s 8 12 16 Figure 5 North Belle Meade Overlay Area within Collier County 2.3 Vegetation Important to the RCW The NBMO is characterized by having hydric and non-hydric pine flatwood or pine- palmetto upland habitats. There is also RCW habitat and populations to the south of 1-75 in the Picayune State Forest and to the east in the Big Cypress Preserve. These lands are already being managed for RCW s and are in conservation. The red-cockaded woodpecker makes its home in mature pine forests. In South Florida the South Florida slash pine (Pinus elliotii, var. densa) are most commonly used (Beever and Dryden 1992). While other woodpeckers bore out cavities in dead trees, where the wood is rotten and soft, the red-cockaded woodpecker is the only one which excavates cavities exclusively in living pine trees. Figure 6 illustrates typical RCW habitat in Collier County. The older pines favored by the red-cockaded woodpecker often suffer from a fungus called red heart disease which attacks the center of the trunk, causing the inner wood, the heartwood, to become soft (Jackson 1977). Cavities generally take 1 to 3 years to excavate (Bowman and Huh 1995). The aggregate of cavity trees is called a cluster and may include 1 to 20 or more cavity trees on 3 to 60 acres. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service's 2003 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 7 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29,2009 DRAFfage 12 of 51 - Figure 6 Typical RCW Habitat RCW Recovery Plan, the minimum cluster size is about 10 acres. Cavity trees that are being actively used have numerous small resin wells that exude sap. Figure 7 illustrates a typical cavity tree. The birds keep the sap flowing apparently as a cavity defense mechanism against rat snakes and possibly other predators. The typical territory for a group ranges from 125 to 200 acres, but observers have reported territories in south Florida average 356.7 acres (Beever and Dryden 1992). The size of a particular territory is related to both habitat suitability and population density. The red-cockaded woodpecker plays a vital role in the intricate web of life of the southern pine forests. A number of other birds and small mammals use the cavities excavated by red-cockaded woodpeckers such as chickadees, bluebirds, titmice and several other woodpecker species, including the downy, hairy, and red-bellied woodpeckers. Larger woodpeckers may take over a red-cockaded woodpecker cavity, sometimes enlarging the hole enough to allow screech owls, wood ducks and even raccoons to later move in. Several species of reptiles and amphibians, and insects, primarily bees and wasps, will also use red-cockaded woodpecker cavities (Dennis 1971). Figure 7 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 8 >-.-"""'.... Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 13 of 51 2.4 North Belle Meade Habitat Assessment Activities to Date Some work has already been perfonned in the North Belle Meade sector of Collier County to try to identify red-cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging locations and to identify potential appropriate RCW habitat. 2.4.1 Assessment Criteria The assessment criteria used to create Figures 1 and 2 were formulated using two general habitat types which were delineated according to vegetative composition and digitized onto a 2001 color aerial photograph scaled at approximately I" = 400'. Not all cavity trees and clusters within this area were surveyed. However, data were gathered that indicate that nest sites exist within, or near, the majority of the management units, and therefore may exist to the extent allowed by habitat limitations. The first type of habitat type is more specific, in that it provides appropriate RCW habitat dynamics necessary for cavity trees and nesting habitat. The second type of habitat consists of vegetative associations which provide potential RCW foraging habitat. This not only includes mature slash pines, but also associated open pine woodlands, savannas or potential open pine woodlands that can be created through habitat restoration efforts. The two habitat types were categorized by using seven variables which were evaluated by aerial interpretation, and then selected areas were field verified for accuracy. The field verified areas were then cross referenced with similar habitat registers observed on the aerials and categorized by their habitat viability as it relates to the RCW population requirements. The variables were: . The percent of slash pine canopy, . The density of the canopy, . The sub-canopy composition and density, . Density of exotic plants in association with other canopy or sub-canopy speCIes, . Connectivity to other viable RCW habitats, . Proximity to open, mature pine woodlands, and . Potential for restoration. 2.4.2 Survey Results The field maps were digitized using the background aerial photographs. In most areas there was sufficient detail to be comfortable with the data transfer. The study identified ~ 3,547 acres (3546.85 acres via GIS) ofRCW Foraging Habitat and ~ 3,210 acres of RCW Cavity Habitat in the North Belle Meade area. No RCW habitat areas were identified in the eastern most sections of North Belle Meade. Figure 2 shows the results of this survey. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 9 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 14 of 51 Two management units that appear to have significant foraging or nesting areas have been identified. The West Management Unit is located on the western portion of the study area, and includes sections 24,25 and 36 of Township 49 South, Range 26 East and the western portions of Sections 30 and 31 of Township 49 South, Range 27 East, and Sections 20, 28, 29, 32 and 33 of Township 49 South, Range 27 East. The East Management Unit includes sections 14, 15,22,23,26,27,34 and 35 of Township 49 South, Range 27 East. Within each of the Management Units there are large areas designated as potential or active RCW nesting or cavity tree habitat areas, which are connected by areas that are too densely vegetated for viable nest tree habitat, but suitable for foraging. The East and West Management Unit are also connected by potential foraging areas, but these links appear to be dominated more by cypress than by pine habitats. The East Management Unit has only a marginal connection through a cypress dominated slough located within Section 33. It is also important to note that only West Management Units had documented RCW activity, specifically within Sections 24, 25, 29 32, 33 and 36. No RCWs were observed during the survey, but it was not within the scope of the work to specifically look for cavity trees, and data were already available which documented RCW sightings within these areas. 2.4.3 Implications for Management Supplying good quality foraging habitat is a critical aspect of RCW recovery. Especially over the long-term, as immediate threats from cavity and cluster limitation are reduced. Our understanding of what constitutes good quality foraging habitat comes from a synthesis of research into selection of foraging habitat and effects of habitat characteristics on group fitness. Both habitat selection and group fitness are influenced by the structure of the foraging habitat. Important structural characteristics include: 1. adequate groundcovers of bunchgrasses and forbs, 2. minimal hardwood mid-story, 3. minimal pine mid-story, 4. minimal or absent hardwood over-story, 5. low to intermediate density of small and medium sized pines, and 6. substantial presence of mature old pines. Thus, the quality of foraging habitat is defined by habitat structure. Although geographic variation in habitat types exist, these structural characteristics of good quality habitat remain true for all geographic regions and habitat types. Previous management guidelines stressed quantity of foraging habitat as defined by the number of medium and large trees. However, this needs to be expanded to include habitat 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 10 ~,,.~ Agenda Item NO.1 OA September 29, 2009 DRAF'fage 15 of 51 quality, as defined by habitat structure, and use area metrics to address quantity. RCWs require foraging habitat that is suitable in both quantity and quality. Quantifying habitat structure (and thus habitat quality) is more complex than simply requiring a given amount of habitat or number of trees, because habitat structure is measured by multiple variables. Guidelines for foraging habitat are based on the quantification of structural characteristics. Frequent fire can facilitate the restoration and maintenance of all but one of these structural characteristics (mature and old pines), and may provide further benefits by increasing the availability of nutrients. These guidelines are based on the management plan developed by FFWCC (2003). 2.5 Species of Concern in the Plan Area Several other imperiled species are known to oCGUpy the same upland slash pine habitats. These include the Florida panther, Eastern indigo snake, Florida black bear, gopher tortoise, Big Cypress fox squirrel and several species of wading birds, including the wood stork. Maintenance of adequate cavity and foraging habitat for active, known RCW clusters should also benefit these species in the area, but may not provide adequate compensation for associated impacts to these species. 2.5.1 Florida Panther Florida panthers (Puma conc%r coryi) and RCW s can occupy the same upland slash pine habitats. There are a number of telemetry points for radio-collared panthers in the North Belle Meade area. Much of the North Belle Meade has been classified as being in the primary and secondary habitat zones by USFWS. Vehicle mortality represents a major cause of death while habitat destruction has occurred due to development and agriculture. Figure 8 includes panther telemetry points as well as the locations of RCW s. 2.5.2 Eastern Indigo Snake The Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) is critically dependent upon the availability of appropriate winter and summer refugia. Historically, these refugia were most often provided by gopher tortoise burrows and stump holes. However, gopher tortoises are now becoming rarer and many stumps have been commercially removed. 2.5.3 Florida Black Bear Florida Black Bear (Ursus american us floridanus) also occupy habitats within NBMO. They are threatened due to loss of habitat to development and vehicle mortality. Figure 8 also includes reported black bear incident and death locations. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 11 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAF'fage 16 of 51 - -_. -- RCWCoIonV I RCWObse''o!!Ition . Florida Pan:herTdemetry EI FIoridttPIlrihetRoecIdl . Bled\ BewReportf ~ Btatt Beet Roadkll MlrlnlIgemertlXiIA~) D ManagemerilXlit Breed) _0 Figure 8 NBMO Showing RCW, Panther and Bear Sitings 2.5.4 Gopher Tortoise The Gopher Tortoise (Gophererus polyphmus is primarily associated with xeric scrub pine flatwoods, and mixed hardwood-pine communities. The increasing loss of habitat and urbanization has severely fragmented the populations on the southern coasts. 2.5.5 Big Cypress Fox Squirrel The Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) lives in forested uplands and is threatened by loss of habitat. 2.5.6 Florida Pine Snake The Florida pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) is found throughout the state, but is uncommon. It requires dry sandy soils for burrowing and often lives in 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 12 Agenda Item NO.1 OA September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 17 of 51 gopher tortoise burrows. It is found most often in open pine-oak woodlands and abandoned fields, and also in scrub, sandhills, and longleaf pine forest (Pinus palustris). 2.5.7 Wading Birds Wading birds in North Belle Meade generally include egrets and herons (Egretta sp.), white ibis (Eudocimus a/bus) and wood storks (Mycteria americana). . They commonly feed in freshwater marshes, flooded pastures and ditches, and nest in cypress or mangrove swamps. The woodstorks are the most endangered caused by destruction and disturbance of suitable habitat. 3. Project Description Activities Covered by Permit - Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act S4, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the red-cockaded woodpecker is an endangered species. As documented in the previous sections, areas within Collier County, namely the North Belle Meade area, have habitat occupied by RCWs. In the absence of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) through the USFWS, some parcels being developed under agricultural uses may not be providing appropriate RCW avoidance, minimization and mitigation as intended under the ESA and undermining the protections established in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) which protects 70 to 90% of native habitat in areas containing RCW habitat (see Section 4). The Collier County RCW HCP was developed to help resolve conflicts between protection/preservation of the RCW and its habitat and development/land cover alterations. Establishing the Collier County ITP will remove the risk of possible criminal or civil liability for "take" under the ESA, incidental to otherwise lawful activity, for landowners within the plan area. The HCP will cover future residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and municipal County development occurring within the plan area. Collier County is seeking an ITP to authorize, for a period of 30 years, incidental "take" of the RCW. 4. Potential Biological Impacts: Take In Collier County, most RCW clusters exist on public lands such as Big Cypress National Preserve and Picayune State Forest where large tracts of woodland habitat have been maintained in suitable condition. These public land populations are under management in an attempt to increase RCW numbers and contribute to recovery of the species from its endangered status. Some Collier County RCWs also remain on private land. The North Belle Meade region supports a small RCW population. Suitable habitat has been maintained incidentally on tracts of private land. The RCWs 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 13 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 18 of 51 on private lands belong to small, isolated populations on remaining fragments of habitat. These birds are continuing to disappear without contributing to the future of the species because of ongoing loss and fragmentation of habitat, lack of beneficial management, and the negative effects of demographic isolation. Private landowners are not required to contribute toward species recovery, but must avoid "take" as defined by the USFWS. Avoidance of take necessitates that landowners do not disturb or alter cavity trees or surrounding cavity and foraging habitat used by RCWs. Minimum foraging habitat has been defined by the 2003 RCW Recovery Plan as 200 to 300 acres of Florida slash pine having at least 3000 square feet basal area of pines at least 10 inches in diameter near and contiguous to the cavity trees. In south Florida, because the pines tend to be smaller, up to 1,000 acres of foraging habitat may be required (Jackson 2009). Preservation of the foraging area may represent a lost income opportunity to some landowners who propose habitat alteration, such as timber harvest or clearing, that would result in take through loss of habitat. In order to relieve the burden on the few private landowners with RCW s that belong to small, isolated populations, while at the same time benefiting the overall RCW population, Collier County is developing this habitat conservation plan (HCP) and will become the entity responsible for managing and permitting development and alteration of RCW habitat in the plan area. The proposed action is the issuance of a permit under section lO(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to authorize the incidental take of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker within the approximately 16,022 acres of the NBMO , Collier County, Florida. Development within North Belle Meade that does not meet the standard for agricultural exemption is subject to the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), which limits clearing. North Belle Meade lies within the County's Rural Fringe District which utilizes a Transfer of Development Rights program. Parcels within the "neutral lands" in Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, must preserve a minimum of 70% native vegetation. "Sending" lands lying within the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRP A) boundary must preserve 90% of native vegetations; lands outside of the NRP A boundary must preserve 80% of native vegetation, however, in some cases, off-site preservation is allowed (Collier County LDC 3.05.07(3)). They are also subject to the requirements listed in section 5.6 of this HCP for any "take" activities. Some parcels may satisfy criteria for use as agriculture and may receive an exemption from the Collier County Land Development Code regarding the amount of land that may be cleared, but clearing activities will still be subject to state and federal regulations covering listed species and will have to undertake the requirements identified in Section 5.6 of this HCP. Development or clearing of parcels within North Belle Meade may result in the incidental taking of red-cockaded woodpeckers and their habitat. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 14 -.. Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 19 of 51 For landowners who do not wish to develop, improve or clear their parcels and wish to maintain suitable RCW habitat without incurring increased management responsibility under the Endangered Species Act, the County will work with landowners to facilitate "Safe Harbor" agreements through the USFWS. Under a "Safe Harbor" Agreement, the baseline responsibility of any participating landowner will be to maintain habitat for the number of RCW groups present at the time of the agreement. Safe Harbor with a baseline of zero can be used to protect landowners who have no RCW s on their land, but have a realistic probability of receiving dispersing birds from nearby occupied RCW habitat. 4.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts' The primary threats for the red-cockaded woodpeckers "all have the same basic cause: lack of suitable habitat" (USFWS 2003). Throughout its range, but particularly in Southwest Florida, habitat loss, fragmentation, and isolation, as well as fire suppression, exotic vegetation cover all threaten the red-cockaded woodpecker. "In South Florida, destruction and fragmentation of pine flatwoods habitat on private lands due to urbanization is a major threat, particularly in southwest Florida" (USFWS, 1999). Due to loss of habitat, "increasing isolation... could lead to inbreeding and genetic depression" (USFWS 1999). 4.1.1 Habitat Loss The red-cockaded woodpecker was once a common bird distributed continuously across the southeastern United States. By the time it was listed under the Endangered Species Act, RCWs had declined to fewer than 10,000 individuals in widely scattered, isolated, and declining populations (Jackson 1971, Ligon et al. 1986). This precipitous decline was caused by an almost complete loss of habitat. Fire maintained old growth pine savannahs and woodlands that once dominated the southeast, on which the woodpeckers depend, no longer exist except in a few small patches. Longleaf pine ecosystems, of primary importance to red-cockaded woodpeckers, are now among the most endangered systems on earth (Simberloff 1993, Ware et al. 1993). Shortleaf, loblolly, and slash pine ecosystems, important to red-cockaded woodpeckers outside the range of longleaf, also have suffered severe declines (Smith and Martin 1995). Loss of the original pine ecosystems was primarily due to intense logging for lumber and conversion to agricultural fields. Logging was especially intense at the turn of the century (Frost 1993, Martin and Boyce 1993, Conner et al. 2001). Impacts to easily accessible areas began with the arrival of Europeans, but technological developments of the 1800's, such as the copper still, steam power, and especially railroads, dramatically increased the rate and area of loss (Frost 1993). In the late 1800's logging operations moved to the previously inaccessible interior forests oflong1eaf, shortleaf, and loblolly pines. Two additional factors resulting in the loss of original pine systems in the 1800's and earlier were exploitation for pine resins and grazing by free-ranging hogs (Sus scrofa; Wahlenburg 1946, Frost 1993). 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 15 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFTage 20 of 51 This especially intense period of logging from 1870 to 1930 resulted in the loss of nearly all of the remaining old growth forest in the southeast (Frost 1993, Martin and Boyce 1993, Conner et al. 2001). A common logging practice before the late 1800's was to leave a number of residual trees, including small trees. Cavity trees of red- cockaded woodpeckers probably were left. These residual pines enabled the red- cockaded woodpeckers to survive the original devastation (Phillips and Hall 2000). Later, in the 1900's, fire suppression and detrimental silvicultural practices had major impacts on primary ecosystem remnants, second-growth forests, and consequently on the status ofred-cockaded woodpeckers (Frost 1993, Ware et al. 1993, Ligon et al. 1986, 1991, Landers et al. 1995, Conner et al. 2001). Loss of residual trees in the twentieth century has been a major factor in the decline of woodpecker populations (Costa and Escano 1989, Conner et al. 2001; see 2D). Southern pine forests today are very different from pre-colonial communities not only in extent, but also in species composition, age, and structure (Ware et al. 1993, Noel et al. 1998). Original pine forests were old, open, and contained a structure of two layers: canopy and diverse herbaceous groundcover. These forests were dominated by longleaf pine in the coastal plain, longleaf and shortleaf pines in the Piedmont and interior highlands, and slash pine in south Florida. In contrast, much of to day's forest is young and dense, with a substantial hardwood component and little or no herbaceous groundcover (Ware et al. 1993, Noel et al. 1998). Foraging habitat affects population densities; and it may be a secondary factor currently limiting populations and will likely become a primary limiting factor once abundant nesting habitat is provided (Walters et al. 2000, 2002a). Foraging habitat is therefore also an important concern for long-term viability. 4.1.2 Habitat Degradation Degradation and/or unsuitability of remaining pine habitat has been a major factor in the decline of woodpecker populations. Exclusion and suppression of fire, which may lead to smaller group sizes, reduced productivity, cluster abandonment, and/or low- quality foraging habitat due to (1) replacement of native pines by off-site pine species and hardwoods, (2) increased hardwood encroachment at the expense of pines and groundcover, (3) higher stand densities and a predominant mid-story, and (4) changes in the abundance, species composition, and distribution of the arthropod community. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are directly and adversely affected by each of these changes. Reliance on dormant season prescribed bums has increased. These bums are not as effective as early or mid-growing season bums at reducing hardwoods and promoting native groundcover vegetation (Sparks et al. 1998, 1999). There is also a low availability of old-growth pines, which are required for cavity excavation and are an important component of optimal foraging habitat. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 16 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29,2009 DRAFfage 21 of 51 Reproduction of pine has been severely restricted since the pre-colonial era because of the absence of fire (Wahlenburg 1946, Frost 1993, Ware et al. 1993). Most second- growth in existence today is 70 to 100 years in age (Kelly and Bechtold 1990, Frost 1993, Landers et al. 1995). At the present time, reproduction of pine is constrained by hardwood midstory developed as a result of ineffective fire suppression (Landers et al. 1995, Frost 1993, Peet and Allard 1993). Several silvicultural practices have also been detrimental to red-cockaded woodpeckers, including short rotations, clearcutting, and conversion to sub-optimal pine species. Cutting of second- growth pines began during World War II and continues today. Removal of second-growth pines has exceeded their replacement rate by over 40 percent, and many of the remaining older pines are aging without replacement (Landers et al. 1995). - The years following W orId War II also saw the rise of plantation forestry. Plantations of dense slash or loblolly pines covered over 4.9 million ha (12 million ac) by the mid 1960's and over 6.1 million ha (15 million ac) at present (Ware et al. 1993). Plantations typically have been under rotations of 35 to 70 years for sawtimber production and 20 to 40 years for pulp production (Conner et al. 2001), and industry has continued to shift from logs and poles to pulp (Landers et al. 1995). With technological developments such as chainsaws, the practice of leaving 'cull' pines that were infected with red heart fungus or boxed for resin production declined. These two practices-short rotations and the removal of all trees-had substantial negative impacts on the woodpecker populations that remained after the initial logging (Conner et al. 2001). An additional threat to red-cockaded woodpeckers from past habitat loss is lack of suitable foraging habitat. As described above, recent research indicates that optimal foraging habitat is maintained by fire and contains an old growth or mature pine component (Conner et al. 1991b, Hardesty et al. 1997, James et al. 1997,2001, Walters et al. 2000, 2002a). Restoration of foraging habitat will likely increase red- cockaded woodpecker densities (Walters et al. 2000, 2002a, James et al. 200 I; see 2E), which in turn will positively influence demography and dispersal. 4.1.3 Habitat Fragmentation Habitat fragmentation and group isolation, which increase the RCWs' vulnerability to adverse genetic, demographic, and environmental events, has been a major factor in the decline of woodpecker populations. A major impact of habitat loss on the viability of red-cockaded woodpeckers is the result of fragmented distribution. Fragmentation and isolation have occurred both among groups within a population and among populations, with serious consequences for RCWs. RCWs are particularly sensitive to effects of isolation because of the limited dispersal characteristic of cooperative breeders (Walters et al. 1988, Daniels and Walters 2000a). Fragmentation among populations increases the vulnerability of 8/18/2009 rev 8/2712009 17 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 22 of 51 those populations to adverse genetic, demographic, and environmental events (Walters et al. 1988a, Conner and Rudolph 1991, Hooper and Lennartz 1995), because the dispersal that can help offset such threats is easily disrupted. Fragmentation and isolation of groups within a population can substantially increase that population's risk of extinction (Crowder et al. 1998, Letcher et al. 1998, Walters et al. 2002b). Populations of red-cockaded woodpeckers are surprisingly persistent if the spatial arrangement of groups within the population is tightly clumped. If groups are isolated and dispersal behavior is disrupted, risk of population extinction increases (Crowder et al. 1998, Letcher et al. 1998, Walters et al. 2002b). An additional identified threat to species viability that stems from habitat loss are the risks inherent to critically small populations. These are similar to fragmentation effects, but rather than occurring through isolation, these threats are related to population size. Small populations may be eliminated because of random enviroiimental, demographic, genetic, and catastrophic events (Shaffer 1981, 1987). Random environmental events such as an exceptionally severe winter that causes high adult mortality affect an entire population. Random demographic events such as a death due to predation, or a brood consisting of all males act on individuals within populations. Random genetic events are losses or gains in frequency of any given gene, simply due to chance inheritance. Lastly, catastrophic events, which can affect large as well as small populations, are similar to environmental events but larger in scale. Any of these processes alone or in concert can cause the elimination of a small population. Such processes will continue to remain threats until population sizes are sufficient to withstand them (Shaffer 1981, 1987, Crowder et al. 1998, Letcher et al. 1998, Walters et al. 2002b). Catastrophes will continue to threaten even the largest populations in perpetuity, although the species as a whole will not be in danger once enough large populations are established (e.g., Hooper and McAdie 1995). Other factors unrelated to habitat loss may threaten red-cockaded woodpeckers, but their importance has not yet been determined. Foremost among unevaluated threats are the risks from pesticides and other environmental contaminants. Suburban groups of woodpeckers may be at especially high risk of adverse effects from toxins. Similarly, impacts of exotic species have not yet been assessed. Exotic species such as melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) may be negatively affecting woodpeckers in some parts of their range. 4.1.4 Nest Site Alterations Red-cockaded woodpeckers are unique among North American woodpeckers in that they nest and roost in cavities they excavate in living pines (Steirly 1957, Short 1982, Ligon et al. 1986). This unusual behavior is thought to have evolved in response to the scarcity of snags and hardwoods in the fire-maintained pine ecosystems of the southeast (Ligon 1970, Jackson et al. 1986). Use oflive pines is the primary reason why the species requires mature pines, the loss of which has resulted in endangerment. Cavities are an essential resource for red-cockaded woodpeckers throughout the year, because they are used for both nesting and roosting. Thus, a 8/18/2009 rev 8/2712009 18 Agenda Item NO.1 OA September 29,2009 DRAFTage 23 of 51 thorough understanding of cavity tree ecology is fundamental to red-cockaded woodpecker biology, management, and recovery. The threat to woodpecker populations from low-quality or insufficient foraging habitat is not as immediate as threats from habitat fragmentation and lack of suitable nesting habitat. Fragmentation and lack of nesting habitat are presently limiting populations and are responsible for recent declines (Walters 1991). Wind is the second greatest cause of cavity tree mortality in non-hurricane situations (Conner et at. 1991a). Cavity trees can be uprooted or snapped by high velocity winds. Patterns of harvest near clusters should be carefully planned to avoid funneling wind toward cavity trees (Conner et at. 1991 a, Conner and Rudolph 1995). A forest buffer of uncut trees greater than 61 m (200 ft) wide around cavity trees is adequate protection to minimize wind damage, wind snap, and wind throw during isolated severe summer thUnderstorms (Conner and Rudolph 1995c). Hurricane winds are a major threat to coastal woodpecker populations (Engstrom and Evans 1990, Hooper et at. 1990, Hooper and McAdie 1995, Lipscomb and Williams 1995). For example, when Hurricane Hugo struck the Francis Marion National Forests in South Carolina during September 1989, it destroyed 87 percent of the cavity trees, 67 percent ofthe woodpeckers, and 70 percent of the foraging habitat (Hooper et at. 1990, Hooper and McAdie 1995). The use of the recently developed technique of drilled and inserted artificial cavities (Copeyon 1990, Allen 1991, Taylor and Hooper 1991) enabled the rapid recovery of the Francis Marion population (Watson et at. 1995). Conservation of inland populations and many separate coastal populations will minimize the risk of extinction from hurricanes (USFWS 1985, Hooper and McAdie 1995). Hooper and McAdie (1995) also suggest that pines needed for future nesting habitat be grown in open conditions to promote the development of large crowns, extensive root systems, and strong boles. Another strategy to minimize impacts from hurricane winds is to avoid the creation of openings greater than 10.1 ha (25 ac) in or near forests managed for red-cockaded woodpeckers in hurricane-prone areas. The third major cause of cavity tree mortality is fire. Managers must take appropriate measures to protect cavity trees from prescribed bums and wildfires so that loss is minimized. Foremost among these protective measures is regular burning within the cluster and around cavity trees, to keep fuel at acceptable levels. 4.1.5 Introduced Predators Since our country was first colonized, several thousand foreign plant and animal species have established themselves in the u.S. Introduced predators often exert multi-trophic cascading effects in terrestrial ecosystems. However, how such predation may indirectly impact interactions between above- and below-ground biota is poorly understood, despite the functional importance of these interactions. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 19 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAF'fage 24 of 51 4.1.6 Road Mortality As the most mobile of terrestrial wildlife, birds are not often considered significantly affected by highways (Keller et al. 1996). However, highway impacts to birds occur in four major ways, some of which are unique to birds: by fragmentation, disturbance, and direct and indirect mortality. These imp<l;cts could have considerable negative effects on RCW populations, especially when considered in combination with other sources of mortality and habitat loss. Highways can fragment bird populations and habitats in three ways: loss of large carnivores, habitat dissection, and the isolation of less mobile species. When highways fragment large carnivore populations, birds can suffer increased depredation from smaller carnivores such as bobcats, skunks and weasels (Crooks and Soule 1999). Habitat dissection may result in 2~;ltches of habitat too small to complete a territory. Woodland species such as RCW s are more affected by habitat dissection than grassland species, which appear to be more willing to cross highways as part of their territories (Keller et al. 1996). Highways can isolate small populations or individuals because of habitat dissection. Isolation is a variant of habitat dissection, but it also includes those situations where a portion of a daily or annual habitat is difficult or dangerous to access because of the presence of a highway. Disturbance from highways may be most pronounced during the breeding season, but can also affect other life history periods. Territorial song is only effective if it is heard by other birds, and noise from traffic can be so loud that bird song may be distorted, resulting in difficulties in attracting and keeping females (Reijnen and Foppen 1994). One method of migrant navigation is by reference to stars (Emlen and Demong 1975). Light pollution from all sources reduces the visibility of stars, and may entrap migrating birds in dangerous environments especially during inclement weather, causing collision, apparent confusion, and mortality (Ogden 1996). Direct mortality is the impact most people likely associate with highways. Birds are listed as killed most frequently in most multiple taxa road mortality studies (Forman et al. 2003). Habitat loss to highway development is huge and insidious because highways may facilitate further development. When associated with highways, powerlines, railroads and canals are a few structures cumulatively more hazardous to birds. The expansion of several species of noxious plants and animals is facilitated by the cleared line of sight along highways, 4.1. 7 Artificial Feeding Many people feed wild birds to supplement their diet. However, the provision of food to wildlife has been implicated widely as a causative factor that increases the occurrence of infectious and non-infectious disease. Animals are attracted to artificial sources of feed in higher density than normally occurs under natural conditions. As animal density increases, competition for food also increases resulting in more frequent contact among individuals. Contact can be direct through physical contact, 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 20 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 25 of 51 or indirect as occurs when two animals share the same portion of food. If one or more animals are harboring an infectious organism, its transmission to uninfected individuals is facilitated by the increased frequency of contact among animals congregating at the feeding site. It is also suggested stress from crowding reduces immunocompetence in some animals, increasing the likelihood of disease. Disease can affect individual animals, populations, or communities. Depending on the nature of the disease and the feeding location, disease can be transmitted within or between species, between wildlife and domestic animals, or even between wildlife and humans. Non-infectious disease also can occur when wild species are fed foods incompatible with their digestive function, foods of poor nutritional quality; or spoiled foods that have become toxic. 4.1.8 Single-Family Homes - Urbanization produces fundamental changes in ecosystem structure and populations. Urbanization is likely to be the single most important driver of extinction of RCW s during this century. Already, urbanization is the second most frequently cited cause of species endangerment in the United States (Czech and Krausman 1997). 4.1.9 Failure in Suburban Settings Human-caused disturbances in cluster areas during the nesting season may disrupt RCW nesting activities, decrease feeding and brooding rates, and cause nest abandonment. Such activities may include but are not limited to all-terrain and other off-road vehicles, motorized logging equipment, and other vehicles that make excessive noise and disturbance to which the woodpecker groups have not previously become accustomed. Use of vehicles and other activities throughout the year may cause indirect impacts to RCW s through excessive soil compaction, damage to cavity tree roots, and disturbance of the groundcover. Soil compaction and root damage elevate cavity tree mortality (Nebeker and Hodges 1985, Hicks et ai. 1987, Conner et al. 1991a); changes in the groundcover may affect prey abundance (Collins 1998), nutrient value of prey (James et al. 1997), and fire frequency and intensity through changes in fuel. 4.2 Anticipated Take "Take" is defined by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.3) as actions "to harass, harm, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." A notable component of this definition is the definition of "harm." "Hann" in the definition of "take" means "an act that actually kills or injures protected wildlife. Such acts may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering." Actions necessitating translocation of an RCW shall be considered a "take" and subject to the terms of the HCP. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 21 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAF'fage 26 of 51 4.2.1 Definition of Available Habitat There is geographic variation in nesting and roosting habitat of red-cockaded woodpeckers. The largest populations tend to occur in the primarily longleaf pine (Pinus paiustris) forests and woodlands of the coastal plains and Carolina Sandhills (Carter 1971, Hooper et ai. 1982,James 1995, Engstrom et ai. 1996). Pine habitat occupied by red-cockaded woodpeckers covers a wide moisture gradient ranging from hydric slash pine flatwoods in Florida (Beever and Dryden 1992, Bowman and Huh 1995) to uplands in Oklahoma (Masters et ai. 1989, Kelly et ai. 1993), Alabama, and Mississippi. Density of pine overstory in areas occupied by RCWs varies from fairly dense in Texas (Conner and O'Halloran 1987, Conner and Rudolph 1989), to sparse in the Orlando, Florida vicinity (DeLotelle et ai. 1987), to extremely low in the Big Cypress National Preserve (Patterson and Robertson 1981). -- Native slash pine communities support red-cockaded woodpeckers in south Florida (Beever and Dryden 1992). This subspecies of slash pine (Pinus elliottii var. densa) is the only native pine in this region and is similar to longleaf pine in both appearance and fire resistance. Native slash pine like the longleafpine has a grass stage and large taproot (Landers 1991). Much of the native slash used by RCW s is located in hydric communities (Beever and Dryden 1992). It may be that slash pine replaces longleaf pine in this region because it can better tolerate very wet conditions. For RCWs, native slash pine habitats differ from those farther north in that the pines are generally smaller and may be more sparsely distributed (Patterson and Robertson 1981, Beever and Dryden 1992, Landers and Boyer 1999). The largest size that south Florida slash pines achieve, even in old growth woodlands, is typically 20 to 30 em (8 to 12 in). Cavity trees in this habitat type are smaller than those normally found in other habitats (Beever and Dryden 1992, Bowman and Huh 1995). However, the presence of fire and old trees in both nesting and foraging areas are also critically important. Woodpeckers in native slash pine have not been well studied. Preliminary research has indicated that home ranges of birds in native slash pine are larger than those in other habitats (Patterson and Robertson 1981, Beever and Dryden 1992), but the relationship between habitat requirements and habitat quality has not been investigated in this forest type. Thus, it is not known whether larger home ranges in south Florida result from degraded habitat, natural differences in habitat quality, population density, or even lack of cavity trees. Although further research is necessary to determine the cause of large home ranges in south Florida, results from studies elsewhere suggest that as habitat quality increases, the size of these home ranges will decrease. It is likely that, as pine density, age, and herbaceous groundcovers of south Florida slash pine woodlands increase, resident woodpeckers will still require more foraging habitat than woodpeckers in most other regions but less than they appear to be using at the present time. Slash pine was historically a minor component of coastal pine forests. It is a mesic pine that was generally found in damp swales, narrow drainages, and along pond margins within longleaf pine forests (Landers 1991, Christensen 2000). Slash pine is now much more widespread than was true historically, as a result of fire suppression and aggressive planting programs. Off- 8/1812009 rev 8/27/2009 22 Agenda Item NO.1 OA September 29, 2009 DRAFTage 27 of 51 site slash pine forests, such as that in North Belle Meade, support small numbers of RCW s in some areas. Restoration of these sites to site-appropriate pines would be beneficial; however, caution must be used to avoid unnecessary impacts to the RCWs (FerraI1998). 4.2.2 Definition and Quantification of Take Under this H CP, incidental take of RCW s, their cavity trees and other essential habitat may occur. The total direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the RCW s within North Belle Meade will be directly related to the amount of future development and land alterations and based on a multi-tier avoidance, minimization and mitigation strategy detailed in Section 5.6 of this HCP. 5. Conservation Program - Measures to Minimize and Mitigate for Impacts The overall goals of this HCP are to increase the quantity and quality ofpublic1y- preserved RCW habitat, to increase the number and health of the Collier County RCW population, and to provide a comprehensive plan for landowners who wish to utilize their lands within North Belle Meade but may be unable to do so currently due to restrictions under the Endangered Species Act. The HCP will provide a benefit to the species by protecting and enhancing both private and public lands that contain red-cockaded woodpecker habitat, as well as dispersal corridors. A goal for the Southwest Florida population of red-cockaded woodpeckers is to "establish additional populations of red-cockaded woodpeckers on public and private lands, where feasible, and create as much habitat connectivity as possible, to maximize dispersal opportunities"(USFWS, 1999). This plan will result in preservation of RCW habitat in a more cohesive and planned way because mitigation lands off-site will be adjacent to existing RCW habitat. We anticipate that issuance of this permit will result in a benefit to the species, as the HCP will provide a regulatory oversight mechanism for small parcels that may not otherwise incur a nexus with federal agencies or may not otherwise compensate for their impacts to RCW s and their habitat. 5.1 Biological Goal The goal of this HCP is to maintain successfully breeding populations of red- cockaded woodpeckers within Collier County, Florida and to facilitate recovery on adjoining lands containing appropriate pine flatwood habitat. 5.2 Biological Objectives There are active clusters of this indigenous woodpecker within the North Belle Meade study area. The red-cockaded woodpecker has highly specific habitat requirements, foraging and breeding in mature pine stands at least 30 years old, which do not 8/1812009 rev 8/2712009 23 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 28 of 51 exhibit an excessively dense hardwood mid-story. Because of its critically low population, the RCW is a federally protected species. Therefore, Collier County BCC will utilize its authority to establish compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended, to protect and enhance RCW populations in North Belle Meade, through the implementation of this RCW Habitat Conservation Plan. The management goals and guidelines for this HCP are described below. There are three primary goals for the management of the RCW in the North Belle Meade: 1. No net loss or to increase and enhance existing RCW population size. 2. To maintain viable RCW habitat through perpetual, pro-active, habitat acquisition and management. 3. To minimize conflicts between private landowners and the RCW management program. 5.2.1 No Net Loss A "No net loss" policy can be defined as a principle by which counties, agencies, and governments strive to balance unavoidable habitat, environmental and resource losses with replacement of those items on a project-by-project basis so that further reductions to resources may be prevented. "No net loss" policies can be applied to almost every environmental issue and concern in Florida. From wetland protection, where the policy is most widely known, from public hunting lands to private farmland and single-family homes, "no net loss" policies have become important tools in protecting Florida's environment and protecting the public's access to the environment. This HCP shall meet the standards of "no net loss," with the biological goal of providing a net benefit to the region's RCWs. 5.2.2 Maintain Connectivity and Viable Habitat Managers have some limited tools to combat effects of fragmentation (e.g., strategic location of recruitment clusters, retention of forest cover, and translocation). More importantly, as populations recover, isolation effects will not be as intensely acute as they are at present, because larger populations have greater resistance to impacts from environmental and demographic threats, greater retention of genetic variation, and thus greater probability of persistence. However, effects of fragmentation are likely to remain serious threats to population viability throughout the period of recovery. Tracts of cleared land, development, mining, as well as existing and proposed transportation corridors (including 1-75) fragment existing RCW habitat in North Belle Meade. Fragmentation of habitat create barriers to movement and introduces secondary edge and cumulative impacts. The HCP has a goal of retaining occupied RCW habitat that connects known clusters as well as unoccupied habitat that may connect occupied habitat if restoration was performed. In particular, a potential link between clusters north of 1-75 to those south ofI-75 in the Picayune Strand will be explored. ,.- 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 24 ~,,,.o Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 29 of 51 5.2.3 Minimize Landowner Conflicts Part of the goal of this HCP is to inform property owners within the known RCW habitat areas of the requirements of this plan as well as their existing obligations under the federal and state laws protecting them as an "endangered species." This is part of the "No Surprises" intention of an HCP so that requirements are known prior to any development occurring. The inclusion of provisions in the Collier county Land Development Code will also have this effect and can be cited when a clearing permit is applied for by a landowner. The County will hold public meetings to inform landowners of their rights and obligations under the endangered species regulations and this proposed HCP program. 5.3 Strategies to Achieve Biological Goals Cavities, cavity trees, and cavity tree clusters currently limit red-cockaded woodpecker populations, and thus their careful management is foremost in woodpecker conservation and recovery. Red-cockaded woodpeckers require large old trees as nesting and roosting sites, in habitat that is free of pine and hardwood mid- story. Each cavity tree is an important resource that must be protected, and until potential cavity trees become more widely available, additional cavities and clusters must be judiciously provided through the use of artificial cavity technology. Hardwood encroachment causes abandonment of cavity tree clusters, with direct effects on population status. Encroaching hardwoods must therefore be controlled, preferably by frequent, early to mid growing season fire. These management actions-protection of existing cavity trees, provisioning of artificial cavities and clusters as appropriate, and hardwood control- form the basis of red-cockaded woodpecker management. Loss of cavity trees and hardwood encroachment were primary factors in the decline of the species throughout its range. Removal of these limiting factors is therefore fundamental to conservation. As good quality foraging habitat is limited in South Florida due to the ecology of the hydric slash pine habitats, requiring foraging habitat that may exceed 200 acres in size to support a cluster is critical (USFWS, 1999). Ensuring sufficient foraging habitat around clusters is also essential to maintaining the RCW s in the plan area. 5.3.1 Maintain Habitat in Protected Areas To protect cavity trees, a buffer zone of continuous forest, 0.5 mile in width, is generally established around a group's active and inactive cavity trees. To facilitate record keeping and protection, individual cavity trees within a cluster are commonly marked with metal numbered tags, painted for easy detection, and mapped. Lands proposed as mitigation shall be "located in the vicinity of the affected habitat, where appropriate, to avoid further fragmentation and isolation of existing habitat" (USFWS, 1999). Ifmore appropriate to the stability of the RCW population in Southwest Florida, RCW s shall be translocated from threatened private lands to public lands, and "is intended to result in a net gain of red-cockaded woodpeckers on 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 25 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 30 of 51 public lands or in establishment oflarger, more secure private populations" (USFWS, 1999). The carrying capacity of RCWs is "directly correlated with habitat quality," therefore, efforts should focus on protecting habitat for the birds on private lands where medium-sized populations (10 to 30 groups) are known to exist... and expanding populations on key public lands" (USFWS, 1999). Noting that current known red- cockaded groups within the North Belle Meade area are limited and below this threshold, mitigation efforts, if not possible on-site, will be focused on the recruitment into the established Picayune Strand State Forest red-cockaded woodpecker population. This goal is supported by the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan, which aims to "increase, via translocation, the size of populations on state and federal lands" (USFRWS, 2003). In 2000, Picayune Strand had approximately three known red-cockaded woodpecker clusters. The goal is to grow -. . the population to 25 clusters (USFWS, 2003). 5.3.2 Maintain Source Populations This HCP proposes to maintain source populations through two strategies. The first is to educate landowners of their responsibilities under federal and state legislation to protect the RCWs that may be present on their property. The second is to include in the Collier County Land Development Code provisions that will require surveys/inspections and either protection on-site or movement and compensation that may cover translocation and mitigation for impacts to habitat (see Table 1). This compensation money can be used to purchase additional appropriate habitat to ensure the continued health of existing RCWs. 5.3.3 Restore and Maintain Corridors One of the goals of this HCP is to use some of the funds collected to acquire and permanently protect appropriate RCW land. These funds will be earmarked for the purchase of land that is good habitat and is either adjacent to known clusters (e.g., northwest comer of section 24) or provides a link between present populations and appropriate but currently unoccupied habitat which could provide alternative habitat to existing clusters if their current nesting areas are disturbed. 5.3.4 RCW Cavity Installation Several large pines are selected in proximity to each other and are drilled and an artificial insert placed in the cavity. Then, these cavities are fitted with a front piece with a 1 "PVC pipe insert and surrounded by a wire mesh to prevent enlargement of the hole). - 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 26 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 31 of 51 5.3.5 Movement of RCWs If RCW s may be impacted by the proposed actions, translocation of the birds will be required prior to the permitting of any habitat changes. Translocation will require that habitat be acquired, exotics removed and quality habitat managed.or restored, and artificial cavity trees established, as may be required per this HCP, before the occupied habitat is impacted. Handling of RCW s, as well as design and placement of artificial cavity trees will be subject to applicable local, state, and federal guidelines. 5.3.6 Monitoring Population monitoring is a critical component of the conservation and recovery of red...cockaded woodpeckers. Effective monitoring begins with explicit identification of monitoring objectives, the appropriate metrics to be used in meeting objectives, and familiarity with necessary sampling and monitoring techniques. It is then up to managers and researchers to apply these standards in good faith. Finally, monitoring results must be compared to stated objectives. Fortunately, red-cockaded woodpeckers are more easily monitored than most species because of their conspicuous active cavity trees and the exceptional stability of territory locations. Surveys of the recruitment clusters will be conducted twice a year (at least one survey during the breeding season) for five years. Surveys and County access to mitigation areas will be conducted in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal guidelines. Monitoring of the mitigation areas will also determine need for follow-up exotic treatment and land management needs. County staff will periodically (at least annually) monitor the presence and success of known RCW clusters. The results will be maintained on the cluster map. 5.4 Adaptive Management Strategy During the term of the HCP, considering increased surveying/inspection of properties proposing to alter habitat, this HCP must allow for adaptive management. Similarly, information will be gathered from monitoring inspections of birds left in place and those that are translocated. Where properties were to be managed for RCWs, this will also be inspected periodically by the County. If a new cavity tree and/or cluster is found and verified, the cavity tree, cluster and 0.5 mile buffer foraging area will be subject to the HCP avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures established in this HCP. These new cavity trees as well as those from translocation activities will be located on the County's base map. In Section 5.8.2, this HCP calls for a review of the success of the program after 10 years. That should be sufficient time to evaluate whether the initial activities as outlined in this plan are effective, whether appropriate habitat land could be 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 27 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAF'fage 32 of 51 identified and purchased with mitigation money, and whether property in the NBMO is being managed for the RCWs. Adaptive management practice calls for this type of review and if problems are noted, or more effective measures are identified, they should be incorporated in the plan and the County's Land Development Code, as appropriate. Based on the findings of the initiallO-year review, the interval to the next review cycle will be determined. 5.5 Measures to Minimize Impacts Impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker habitat should be minimized on-site prior to triggering mitigation measures. The priority habitat on-site will be "the most suitable areas forred-cockaded woodpeckers, connect[ions] [to adjacent] preserves" (USFWS, 1999). Minimization measures may include retention of all active and inactive cavity trees, start hole or artificial cavity on the site and foraging habitat within a 0.5 mile buffer, if possible. 5.6 County Permitting and Mitigation Process The Hep will employ the strategies outlined in this section of the HCP to achieve its overall and biological goals. Impacts to RCW habitat will be avoided by directing development away from known and viable RCW habitat, including both cavity and foraging habitat, particularly in priority areas including lands adjacent to public lands, established clusters, and potential dispersal corridors. Impacts to RCW habitat will be minimized by ensuring that activities requiring clearing reduce impacts that may adversely affect red-cockaded woodpeckers, including minimization of development/clearing footprint, appropriate buffers from the cavity tree, placing incompatible uses away from the cavity tree and other RCW habitat areas, and minimizing disturbance during nesting season. Where effects cannot be avoided, impacts will be mitigated. North Belle Meade consists of lands that are designated as "sending," "receiving," and "neutral" as shown in Figure 2. Clearing of vegetation on sending and neutral lands requires a clearing permit from Collier County. Section 3.05.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code states that receiving lands do not have to apply for a clearing permit; however those participating in the HCP and proposing clearing activities will require a survey and will be subject to this HCP. Only activities on land resulting in a determination of "take", as defined in Section 4, will require mitigation. As established in Section 4, avoidance of take necessitates that landowners do not disturb or alter cavity trees or cavity and foraging habitat used by RCW s. The required mitigation will be dependent on the property location, the size of the property and the activity planned as detailed in the following tables. Required mitigating activities, funds or lands will be based on the footprint of proposed impacts to RCW habitat. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 28 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAF'fage 33 of 51 The process to be followed when proposing clearing activities within the North Belle Meade Overlay is as follows: 1. All County approvals, permits, or notification for vegetation or agricultural clearing within the NBMO will be consistent with the approved Hep. All properties within the NBMO will be required to submit a RCW survey prior to any clearing activity. This survey should be perforrhed by a trained environmental professional familiar with RCW survey protocols and signed. Appendix A contains RCW survey guidance from the 2003 USFWS Recovery Plan. If the survey identifies the presence of a cavity tree, it should be determined whether the tree is currently active. Cavity trees will be considered active unless it can be proven that there has been no RCW activity for the previous five years. If a cavity tree is found during the survey, this will be reported to Collier County which will conduct an inspection to verify and GPS the location, and the RCW map will be updated. The designation or this property will be changed to reflect its new status, and the mitigation requirements will change accordingly. The County will generally conduct a verification survey prior to issuance of any clearing permit. 2. Determine whether the property lies within East or West Management Units or outside of these areas as depicted on Figure 2. a. If the property lies within the West Management Unit, it must then be determined whether it lies within the 0.5 mile buffer of a known cluster, whether it lies in nesting habitat, whether it lies in foraging habitat or whether it lies outside these areas. If it lies within nesting habitat, a wildlife survey/site inspection will be required to determine whether an active cavity tree exists on the property. b. If the property lies within the East Management Unit, it must be determined by a survey by a trained environmental professional to determine whether or not RCW or cavity trees are present and whether it lies within nesting habitat, foraging habitat, or outside of these habitats. 3. Using Table 1, determine the required mitigation for proposed agricultural or non-agricultural clearing. The allowed non-agricultural clearing varies from 10% to 30% depending on whether the land is designated as "sending," "neutral" or "receiving" in accordance with the Collier County LDC. 4. The amount of mitigation that is required is directly extrapolated from the size of the footprint of the proposed impacts. There are three basic types of mitigation and each of these will be discussed below. 8/18/2009 rev 8/2712009 29 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFPage 34 of 51 Table 1 Mitigation Required in NMBO Area Unit Parcel Cavity 1/2 mile of Cavity tree Foraging habitat Other size tree/cluster area cavity tree habitat affected West :S] acre 1:1 1: 1 1:1 0.5:1 Survey > 1 acre 4:1 4:1 2:1 2:1 Survey East < ] acre 1:1 1: 1 1:1 0.5: 1 Survey > 1 acre 4:1 4:1 1:1 1:1 Survey a. On-site mitigation - Landowners can reduce their mitigation requirements by half by committing to maintain the remainder of their property. This reduction may not be applied to impacts proposed to cavity trees, and-may only apply when the clearing is done in accordance with the clearing maximums allowed in the Land Development Code. Land management must be conducted in accordance with RCW management principles that include: (1) Removal of understory including sabal palms and exotics such as melalucca and brazilian pepper, by fire, mechanical, manual or chemical means. No heavy equipment, including but not limited to feller bunchers, rakes or hydro-axes, shall be used within fifty feet of a cavity tree. No mechanical equipment shall be allowed within 200 feet of a cavity tree during nesting season. (2) Retaining potential cavity trees with a dbh of greater than 10", as well as an adequate number of smaller slash pines to become recovery/replacement cavity trees in the future. Landowners who choose this option will receive regular inspections by the County to ensure that the clearing is being performed. This designation of property as "maintained as RCW habitat" will be recorded as a conservation easement and will continue with the property in perpetuity. b. Offsite mitigation - Compensatory lands must be managed and/or restored as suitable for RCW s and must be maintained into perpetuity and be: (1) Quality RCW habitat within or adjacent to the Picayune Strand State Forest Project Boundary or other suitable permanently protected area of at least 300 acres. (2) Within a known or biologically-feasible dispersal corridor to help protect and establish connectivity. (3) Land value for compensation is determined by the current tax rolls for the land at the time of the take. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 30 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 35 of 51 If compensatory lands are to be transferred to a public entity (such as Collier County or the State of Florida), a land management fee determined by the receiving entity shall be included in the mitigation package that is sufficient for species-specific habitat management into perpetuity. c. Translocation - Impacts to RCW cavity tree(s) can also be offset by translocation to a created artificial cluster tree(s) in a preserved area adjacent to occupied habitat or in a public preserve. Translocation costs will include the cost of creating the new cluster of cavity trees, installing the birds, and monitoring the cluster annually for five years and reporting the success of the translocation to the County Environmental Services Department. Professionals are available who can accomplish the translocation and monitoring for a landowner and must follow all applicable local, state, and federal regulations regarding removing the birds. - Landowners who wish to "opt out" of the County HCP, may consult directly with the USFWS. Landowners who may impact RCWs or their habitat outside of the NBMO shall consult directly with the USFWS. It should be noted that Collier County is exempt from Bert Harris claims in requiring this mitigation since it is given the power to award Take Permits by the USFWS, a federal agency. 5.7 Landowner Grievance Process Landowners who are dissatisfied with the results of an inspection and imposition of a mitigation process for land clearing, can appeal through the process defined in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and administrative code. The landowners may also apply for their own HCP directly to the USFWS. 5.8 Monitoring and Reports The County will keep a record of the take permits it has awarded. It will also maintain the map shown in Figure 2 and update it to show clusters newly identified during required property inspection/wildlife surveys as well as the locations of translocated clusters. 5.8.1 Monitoring Measures Monitoring reports are required for all translocated clusters for a period of five years after the translocation to allow the county to measure the success of this process. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 31 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAF'fage 36 of 51 5.8.2 Reports At the end often years, the success of this RCW HCP in Collier County will be evaluated. At that time the effectiveness of the measures will be assessed and the effect of the procedures as well as natural processes on the native Collier County RCW population will be examined. Based on this evaluation, a determination will be made on whether the population is stable, continuing to decline or recovering. This is also a time when measures that are found not to be working can be amended to improve the plan's future implementation. Representatives from the USFWS, FFWCC, Collier County's Environmental Services Division, and Conservation Collier will agree on conclusions and present them to the Board of Commissioners of Collier County. 6. Funding Funding is required to finalize this HCP and then to put it into practice. The HCP Advisory Committee has played a major role in bringing the plan this far and will continue to play an active role, but minimal services will be required from the Environmental Services Department and the County Attorney's Office, especially as the agreement nears sign-off. Current levels of funding of about $ I 5,000/yr will permit this process to continue. If the BCC approves, the HCPAC can submit a Section 6 grant from USFWS to cover all of our expenses. 1 Operational funding for this program, once the HCP is signed by the BCC and the participating agencies, will come from an increase in the cost of vegetation and agricultural clearing permits in the NBMO. The NBMO could also be designated as a special taxing district to recover the staff costs for maintaining this program once it is enacted. 7. Alternatives The main alternatives to this HCP are to: I. Broadly implement a Safe Harbor Program among the landowners whereby they would agree to protect those resources needed by RCW s occurring on their property and to maintain their property in a way that maximally benefits the RCW s; and I For information, Section 6 Grant Applications for 2010 awards are due August 19,2009. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 32 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAF'fage 37 of 51 2. Do nothing and allow development to occur with minimal respect to the RCW s. Property owners are responsible for obtaining their own HCPs from USFWS, a process that is more expensive and takes longer than a NBMO HCP. 8. Plan Implementation 8.1 Interagency RCW Habitat Management Task Force An Interagency RCW Taskforce will be assembled including representatives of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Department of Environmental Protection regulatory division, the Collier County Department of Environmental Services, Conservation Collier and the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee or its.successor entity. This Taskforce will meet on an as needed basis to oversee the implementation of this plan and to evaluate its effectiveness. 8.2 Changed Circumstances In Southwest Florida there are a number of occurrences both natural and man-made that can affect the future health of RCW populations. 8.2.1 Hurricanes The mature Florida slash pines that red-cockaded woodpeckers use for their cavity trees in Southwest Florida are particularly vulnerable to damage from high winds. When the birds create their cavities, this weakens the overall tree structure and during high winds, trees will tend to snap at this weakened point. 8.2.2 Acceleration of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation Development and clearing of land results in significant loss of habitat. A number of property owners in the North Belle Meade Overlay area of Collier County have used their rights to clear land for agricultural purposes to establish nurseries. This results in removal of the slash pines and total clearing of the native habitat. There have also been several earth mines established in this area which also results in significant clearing; mines are an allowed agricultural conditional use. Another factor directly limiting the number of potential breeding groups is habitat fragmentation and consequent isolation of groups, which results in disrupted dispersal of helpers and failure to replace breeders. This limitation is best addressed through the appropriate development practices, placement of clusters of artificial cavities and implementation of silviculture and land management practices that minimize fragmentation and provide wildlife corridors. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 33 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 38 of 51 8.2.3 Inadequate Habitat Management The RCWs require open pine woodlands and savannahs with large pines for nesting and roosting. Large old pines are required as cavity trees. There should be little or no hardwood midstory. If the mid-story of cabbage palms, 'Brazilian pepper and melaluca becomes too dense, the RCWs will abandon their cluster oftrees and search for other suitable habitat. The RCW s also require suitable foraging habitat consisting of mature pines with an open canopy, low to moderate densities of pines, little or no hardwood or pine mid-story, few or no over-story hardwoods and groundcover dominated by native grasses and forbs. Fire suppression can result in proliferation of mid-story growth that has a negative impact on RCW success. Then, if a fire does occur in an overgrown mid-story, severe damage to the mature slash pines occurs as well. 8.2.4 Genetic Changes Red-cockaded woodpeckers exhibit inbreeding depression and inbreeding avoidance behaviors. Inbreeding is expected to affect population viability in populations of less than 40 potential breeding groups, and may be a significant factor affecting viability in isolated populations of 40-1 00 potential breeding groups as well. Immigration rates oftwo or more migrants per year can effectively reduce inbreeding in populations of any size including small ones. Loss of genetic variation through the process of genetic drift is an inevitable consequence of finite population size. New genetic variation arises through the process of mutation. In large populations, mutation can offset loss through drift and genetic variation is maintained. Just how large a population must be to maintain variation is a difficult question. Currently, researchers recognize that in general, only populations with actual sizes in the thousands, rather than hundreds, can maintain long-term viability and evolutionary potential in the absence of immigration. However, if populations are connected by immigration rates on the order of 1 to 10 migrants per generation (0.5 to 2.5 migrants per year), the genetic variation maintained by these populations is equal to that of one population as large as the sum of the connected populations. Thus, sufficient connectivity among populations can maintain genetic variation and long-term viability of the species. 8.2.5 Demographic Changes Effects of demographic changes on population viability may vary with the spatial arrangement of groups. Populations as small as 25 potential breeding groups can be surprisingly resistant to random demographic events if those groups are highly aggregated in space. Populations as large as 100 potential breeding groups can be impacted by demographic changes, if groups are not aggregated and dispersal of helpers is disrupted. Demographic changes are not expected to affect populations 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 34 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29,2009 DRAFTage 39 of 51 larger than 100 potential breeding groups. Similarly, effects of environmental changes may vary with the spatial arrangement of groups. Based on preliminary results of models and estimates of potential environmental changes derived from North Carolina Sandhills, 250 potential breeding groups will likely withstand effects of any environmental changes regardless of their spatial arrangement. 8.2.6 Low Survival of Translocated Populations Translocation of RCWs while well documented, is not always successful and its long- term effectiveness as a population management tool has not been proven. 8.3 Unforseen Circumstances - This HCP is being developed with the best current knowledge of RCWs, their habitat requirements, and the local environment in which the Collier County population dwells. There are many events that could affect the future of this plan and a few are discussed below. 8.3.1 Persistently Low Juvenile Survival There are a number of variables from weather to predator activity that affect the survival of juvenile RCW s. If survival of juveniles is demonstrated to be reduced for several years in a row, this plan and its strategy should be reviewed to determine where changes might be made. 8.3.2 Prolonged Drought Drought conditions in 2007 resulted in lower than normal reproduction rates in south Florida clusters. Drought also increases the danger of non-managed burns, i.e., wildfires and this also happened in 2007, affecting the breeding colonies in the Picayune State Forest where two of 12 cavity trees were destroyed by fire. 8.3.3 Long- Term Maintenance/Management This HCP assumes that the management of the take permit process for RCWs will be assumed by the Environmental Services Department of Collier County. It also assumes that public lands such as the Picayune State Forest will continue to agree to accept translocated colonies ofRCWs. Should either of these factors change, the plan will need to be reviewed and an alternative management strategy developed. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 35 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFTage 40 of 51 8.3.4 New Environmental Issues Scientists are predicting significant climate changes for South Florida including: rising sea level, increased numbers and intensities of storm events, changes in precipitation, and increase in temperatures and lengths of "summer" seasons. All of these can have a potential effect on RCW s. Should adverse effects on the population be noted, the plan will need to be reviewed and an alternative management strategy developed that accommodates these changes. 9. Literature Cited Allen, n.H. 1991. Constructing artificial red-cockaded.woodpecker cavities. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report SE-73. Beever, J. W. III, and K. A. Dryden, 1992. Red -cockaded woodpeckers and hydric slash pine flatwoods. Transactions of the 57th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference_57:693-700. Bowman, R., and C. Huh, 1995. Tree characteristics, resin flow, and heartwood rot in pines (Pinus palustris, P. ellioti), with respect to red-cockaded woodpecker cavity excavation in two hydrologically-distinct Florida flatwood communities. Pp. 415-426 in D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa, eds., Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Recovery. Ecology and Management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX. Carter, J. H. III 1971. Birds of the central Sandhills of North Carolina. Chat 35:91-105. Conner, R. N. and K.A. O'Halloran, 1987. "Cavity-tree selection by red-cockaded woodpeckers as related to growth dynamics of southern pines." Wilson Bulletin 99:398-412. Conner, R. N., and D. C. Rudolph. 1989. Red-cockaded woodpecker colony status and trends on the Angelina, Davy Crockett, and Savine National Forests. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SO-250. Conner, R.N., and D.C. Rudolph. 1991. Forest habitat loss, fragmentation, and red-cockaded woodpeckers. Wilson Bulletin 103:446-457. Connor, R. N., and D. C. Rudolph. 1995. Wind damage to red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees on eastern Texas national forests. Pp. 183-190 in D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper and R. Costa, eds. Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Recovery, Ecologv and Management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX. - 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 36 Agenda Item No.1 OA September 29, 2009 DRAFTage 41 of 51 Connor, R. N., D. C. Rudolph, D. L. Kulhavy, and A. E. Snow. 1991a. Causes of mortality ofred-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. Journal of Wildlife Management 55: 531-537. Conner, R. N., D. C. Rudolph, and J. R. Walters, 2001. The red-cockaded woodpecker: surviving in a fire-maintained ecosystem._ University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. Connor, R. N., A. E. Snow, and K. A. O'Halloran. 1991b. Red-cockaded woodpecker use of seed-tree/shelterwood cuts in eastern Texas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:67-93. Copeyon, C. K. 1990. A technique for constructing cavities for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18:303-311. Costa, R., and R. Escano, 1989. Red-cockaded woodpecker translocations 1989-1994: state- of-our-knowledge:- Pp.74-81 in Annual Proceedings of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association. Zoo Atlanta, Atlanta, GA. Crooks, K., and M. Soule. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaUllal extinctions in a fragmented system. Nature 400: 563-566. Crowder, L.B., J.A. Priddy, and J.R. Walters, 1998. "Demographic isolation ofred-cockaded woodpecker groups: a model analysis." USFWS Project Final Report. Duke University Marine Laboratory, Beaufort, NC and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, V A. Czech, B., and P. R. Krausman. 1997. "Distribution and causation of species endangerment in the United States." Science 277: 1116-1117. DeLotelle, R.S., R.J. Epting, and J .R. Newman, 1987. "Habitat use and territory characteristics of red-cockaded woodpeckers in central Florida." Wilson Bulletin 99:202-217. Dennis, J.V. 1971. "Species using red-cockaded woodpecker holes in northeastern South Carolina." Bird Banding 42:79-87. Emlen, S.T. and N.J. Demong, 1975. "Adaptive significance of synchronized breeding in a colonial bird: a new hypothesis." Science, 188: 1 029-1 031.. Engstrom, R.T., L. A. Brennan, W. L. Neel, R. M. Farrar, S. T. Linderman, W. K. Moser, and S. M. Hermann. 1996. Silvicultural practices and red-cockaded woodpecker management: a reply to Rudolph and Conner. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:334- 338. Engstrom, R.T. and G.W. Evans. 1990. "Hurricane damage to Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) cavity trees." Auk 107: 608-610. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 37 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFTage 42 of 51 Ferral, D.P. 1998. "Habitat quality and the performance ofred-cockaded woodpecker groups in the South Carolina sand hills." Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA. FFWCC,2003. Management plan: red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Forman, R.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bassinette, A.P. Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, V.H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C.R Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F.J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T.e. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Washington D.C. Island Press. Pp 116-117. Frost, C.e. 1993. "Four centuries of changing landscape patterns in the longleafpine ecosystem." Pp17-44 in S.M. Herman, ed. The longleafpine ecosystem: ecology, restoration, and managemenT-Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 18 Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. Hardesty, J.L. K.E. Gault, and F.P. Percival, 1997. "Ecological correlates ofred-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) foraging preference, habitat use, and home range size in northwest Florida (Eglin Air Force Base)." Final Report Research Work Order 99, Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Hicks, R. R., Jr., J. E. Coster, and G. N. Mason. 1987, "Forest insect hazard rating," Journal of Forestry 85(10):20-26. Hooper, R. G. and M. R. Lennarz, 1995. "Short-term response of a high density red- cockaded woodpecker population to loss of foraging habitat." Pp. 283-289 in D.L. Kulhavy, RG. Hooper and R. Costa, eds. Red-cockaded woodpecker: recovery, ecology and management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX Hooper, R. G. and C. J. McAdie, 1995. "Hurricanes and long-term management of the red- cockaded woodpecker." Pp 148-166 in D.L. Kulhavy, R.G. Hooper and R. Costa, eds. Red-cockaded woodpecker: recovery, ecology and management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX Hooper, R.G., L.J. Niles, R.F. Harlow, and G.W. Wood, 1982. "Home ranges of red- cockaded woodpeckers in coastal South Carolina." Auk 99:675-682. Hooper, R.G., W.E. Taylor and S.C. Loeb. 1995. "Long-term efficacy of artificial cavities for RCWs: lessons learned from Hurricane Hugo." Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Symposium IV, Fish and Wildlife Service, Savannah, GA. ,,_. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 38 Agenda Item No.1 OA September 29, 2009 DRAFfage 43 of 51 Hooper, RG., J.C. Watson and R.E.F. Escano, 1990. "Hurricane Hugo's initial effects on red-cockaded woodpeckers in the Francis Marion National Forest." Transactions of the 55th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 55:220- 224. Jackson, J.A. 1971. "The evolution, taxonomy, distribution, past populations, and current status of the red-cockaded woodpecker." Pp. 4-29 in R.L. Thompson, ed. Ecology and management of the red-cockaded woodpecker. u.s. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. Jackson, J.A. 1977. "Red-cockaded woodpeckers and pine red heart disease." Auk 94:160- 163. Jackson, J.A. 1994. "Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)" in A. Poole and F. Gill eds., The birds of North Americ~ No. 85. Academy ofNattlral Sciences, Philadelphia, PA and the American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC. Jackson, J.A. 2009. Personal communication. Jackson, J.A., R.N. Conner, and B.J.S. Jackson, 1986. "The effects of wilderness on the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker." Pp. 71-78 in D.L. Kulhavy, R.G. Hooper and R. Costa, eds. Red-cockaded woodpecker: recovery, ecology and management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX. James, F.C. 1995. "The status ofred-cockaded woodpecker in 1990 and the prospect for recovery." Pp 439-451 in D.L. Kulhavy, RG. Hooper and R. Costa, eds. Red- cockaded woodpecker: recovery, ecology and management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX. James, F. C., C. A. Hess, and B. C. Kicklighter, 2001. Ecosystem management and the niche gestalt of the red-cockaded woodpecker in longleaf pine forests. Ecological Applications 11 :854-870. James, F. c., C. A. Hess, and D. Kufrin, 1997. "Species-centered environmental analysis: indirect effects of fire history on red-cockaded woodpeckers." Ecological Applications 7:118-129. Keller, V., H.-G. Bauer, H.-W. Ley, and H. P. Pfister. 1996. The significance of wildlife overpasses for birds. Der Ornithologische Beobachter 93:249-258. Kelly, J.F.and W. A. Bechtold. 1990. The long leaf pine resource. Pp. 11-12, in R. M. Farrar, Jr., ed., Proceedings, Symposium on the Management of LongleafPine. General Technical Report SO-75. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 39 Agenda Item NO.1 OA September 29, 2009 DRAFTage 44 of 51 Kelly, J. F., S. M. Pletschet, and D. M. Leslie, Jr. 1993. Habitat associations ofred-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in an old-growth forest of Oklahoma. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 122-128. Landers, J. L. 1991. Disturbance influences on pine traits in the southeastern United States. Pp. 61-98 in S. M. Hermann, ed. High -intensity fire in wildlands: management challenges and options. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, no. 17. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. Landers, J. L. and W. D. Boyer, 1999. An old growth definition for upland longleaf and south Florida slash pine forests, woodlands, and savannas. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SRS-29. Landers, J. L., D. H. Van Lear, and W. D. Boyer, 1995. The longleafpine forests of the - southeast: requiem or renaissance? Journal of Forestry 93(11):39-44. Letcher, G. H., J. A. Priddy, J. R Walters, and L. G. Crowder, 1998. An individual-based, spatially explicit simulation model of the population dynamics of the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. Biological Conservation 86: 1-14. Ligon, J. D., W. W. Baker, RN. Conner, J. A. Jackson, F. e. James, D. C. Rudolph, P. B. Stacey, and J.R. Walters, 1991. "The conservation crisis-the red-cockaded woodpecker: on the road to oblivion?" Auk 108:200-213. Ligon, J.D. P. B. Stacey, R. N. Conner, C. E. Bock, and C. S. Adkisson, 1986. "Report of the American Ornithologists' Union committee for the conservation of the red- cockaded woodpecker." Auk 103:848-855. Lipscomb, D. 1. and T. M. Williams, 1995. "The impact of Hurricane Hugo on cavity trees of a red-cockaded woodpecker population and a natural recovery after two and a half years." Pp. 167-171 in D.L. Kulhavy, R.G. Hooper and R. Costa, eds. Red- cockaded woodpecker: recovery, ecology and management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX Martin, W. H. and S. G. Boyce, 1993. "Introduction: the southeastern setting." Pp. 1-46 in W. H. Martin, S. G. Boyce, and A. C. Echternacht, eds. Biodiversity of the southeastern United States: lowland terrestrial communities. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Masters, R.E. J.E. Skeen, and J. Whitehead. 1989. "Preliminary fire history ofMcCurtain County Wilderness Area and implications for red-cockaded woodpecker management. Pp. 290-302 in D.L. Kulhavy, R.G. Hooper and R. Costa, eds. Red- cockaded woodpecker: recoverv, ecology and management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 40 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29,2009 DRAFTage 45 of 51 Nebeker, T. E. and J. D. Hodges. 1985. "Thinning and harvesting practices to minimize site and stand disturbances and susceptibility to bark beetle and disease attacks." Pp. 263-271 in S.J. Branham and R. e. Thatcher, eds. Proceedings of the Integrated Pest Management Research Symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SOH-56. Noel, J. M., W. 1. Platt, and E. B. Moser.. 1998. "Structural characteristics of old- and second-growth stands of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) in the Gulf coastal region of the U.S.A," Conservation Biology 12:533-548. Ogden, L. P. 1996. "Collision course: the hazards of lighted structures and windows to migrating birds." World Wildlife Fund Canada and the Fatal Lights Awareness Program. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Patterson, G. A., and W. B. Robertson, Jr., 1981. "Distribution and habitat of the red- cockaded woodpecker in Big Cypress National Preserve." South Florida Game and Fish Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Peet, R.K. and D.J. Allard, 1993. "Longleafpine vegetation of the southern Atlantic and eastern Gulf Coast regions: a preliminary classification." Pp. 45-82 in S.M. Herman, ed. The longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, restoration. and management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, no. 18 Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. Phillips, L. C. and B. S. Hall, 2000. "A historical view ofred-cockaded woodpecker habitat on Fort Polk, Louisiana." Journal ofField Ornithology 71:585-596. Reijnen, R. and R. Foppen. 1994. Impact of road traffic on breeding bird populations. Pp. 255-274, in J. Davenport and 1. L. Davenport, eds., The Ecology of Transportation: Managing Mobility for the Environment. Springer, New York. Shaffer, M. L. 1981. "Minimum population sizes for species conservation." Bioscience 31:131-134. Shaffer, M. L. 1987. "Minimum viable populations: coping with uncertainty." [[/69-86 in M.e. Soule, ed. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Short, L.L. 1982. "woodpeckers of the world." Monograph Series No.4. Delaware Museum of Natural History, Greenville, DE. Simberloff, D. 1993. "Species-area and fragmentation effects on old growth forests: prospects for longleaf pine communities." Pp. 1-14. in S.M. Herman, ed. The longleaf pine ecosystem: ecology, restoration. and management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 18 Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 41 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFTage 46 of 51 Smith, E.B. and R. Martin, 1995. "Red-cockaded woodpecker distribution and status in Louisiana." Pp. 452-456. in D.L. Kulhavy, RG. Hooper and R Costa, eds. Red- cockaded woodpecker: recovery, ecologv and management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX Sparks, 1.c., R.E. Masters, D.M. Engle, M.W. Palmer, and G. A. Bukenhofer, 1998. "Effects of late growing-season and late dormant-season prescribed fire on herbaceous vegetation in restored pine-grassland communjties." Journal of Vegetation Science 9:133-142. Sparks, J.C. R.E. Masters, D.M. Engle, M.E. Payton, and G.A. Bukenhofer, 1999. "Influence of fire season and fire behavior on woody plants in red-cockaded woodpecker clusters." Wildlife Society Bulletin 27: 124-133. Steirly, e. c. 1957. Nesting ecology of the red-cockaded woodpecker in Virginia. Raven 28:24-36. USFWS, 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the management of the red- cockaded woodpecker and its habitat on national forests in the southern region. Volumes I and II. USDA Forest Service Management Bulletin R-8-MB73. USFWS, 1999. MuItispecies Recovery Plan for South floridaL Red-cockaded Woodpecker, US.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. Wahlenberg, W. G. 1946. Longleafpine: its use, ecology, regeneration, protection, growth, and management. Charles Lothrop Pack Forestry Foundation and USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. WaIters,1.R. 1990. Red-cockaded woodpeckers: a "primitive" cooperative breeder. Pp 60- 101 in P. B. Stacey and W. D. Koenig, eds. Cooperative Breeding in Birds. Cambridge University Press, London, UK. WaIters, J. R., L. B. Crowder, and 1. A. Priddy. 2002b. Population viability analysis for red- cockaded woodpeckers using an individual-based model. Ecological Applications 12:249-260. Walters, 1. R., S. J. Daniels, 1. H. Carter III, and P. D. Doerr. 2002a. Defining quality of red- cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat based on habitat use and fitness. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 1064-1082. Walters, J. Roo, S. J. Daniels, J. H. Carter III, P. D. Doerr, K. Brust, and J. M. Mitchell, 2000. "Foraging habitat resources, preferences and fitness ofred-cockaded woodpeckers 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 42 Agenda Item No.1 OA September 29, 2009 DRAFTage 47 of 51 in the North Carolina sandhills." Fort Bragg Project Final Report. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, V A and North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Walters, J. R., P. D. Doerr, and J. H. Carter III. 1988. The cooperative breeding system of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Ethology 78:275-305. Ware, S., e. Frost, and P. D. Doerr. 1993. Southern mixed hardwood forest: the former longleafpine forest." Pp. 447-493 in W.H. Martin, S.G. Boyce, and A.C. Echternacht, eds. Biodiversity of the Southeastern United States: Lowland Terrestrial Communities. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Watson, J. c., R. G. Hooper, D. L. Carlson, W. E. Taylor, and T. C. Milling. 1995. Restoration of the red-cockaded woodpecker population on the Francis Marion National Forest: three years post-Hugo. Pp. 172-182 in D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa, eds. Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Recovery, Ecology and Management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, TX. 10. Appendices Appendix A RCW South Florida Survey Protocol (Adapted from USFWS 2003) :'\esting and Foraging Habitat Surveys are used to detemrine \,"hether the nesting and/or foraging habitat of a red- cockaded \'v"oodpecker group will be adyersely inlpacted by a proposed project. 111is is an impOltant part of the conservation and management of this endangered species. and therefore the Fish and \Vildlife Service has deyeloped standard stUyey and analysis procedures for such detenninatiolls. 111ese detenninations must be undertaken prior to the initiation of any project within the southeastel1l United States that calls for removal of pine trees 60 years or older: typically such trees will be at least 25.4 em (10 in) dbh (diameter at breast height) or larger. In south Florida slash pines as small as 15.2 cm (6 in) dbh can be tins old. The procedure is also used following new land acquisition by state and federal agencies in the southeast or any other circulllStance in winch the presence or absence of red-cockaded \voodpeckers is to be assessed. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 43 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFTage 48 of 51 The flIst step in the slUTey procedure is to detennine if suitable nesting or foraging habitat exists vdthin the area to be impacted by the project. lino suitable nesting or foraging habitat is present within the project impact area. fmther assessment is ullnecessmy and no effect to the red-cockaded \\'oodpecker is anticipated. If no suitable nesting habitat is present within the project impact area. but suitable foraging habitat is present and will be impacted. potential use of this foraging habitat by groups outside the project bOlUldmies must be detelluined. TIus is accomplished by identifying any potential nesting habitat within 0.8 km (0.5 nu) of the suitable foraging habitat that would be impacted by the project. Any potential nesting habitat is then slUveyed for cavity trees. This procedme is described in greater detail below. Ifno active clusters are fOlUld, then to the red-cockaded \;roodpecker is anticipated. If one or more active clusters are fOlUld. a foraging habitat analysis is conducted (see belo\v) to detemllne whether sufficient amollllts of foraging habitat \,-ill remain for each group post-project. - For nesting and foraging habitat slllTeys witlun project inlpact areas and within 0.8 km (0.5mi) of the project site. potential habitat is assessed at the level of the stand. A stand is a tenll used to refer to a \vooded area recehillg past or ClUTent sihicultural treatment as a single management unit. Here \:\"e expand the tenn to include any subset of a tract of wooded land. divided by biological COlllllumity type, management histOlY. or any other reasonable approach. A small tract of land may be considered a single stand or pm1 of a large stand. .-- IclentificatioIl of Suitable Foraging Habitat For the plllpose of sm,:eying. suitable foraging habitat consists of a pine or pine/hardwood stand of forest. woodland. or sa\-a11nah in \,-lnch 50 percent or more of the donnnant trees are pines and the dominant pine trees are generally 60 years in age or older. These charactelistics do not necessarily descIibe good quality foraging habitat: rather. tins is a conservatiYe description of potemially suitable habitat. Identification of pine and pine/hard\".;ood stands can be made using cO\-er maps that identify pille and pine./hardwood stands, aerial photographs intelpreted by standard techniques. or a field survey conducted by an experienced forester or biologist. Age of stands can be detemnned by aging representatiye dominant pines in the stands using an incremem- borer and COUmUl2: annual 2:1'owth rin2:s. Stand data describul2: size classes lUav be '- ........... ,-. .., substituted for age if the average size of 60 year-old pUles is known for the local area and ha bitat type. If no suitable foraging habitat is present \\-ithin the project area (that is. no pUles 60 years or older \.,-ill be impacted). then fiu1her eyaluation is llllllecessary and red-cockaded \voodpeckers can be presumed absent. If the project area contaulS any suitable foraging habitat that wi.1l be inlpacted by the project. that habitat. if it contains any 60 year old trees or older. and all other suitable nesting habitat \:l;ithin 0.8 km (0.5 un) oftbe project site. regardless of o\\'nerslnp. must be slUTeyed for the presence of red-cockaded \voodpeckers. - 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 44 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAP'fage 49 of 51 Identification of Suitable Nesting Habitat For the purpose of surveying, suitable nesting habitat consists of pine. pine/hardwood. and hardwood/pine stands that contain pines 60 years in age or older and that are \\ithill 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the suitable foraging habitat to be impacted at the project site (see above). Additionally. pines 60 years in age or older may be scattered or c1mnped v\"ithin YOlmger stands; these older trees within YOlmger stands must also be examined for the presence of red-cockaded woodpecker cavities. TIlese characteristics do not necessarily describe good quality nesting habitat rather. tIns is a conservative description of potential nesting habitat. Detern.unation of suitable nesting habitat may be based on existing stand data, aerial photo interpretation. or field reco1Ulaissance. Trees should either be aged or assluued suitable-if greater than 15.2 cm (6 in) dbh. .All stands meeting the above description. regardless of o\\"nership. should be surveyed for cavity trees. Cadt)" Tree Survey Once suitable nesting habitat is identified (above), it must be surveyed for cavity trees of red-cockaded woodpeckers by persOlUlel experienced in management and monitoring of the species. Potential nesting habitat is S1u'veyed by l1.Umillg line transects through stands and viS11ally inspecting allmedimn-sized and large pines for evidence of cavity excavation by red-cockaded woodpeckers. Transects must be spaced so that all trees are inspected. Necessary spacing will vary \vith habitat structme and season from a maximum of 91 m (300 ft) between transects in very open pine stands to 46m (150 ft) or less in areas with dense midstOlY. Transects are l1.111nOlth-somh, because many cavity enn"ances are oriented in a westerly direction. and can be set using a hand compass. \\71ule surveying for ca\ities look and listen for red-cockaded woodpeckers. If any are obse1Ted record their location and behayior. \\7JIen ca\'itv trees are found. their location is recorded in the field USin2 a Global r ~ Positioning System (GPS) unit. aerial photograph. or field map. Actiyity status. cavity stage (sta1t. advanced start or complete cavity). and any entrance enlargement are assessed and recorded at this time. A cavity can only be considered abandoned if inactive for five consecutive years. Again. it is extremely inlportant to haye all smyeys and ca\"ity tree assessments pe1foffiled by experienced persOlUlel. If caYity trees are fOlmd, more intense stu"veying \\-ithin 45i m (1.500 ft) of each cavity tree is conducted to locate all cavity trees in the area. CaYity trees are later assigned into clusters based on obse1Tatiolls ofred-cockaded woodpeckers as described in Service (2003. section3A). 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 45 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAF'fage 50 of 51 Smveys for foraging area boundmies require both breeding season surveys (Apri115 through June 15) and non-nesting season (fall) smveys (October 15 through December 15). Smveys should be conducted dtuing the llloming homs. from 1 hom prior to sunrise to four homs past stuuise. Sup:eys outside of these time frames can be inconclusive. Only calm clear days should be surveyed as red-cockaded .woodpecker acthity is limited on .windy and rainy days. The foraging area smveys require 14 days of survey over the season. Two methods of identifying foraging area botmdaries are provided depending 011 the circtunstances. - ..-.., 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 46 Agenda Item No. 10A September 29, 2009 DRAFT age 51 of 51 If there are active red-cockaded woodpecker cavities on the property the tenitory is considered a O,.8-k111 (0.5 mi) radius area SUll'OlUlcling the cluster. This can be modified if a foraging area slU'vey is conducted to detemllne the area bOlmdaries. A foraging area slU'vey COll11nences with obsel'YatiollS of the red-cockaded \\'oodpeckers when they leave their roosts. The sl1l'veyor documents the number ofbu'ds and tracks the bu'ds as they forage through the adjacent habitats. Data should be collected at halfhom intervals. recorded onlUaps, or doctmlented \\'ith GPS coordulates for later mapping. If the red- cockaded woodpecker moves to a new location wlrile being obselved. the flight du'ection and the location \\'here the red-cockaded woodpecker lands should be noted. Behayior and vocalizations should be noted. especially behavior that would indicate cOlUtship or nesting. If there are no active red-cockaded woodpecker ca\ities on the property a meandering pedesniall transect should be conq.ucted through all suitable habitat. TIle observer should stop every 3 to 5 minutes, look and listen for red-cockaded woodpecker acthity. Since these bu'ds are territoIial and \\ill defend their te11'itOlY from illtmsion by other uldividuals. the use of red-cockaded woodpecker vocal recordings can facilitate observation. TIlerefore, at each of the stops. play 30 seconds of continuous red-cockaded woodpecker vocal calls. Tapes of red-cockaded woodpecker vocalizations are available from Audubon and Peterson field guide series. Report A final stuvey report should uldude the following. as applicable: A. Field data sheets that ulc1ude: 1. dates and startuH~ aud ending times of all stllvevs conducted: "-.~ . ") weather conditions during all slUTeys. ulcludulg temperamre. \vuld speed and direction. visibility. and precipitation: and 3. the total munber of red-cockaded woodpeckers obsep;ed and number of red- cockaded woodpecker clusters. Red-cockaded woodpecker acthity and ca\'iry tree u1.folluation should be submitted in a sUITey report to the South Florida Ecological Seryices Office. 1339 20th Str.. Vera Beach. FL 32960. 8/18/2009 rev 8/27/2009 47