standar dization of federally listed … ’ s species assessment mosaic fertilizer, llc table of...

$: STANDAR DIZATION OF FEDERALLY LISTED … ’ S Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Table of Contents C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT$
FE

FED

STANEDERA

TDERAL

NDARALLY TEMPLL PER

Pre

Lith

Pre

3701 NorGainesv

ECT N

M

RDIZALISTE

LATESRMIT S

epared for

hia, Florid

epared by

rthwest 98th

ville, Florida

No. 101068-

May 2011

ATIONED SPES FORSUBM

r:

da

y:

Street 32606

-0301

OF ECIES

R MITTAL

S’

LS

Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Table of Contents

C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE iii

SAMPLE OUTLINE FOR A COMPLETE INITIATION PACKAGE xvii

AMERICAN ALLIGATOR 1

EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE 5

BLUETAIL MOLE SKINK 14

SAND SKINK 18

AUDUBON’S CRESTED CARACARA 22

BALD EAGLE 31

WOOD STORK 36

FLORIDA SCRUB JAY 47

FLORIDA GRASSHOPPER SPARROW 53

RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER 58

FLORIDA PANTHER 63

FLORIDA BONAMIA 69

FLORIDA GOLDEN ASTER 74

FLORIDA PERFORATE REINDEER LICHEN 79

Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 ii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ABS Archbold Biological Station

BO biological opinion

CFA core foraging area

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cm centimeter

E species endangered

ERP environmental resource permit

FLUCFCS Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System

FNAI Florida Natural Areas Inventory

FR Federal Register

ft foot

FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

GIS geographic information system

GPS global positioning system

ha hectare

HCP habitat conservation plan

IFAS Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences

kph kilometer per hour

Mosaic Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC

mph mile per hour

SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District

T species threatened

T(S/A) species threatened due to similarity of appearance

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Introduction and Purpose

C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 iii

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Mosaic is preparing to file federal permit applications for the mining of phosphate on three of its land holdings:

• Ona (Hardee County). • Wingate East (Manatee County). • DeSoto (DeSoto County).

One federal permit application, USACE’s 404 Dredge-and-Fill Permit, will require re-view of potential impacts to federally listed endangered or threatened species. USFWS has the mandate to protect such resources under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In a federal permit process, the formal consultation and review of impacts to such species cannot begin until the agency has received an Initiation Package. This package is a bio-logical assessment of the proposed action on threatened and endangered species. Mosaic has anticipated submittal of such Initiation Packages for certain federal species on one or more of the three sites. This document was developed to provide Mosaic or its consultants a template of much of the standard information normally required in such a package. A total of 14 federally listed plants and animals have been identified that have the potential to occur in the projects’ vicinity. The following sections provide species-specific information on federally listed/protected species that potentially could occur or have been documented to occur on the Mosaic Wingate East, Ona, or DeSoto Mine sites. These species were tabulated from the current federal listing and known ranges/habitats of these species in Florida. No marine, coastal, or invertebrate species were included. The format for discussion is consistent for each species and generally applicable to all three mine sites. Discussion for each species fol-lows the USFWS guidelines for preparing a Consultation Initiation Package under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. For these three mines, the species addressed in the following sections are:

Wildlife Federal Status • American alligator T(S/A) • Eastern indigo snake T • Bluetail mole skink T • Sand skink T • Audubon’s crested caracara T • Bald eagle Protected • Wood stork E • Florida scrub jay T • Florida grasshopper sparrow E • Red-cockaded woodpecker E • Florida panther E


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 iv

Plants • Florida bonamia T • Florida golden aster E • Perforated reindeer lichen E

It is important to note that this document serves as a starting point for preparing an Initia-tion Package. Much of the information required for the package is detailed, site-specific data from the individual site. As seen in the following outline, specific information is called for in all sections. This information is to be also supplemented with detailed maps. A copy of USFWS’s “Guide to a Complete Initiation Package” published in 2004 fol-lows. These are unpublished draft guidelines that are distributed to potential applicants upon request. Also please note this information was compiled in May 2011. Users of this document should check the referenced Web sites and other agency data for any future changes in status of these species or information on them. NOTE: Much of the species information provided herein was taken from public USFWS documents as referenced in the Web links cited. Information cited in those documents can be found by going to the source document or Web page. Where other non-USFWS refer-ences were used, those references are provided as well.


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 v


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 vi


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 vii


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 viii


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 ix


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 x


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 xi


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 xii


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 xiii


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 xiv


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 xv


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 xvi

Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Sample Outline

C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 xvii

SAMPLE OUTLINE FOR A COMPLETE INITIATION PACKAGE A. Cover Letter—Site-specific (to be developed specifically for each mine site):

• Project title. • Purpose of the action. • “Effect” determination for each species for that site. (Applicant may request

USFWS concurrence with a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” de-termination or request formal consultation for a “may affect, likely to ad-versely affect” determination. Applicant should also state the effect on any critical habitat or proposed critical habitat.)

B. Project Description—Site-specific (To be developed specifically for each mine

site):

• Describe the proposed action and the project area—Specific to species (Ap-plicant must detail the proposed plans for mining, including all interrelated and interdependent actions, such as surrounding road improvements, con-struction of beneficiation facilities, etc. Applicant must provide detailed in-formation and maps about the project area.).

• Applicant must describe in detail the site’s habitats, land uses, and existing biological components. Applicant should provide maps, other relevant graphics, drawings, photographs, and other data that will assist USFWS in reviewing the project. This section is the baseline assessment of each site and a critical component of this package. Since these sites have been exten-sively studied by Mosaic and others in the past, a significant amount of his-torical wildlife data exist and can be used to supplement the current baseline conditions.

The following sections are then to be completed for each federal species that may occur or be affected by the specific proposed actions. These sections (C through G) are detailed in the following templates for each of the 14 species:

• C. Species and Suitable Habitat Descriptions. • D. Effects of the Proposed Action. • E. Conservation Measures. • F. Conclusions. • G. Literature Cited. • H. List of Preparers and Qualifications.

It is important to stress that each template must be appropriately adapted to the site’s spe-cific conditions and the species status on that site. Therefore these templates are generic and cannot suffice alone for a detailed Initiation Package. The templates are provided as separate submittals for entries for each of the 14 species, so only those that apply can be selected for use. This document is provided in Microsoft® Word format to allow ease in editing the species information. One modification to the template has been added—after

Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Sample Outline

C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 xviii

Part C, a section on survey protocols has been included to assist the preparer of this Initi-ation Package in using appropriate survey methodologies to identify possible presence of the species onsite. The specific survey methodology used for each species must be de-tailed in the site’s Initiation Package.

Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC American Alligator

C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411

AMERICAN ALLIGATOR (Alligator mississippiensis)


C:\DOCUME~1\TESMITH\OTLOCAL\DOCULINK\WORKBIN\14BB04.0\WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGMENT PLAN - 404 TEMPLATE.DOCX—062411 1

AMERICAN ALLIGATOR

(Alligator mississippiensis) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

The alligator is the largest reptile species in Florida and is a common inhabitant of almost any water body in the state. The alligator has a rough, armored back with a broad, rounded snout. The tail has high pointed scales, and the keeled scales con-tinue along the back to the base of the head. It is similar in appearance to the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), which is the reason for the alligator’s listing. The crocodile has a more narrowed snout, and the fourth tooth of the cro-codile’s lower jaw is exposed when its mouth is shut, as compared to no teeth showing on the alligator’s closed mouth. The alligator is dark to almost black in color whereas the crocodile is more olive colored. The crocodile, however, does not exist on any portion of the three mine sites. The alligator is federally listed as T(S/A) with the crocodile. FWC does not list the alligator and in fact, this animal is very prolific and is hunted by permit. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/alligator.pdf Habitat The alligator is found in all water bodies and wetlands in the state, even artificial impoundments such as cattle ponds and golf course stormwater ponds. The alliga-tor prefers fresh water but can be found in brackish water. FLUCFCS cover types where the alligator is found include:

• All 500s—open water (except 571/572). • All 600s—wetlands.

The alligator is adaptable and will move to available water habitats when its loca-tion dries up. The alligator feeds on fish, turtles, snakes, frogs, crustaceans, and small mammals. Alligators are territorial and can present a threat to humans dur-ing breeding/nesting season. Adults can reach 14+ ft in length and have attacked larger animals, including humans. 1. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The alligator is a common inhabitant of all three Mosaic sites in water bo-dies and hydrated wetlands.

2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT The alligator is adaptable to manmade water bodies and will move across dry land to suitable habitats. Mosaic’s mining and reclamation activities ac-tually create alligator habitat. The alligator utilizes ditches, ponds, and clay



settling areas during the mining process and will inhabit reclaimed or pre-served wetlands onsite as well. Nearly all alligators become sexually mature by the time they reach approx-imately 7 ft in length, although females can reach maturity at 6 ft. A female may require 10 to 15 years and a male 8 to 12 years to reach these lengths. Courtship begins in early April, and mating occurs in May or June. Females build a mound nest of soil, vegetation, or debris and deposit an average of 32 to 46 eggs in late June or early July. Incubation requires approximately 60 to 65 days, and hatching occurs in late August or early September. The average clutch size of an alligator nest is 35. From this, an estimated 15 live hatchlings will emerge. Only six alligator hatchlings will live to 1 year. Of these yearlings, five will become subadults (reach 4 ft in length). The number of subadults that reach maturity (6 ft in length) is approximately four. These estimates are for a growing alligator population. As an alligator population matures (and has a higher percentage of large animals), the sur-vival rate would be expected to be lower, in part due to a higher rate of can-nibalism. Common causes of mortality include (http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats /managed/alligator/alligator-facts/):

• Eggs—Alligator eggs are susceptible to drowning, being crushed by the female, predation, and other less common ca-lamities. Raccoons are the primary predator, although hogs, ot-ters, and bears have been reported to depredate nests.

• Juveniles—Small alligators are eaten by a variety of predators including raccoons, otters, wading birds, and fish; however, larger alligators may be their most significant predator.

• Adults—Cannibalism, intra-specific fighting, and hunting by humans are probably the most significant mortality factors.

3. CURRENT CONDITIONS FOR EACH SPECIES

a. Rangewide

The alligator is common throughout the southeastern United States and was officially removed as a federally listed species. Because of its similarity to other species that are endangered (crocodiles and cai-mans), the alligator is listed as T(S/A).



b. In the Project Area The alligator is common in central Florida and quite common on wet-lands and water bodies throughout the three mine sites. It is typically observed in hydrated wetlands, streams, ditches, and cattle ponds.

c. Cumulative Effects Alligators are not allowed to be legally hunted on Mosaic property, so their populations should be stable on the mine sites. Recruitment on and off Mosaic property certainly exists. Alligators may be legally hunted by permit off Mosaic property, although hunting has not shown to be a detriment to the state’s population. Protection of wetlands throughout the state continues to preserve habitat for this animal.

d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date The alligator was relisted to T(S/A) throughout the southeastern Unit-ed States in 1979 and in Florida in 1985. No conservation plans or cur-rent petitions to reclassify the animal exist. No BOs have been issued for this animal in Central Florida.

4. DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT (IF APPLICABLE) No designated critical habitats or proposals for such exist in Florida.

SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR AMERICAN ALLIGATOR No specific protocols are recommended. The alligator has been confirmed on all three mine sites in appropriate habitats. It will be presumed the alligator is present on all three sites. Site-specific verification can be made by observing cattle ponds and open water bo-dies on the site. D. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. DIRECT EFFECTS Direct effects on the alligator will be possible injury and mortality to ani-mals from clearing and mining. Temporary loss of habitat will occur as new habitat is created during the mining process.

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects of mining may include exposure of the animals, particularly young, to predation, vehicle strikes, or intra-specific competition and canni-balism.



3. EFFECTS OF INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT AC-TIONS Interrelated and interdependent actions would include the creation of water bodies as part of the mining operation, such as ditch and berm systems and clay settling ponds. These water bodies may provide temporary or long-term habitats for displaced animals.

4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS There are no other identified actions in the mine site areas that would poten-tially affect the alligator population in the region.

5. QUANTITY OF INCIDENTAL TAKE None required.

E. CONSERVATION MEASURES Mosaic employees and contractors will be informed through training and informa-tion distributed to not harm any alligators. Preclearing surveys of suitable water bodies and wetlands will be performed, and any alligator presence, particularly nesting, will be noted and Mosaic’s onsite biologists notified. No other specific measures are proposed.

F. CONCLUSIONS The proposed action at the Mosaic mine sites will not adversely affect the Ameri-can alligator.

G. LITERATURE CITED http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/alligator.pdf http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/managed/alligator/alligator-facts/ http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C000 Beever, J.W, III. 2003. Standardized State-Listed Animal Survey Procedures for

SWFWMD ERP Projects. FWC. 42 pp.

H. LIST OF PREPARERS

Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Eastern Indigo Snake


EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE (Drymarchon corais couperi)



EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE

(Drymarchon corais couperi) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

The eastern indigo snake is a large and thick-bodied, nonpoisonous snake. Aver-age adult size is 60 to 74 inches (152 to 188 cm), record is 103.5 inches (262.8 cm). The body is glossy black and, in sunlight, has iridescent blue high-lights. The chin and throat is reddish or orange, and the color may extend down the body. The belly is cloudy orange and blue-gray. The scales on its back are smooth, but some individuals may possess some scales that are partially keeled. There are 17 dorsal scale rows at midbody. The pupil is round. Juveniles are black-bodied with narrow whitish blue bands. The following description was tak-en from Mosaic’s South Fort Meade BO issued by USFWS in 2010: The eastern indigo snake occurs in a wide range of habitat types, including pine flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods, high pine, dry prairie, tropical hardwood ham-mocks, edges of freshwater marshes, agricultural fields, coastal dunes, and hu-man-altered habitats. Below-ground shelters are used year-round by indigo snakes as thermal refugia. In the northern part of their range, burrows are used to protect against the cold. In summer, indigo snakes use burrows as protection from heat and dry conditions, since they have been shown to be susceptible to desiccation. Throughout their range, they also use burrows for foraging, nesting, mating, and shelter prior to shedding. They also move seasonally between upland and wetland habitats. Reliance on xeric sandhill habitats throughout the northern portion of the eastern indigo’s range in Georgia and northern Florida can be attributed primarily to the availability of gopher tortoise burrows during winter. In wetter habitats that lack gopher tortoises, eastern indigo snakes may take shelter in hollowed root channels, hollow logs, stump holes, or the burrows of rodents, armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), or land crabs (Cardisoma guanhumi). Throughout peninsular Florida, the eastern indigo snake may be found in all terre-strial habitats that have not suffered high-density urban development. They are less tied to longleaf pine uplands and become more habitat generalists, although they still require below-ground refugia and use gopher tortoise burrows/habitats when these are available. Indigo snakes can be common in some hydric ham-mocks. In central and coastal Florida, eastern indigos are found mainly on higher elevation sandy ridges where they continue to use gopher tortoise burrows when they are available. On the sandy central ridge of south Florida, eastern indigos use gopher tortoise burrows more (62 percent) than other underground refugia. In ex-treme southern Florida, these snakes are typically found in pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, tropical hardwood hammocks, and in most other undeveloped areas. Subterranean refugia used in these areas include burrows of armadillos, cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus), and land crabs; burrows of unknown origin; natural ground holes; hollows at the base of trees or shrubs; ground litter; trash piles; and crevices of rock-lined ditch walls. Eastern indigo snakes also inhabit some agricultural lands (e.g., sugar cane fields and associated canal banks).



In south Florida, agricultural sites, such as sugar cane fields and canal banks through citrus groves, created in former wetland areas, are occupied by eastern in-digo snakes. Formerly, indigos would have occupied only higher elevation sites within the wetlands. The introduction of agriculture and its associated canal sys-tems has resulted in an increase in rodents and other species of snakes that are prey for eastern indigo snakes. The result is that indigos occur at higher densities in these areas than they did historically. A positive long-term prognosis for these populations is tied to the continuation of agriculture at these sites. In some areas, efforts to reestablish natural wetlands are in conflict with the future survival of eastern indigo snakes at these sites. In south-central Florida, limited information on the reproductive cycle suggests that indigo snake breeding extends from June to January, egg laying occurs from April to July, and hatching occurs during mid-summer to early fall. Young hatch approximately 3 months after egg-laying, and there is no evidence of parental care. Indigo snakes in captivity take 3 to 4 years to reach sexual maturity. There is no information on the indigo snake lifespan in the wild, although one captive individual lived 25 years, 11 months. Indigo snakes are active and spend a great deal of time foraging for food and searching for mates. They are one of the few snake species active during the day and at rest at night. The indigo snake is a generalized predator and will eat any vertebrate small enough to be overpowered. They swallow their prey alive. Food items include fish, frogs, toads, snakes (ve-nomous as well as nonvenomous), lizards, turtles, turtle eggs, small alligators, birds, and small mammals. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C026 Habitat The eastern indigo snake can occur in most habitats found on the proposed mine sites. FLUCFCS classifications where the snake is more likely to be found include the following, plus a variety of man-affected or altered environments:

• 212—Unimproved pastures. • 213—Woodland pastures. • 310—Herbaceous. • 320—Shrub and brushland. • 321—Palmetto prairies. • 330—Mixed rangeland. • 411—Pine flatwoods. • 412—Longleaf pine-xeric oak. • 413—Sand pine scrub. • 414—Pine-mesic oak.

• 415—Longleaf pine-upland oak.

• 419—Other pine. • 420—Upland hardwood fo-

rests. • 421—Xeric oak. • 423—Oak-pine-hickory. • 425—Temperate hardwood

hammock. • 427—Live oak hammock.



• 432—Sand live oak • 434—Hardwood-conifer

mixed. • 438—Mixed hardwoods. • 441—Coniferous tree planta-

tions. • 442—Hardwoods. • 510—Streams and waterway

edges. • 560—Sloughs. • 610—Wetland hardwood fo-

rests.

• 611—Bay swamps. • 613—Gum swamps. • 620—Wetland coniferous fo-

rests. • 621—Cypress. • 624—Hydric pine flatwoods. • 630—Wetland forested mixed. • 640—Vegetated nonforested

wetlands. • 641—Freshwater marshes. • 643—Wet prairies.

1. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The eastern indigo snake has been documented in Hardee, DeSoto, and Ma-natee Counties as well as all surrounding counties. It could potentially occur on all suitable habitats on each of the mine sites, especially in areas of go-pher tortoise burrows. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/countiesByState.action?entityId=173&state=Florida

2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT The indigo snake can be found and should be surveyed for in any suitable habitats on the mine site that also have gopher tortoise burrows. It can be as-sumed the snake may be present without actually recording it onsite, al-though it is active during the day, and can be readily observed. The snake is somewhat docile and may not normally attempt to flee an observer. The more common black racer may be seen much more frequently and can be mistaken for the indigo. The black racer, however, is more slender, smaller, and much quicker. It tends to flee more readily. If the observer is close enough, the black racer has a white chin as opposed to the indigo’s reddish-orange chin. Indigo snakes will utilize gopher tortoise burrows, and, when the burrow is disturbed, as in a relocation of the gopher tortoise, the snake will flee the burrow.

3. CURRENT CONDITIONS FOR EACH SPECIES a. Rangewide

The indigo snake was listed as threatened on January 31, 1978 (43 FR 4028), due to population declines caused by habitat loss, over-collecting for the domestic and international pet trade, and mortality caused by rattlesnake collectors who gas gopher tortoise burrows to collect snakes. The indigo snake ranges from the southeastern United



States to northern Argentina. This species has eight recognized subs-pecies, two of which occur in the United States: the eastern indigo and the Texas indigo (D. c. erebennus). In the United States, the indigo snake historically occurred throughout Florida and in the coastal plain of Georgia and has been recorded in Alabama and Mississippi. It may have occurred in southern South Carolina, but its occurrence there cannot be confirmed. Georgia and Florida currently support the re-maining endemic populations of the indigo snake. The indigo snake occurs throughout most of Florida and is absent only from the Dry Tortugas and Marquesas Keys and regions of north Florida where cold temperatures and deeper clay soils exist. Effective law enforcement has reduced pressure on the species from the pet trade. However, be-cause of its relatively large home range, the indigo snake is vulnerable to habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf

b. In the Project Area Throughout peninsular Florida, the eastern indigo snake may be found in all terrestrial habitats that have not suffered high-density urban de-velopment. It is difficult to estimate the density of indigo snakes at the action area due to a general lack of existing data. Therefore, one can use the data from other indigo snake studies in Florida to estimate an approximate snake density on the project site. These studies were conducted in sim-ilar types of habitat at similar latitudes in Florida; hence, it is believed that the comparisons are valid. A 26-year study conducted by Layne and Steiner at ABS estimated a population density of 2.6 indigo snakes (1.9 males, 0.7 female) per 100 ha (247 acres). They also estimated a more conservative density based on 5 snakes (3 males and 2 females) that occupied 314 ha at 1.6 indigo snakes per 100 ha (0.96 male to 0.64 female). ABS lies ap-proximately 40 miles southeast of the project area and contains more native, xeric, continuous snake habitat (i.e., the study area was com-prised of 60-percent xeric pine and oak uplands and 40-percent pine flatwoods, 30 bayheads, swale, and seasonal ponds). Indigo snakes have been observed at ABS in all natural and man-altered habitats with no obvious habitat preferences. To estimate the approximate indigo snake density in the action area, one would use the more conservative indigo snake density (1.6 indigo snakes per 247 acres) found by Layne and Steiner and the number of acres proposed for disturbance by mining operations. Then one uses



the indigo snake density resulting from the conservative approach to account for the fragmented and disturbed nature of the acres proposed for impact. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf

c. Cumulative Effects Habitat degradation and conversion of well-drained sandy soils sup-porting gopher tortoise populations are the primary reason for the snakes’ decline. Other threats include predation by wild hogs or dogs, insensitive people killing the animals, or vehicles. Since the snake is wide-ranging in its habitat, small fragmented habitats are not likely to support the animal. Current gopher tortoise protection and mitigation banks of habitat for the tortoise will help preserve the snake’s habitat.

d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date The indigo snake was first listed as federally threatened in 1978. In 2006, USFWS included the snake’s status as part of its 5-year review of 14 southeastern species. USFWS issued an Indigo Snake Action Plan in 2009. A total of 19 HCPs have been developed for the snake in central and south Florida. To date, a total of 32 BOs have been issued. Mosaic received a BO for the snake for its South Fort Meade mine in Hardee County in 2010. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion.search http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C026 http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf

4. DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT (IF APPLICABLE) No critical habitat rules have been published for the eastern indigo snake; therefore, no critical habitat would be affected. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C026



SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR INDIGO SNAKES Snakes are active and above ground during warmer weather. Surveys should be timed to such activity periods. Pedestrian surveys, conducted on warm sunny days, in and near areas of higher density gopher tortoise burrows (more than 0.4 per acre), are effective. Funnel trapping, using one-way funnel traps, can also be employed in gopher tortoise burrows. Traps should be shaded and left in place for at least 4 consecutive days and checked twice daily. D. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. DIRECT EFFECTS The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect indigo snake adults, juveniles, nests, and hatchlings within proposed project area. Poten-tial effects include injury, mortality, habitat loss or degradation, and distur-bance resulting from the mining operations within the proposed project par-cel. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade %20Mine%20052810.pdf USFWS has also developed a programmatic indigo snake key to assist USACE in evaluating a project’s potential impact on this species. Based on the preliminary use of this key, the mining in any of the three counties would likely yield a “may affect” determination on this animal due to the presence of gopher tortoise burrows and the size of each of the sites (more than 25 acres). http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/20100125_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_FA%20%200642%20Programmatic%20Indigo%20Snake%20Key.pdf

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS The primary threat to the indigo snake is habitat loss due to development and fragmentation. Indirect effects would include exposure of the snakes to less than ideal habitat conditions and increased exposure to human activity and predators.

3. EFFECTS OF INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT AC-TIONS None identified at this time.



4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The mine sites are not generally situated near areas of other large-scale de-velopments. Therefore, cumulative effects of these developments would be considered minimal. Mosaic will reclaim all mined lands to premine condi-tions, so long-term impacts to indigos will be minimized. Gopher tortoise burrows in active mining areas will be excavated, and the gopher tortoises relocated. Indigo snakes will be allowed to relocate from the area on their own and not be harmed or molested during gopher tortoise relocations.

5. QUANTITY OF INCIDENTAL TAKE (SITE-SPECIFIC) E. CONSERVATION MEASURES

Species conservation guidelines have been drafted for the indigo snake by USFWS. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/Eastern_Indigo_Snake_Conservation_Guidelines.pdf. Additionally, standard protection measures have also been developed:

1. An eastern indigo snake protection/education plan will be developed by the Applicant or Requestor for construction personnel to follow. The plan will be provided to USFWS for review and approval at least 30 days prior to any clearing activities. The educational materials for the plan may consist of a combination of posters, videos, pamphlets, and lectures (e.g., an observer trained to identify eastern indigo snakes could use the protection/education plan to instruct construction per-sonnel before any clearing activities occur). Informational signs should be posted throughout the construction site and along any pro-posed access road to contain the following information:

a. A description of the eastern indigo snake, its habits, and protec-tion under federal law.

b. Instructions not to injure, harm, harass, or kill this species.

c. Directions to cease clearing activities and allow the eastern indi-go snake sufficient time to move away from the site on its own before resuming clearing.

d. Telephone numbers of pertinent agencies to be contacted if a dead eastern indigo snake is encountered. The dead specimen should be thoroughly soaked in water and then frozen.

2. If not currently authorized through an incidental take statement in as-sociation with a BO, only individuals who have been either authorized by a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by USFWS or by the state of



Florida through FWC for such activities are permitted to come in con-tact with an eastern indigo snake.

3. An eastern indigo snake monitoring report must be submitted to the appropriate Florida field office within 60 days of the conclusion of clearing phases. The report should be submitted whether or not eastern indigo snakes are observed. The report should contain the following information:

a. Sightings of eastern indigo snakes. b. Other obligations required by FWC as stipulated in the permit.

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/IndigoSnakes/20040212_gd_EIS_Standard_Protection_Measures.pdf Reasonable and prudent measures appropriate to minimize the incidental take of indigo snakes include the following measures: (1) education of employees and contractors on identification of the animal and laws protecting it; (2) implementation of the standard protection measures for the indigo snake; (3) reclamation of mined lands to their premining conditions; (4) submission of annual reports indicating details on project implementation and on the progress of the reclamation process; and (5) report of dead or injured indigo snakes to FWC and USFWS. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf

F. CONCLUSIONS The proposed action at the three mine sites is likely to affect but not adversely af-fect the eastern indigo snake.

G. LITERATURE CITED http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C026 http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/countiesByState.action?entityId=173&state=Florida http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion.search http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/20100125_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_FA%20%200642%20Programmatic%20Indigo%20Snake%20Key.pdf



http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/Eastern_Indigo_Snake_Conservation_Guidelines.pdf http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/action_plans/doc3063.pdf http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1910.pdf http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/displayAllDocuments!hcp.action;jsessionid=D39166D9EB8AA0E82628556085CC35B0?spcode=C026 http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Drymarchon+corais+couperi http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/IndigoSnakes/20040212_gd_EIS_Standard_Protection_Measures.pdf Beever, J.W., III. 2003. Standardized State-Listed Animal Survey Procedures for

SWFWMD ERP Projects. FWC.42 pp.


Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Bluetail Mole Skink


BLUETAIL MOLE SKINK (Eumeces egregius lividus)



BLUETAIL MOLE SKINK

(Eumeces egregius lividus) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

The bluetail mole skink is a shiny, brown lizard with a bluish tail. It has a habit of swimming in loose sand and therefore does not use its reduced-sized legs. The skink is only known from the Lake Wales Ridge area of Polk, Highlands, and Os-ceola Counties. The more common mole skink (E. e. onocrepis) occupies the same range and often hybridizes with the listed subspecies. The two subspecies look identical, and type locality is often the only way to discern them. The bluetail mole skink also tends to inhabit areas above 100 ft in elevation. Little is known about the life history of this animal, although it is presumed to have similar traits to the other subspecies. They tend to eat invertebrates, especial-ly roaches, spiders, and crickets. It inhabits well-drained sandy soils, which are being converted to agriculture and residential development. Preservation of sand pine (Pinus clausa) or rosemary (Ceratiola ericoides) scrub habitats seems to be the best protection. Habitat The bluetail mole skink is found just under the sand in the following FLUCFCS types:

• 310—Rosemary scrub. • 411—Xeric pine. • 412—Xeric hammock.

• 413—Sand pine scrub. • 421—Oak scrub.

As previously mentioned, conversion of these scrub communities to agriculture (citrus) or residential development and golf courses is the biggest threat to their habitats. This species is listed as threatened by USFWS and has been since 1987. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C03T#crithab 1. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The bluetail mole skink has not been recorded in the three counties proposed for mining by Mosaic but has in areas east of there. Therefore it is consi-dered unlikely to occur within the three mine sites, although scrub habitat does occur.

2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT Use of scrub habitat would narrow down the likely habitats the species could be found onsite. However the lack of documentation for this species in the three counties does not mean this species is unlikely to occur.




a. Rangewide

This subspecies is limited to approximately 50,000 acres total habitat in central Florida. It is extremely rare and hard to detect.

b. In the Project Area The species is not known to occur on the three mine sites or in the counties where the mine sites are located.

c. Cumulative Effects Unless scrub habitat is preserved or managed on public lands, this spe-cies habitat will continue to decline. The mining of phosphate in the three neighboring counties will not contribute to that habitat loss, since the animal is not known to occur there.

d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date This species is included in the South Florida Multispecies Recovery Plan by USFWS. Six conservation plans exist that include this animal. To date 17 BOs have been issued by USFWS that include this animal. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1071.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion .search

4. DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT (IF APPLICABLE) No designated critical habitat exists for this animal, nor are rules proposed.

SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR BLUETAIL MOLE SKINK Specific surveys are not warranted on these sites, because the mine sites are outside the known range. However if required, skinks can be detected by raking sand in preferred habitat types to expose the animal, using cover board surveys, or pit trapping. USFWS has issued survey protocols for this animal that recommend pedestrian surveys in likely habitats with certain preferred soil types. The skink leaves distinctive S-shaped tracks in loose sand. Presence of such tracks confirms presence of the animal. If not found and skinks are believed present, then USFWS recommends cover board surveys. Cover board surveys are 2- by 2-ft boards placed on the bare sand at a density of 40 per acre. These are used to provide artificial cover for the animals. The boards must be



checked at least weekly and lifted carefully to identify any skink tracks. The sand under-neath should be raked to expose any animals. Pit trapping is also a recognized survey technique for reptiles and amphibians but are probably less effective than cover boards. http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Skink/Skink-Survey-Protocol-072602.htm D. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. DIRECT EFFECTS The proposed action could result in a direct effect loss of individuals (if present), as well as loss of preferred habitat.

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects would be the potential removal of scrub habitat for possible colonization by the animal.

3. EFFECTS OF INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT AC-TIONS None identified.

4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The mine sites are not located in the known range of the species, nor are they likely to have large-scale residential development occurring around them. Mosaic will reclaim all mined areas to premine conditions. No cumu-lative effects are anticipated.


Other than the typical preclearing wildlife surveys to be conducted by Mosaic, no specific conservation measures are warranted for this species at these sites.

F. CONCLUSIONS The proposed action at the three mine sites is not likely to affect the bluetail mole skink.

G. LITERATURE CITED http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C03T#crithab



http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1071.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion.search http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Skink/Skink-Survey-Protocol-072602.htm Beever, J.W., III. 2003. Standardized State-Listed Animal Survey Procedures for

SWFWMD ERP Projects. FWC.42 pp. Moler, P.E. (editor). 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume III.

Amphibians and Reptiles.291 pp.


Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Sand Skink


SAND SKINK (Neoseps reynoldsi)



SAND SKINK

(Neoseps reynoldsi) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

The Florida sand skink is a small, shiny lizard with essentially nonfunctional legs and toes. The skink is grey to grey-white or tan in color. It is characterized by its sand-swimming motion; by tucking its legs into grooves alongside its body, it can essentially swim through loose sand, resembling a snake. In Florida, this species is restricted to the Central Florida Ridge, usually in scrub habitats similar to the bluetail mole skink. This species is listed by USFWS as threatened and has been listed since 1987. The sand skink is included as part of USFWS’ South Florida Multispecies Recovery Plan, and its status was last re-viewed in 2007 along with the bluetail mole skink. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C03V Habitat The sand skink prefers well-drained and loose sandy soils with sunny exposure. Its habitats include most of the scrubs of the Central Florida Ridge. It is usually absent from communities with an abundance of plant roots and is not found in pine communities unless the wiregrass (Aristida stricta) has disappeared. Typical ideal habitat would be shrubby habitats with little ground cover and few trees. Bare sand patches would be prevalent. Typical FLUCFCS coverages where the sand skink is found include:

• 310—Rosemary scrub. • 411—Xeric (scrubby) pine. • 412—Xeric hammock.

• 413—Sand pine scrub. • 421—Oak scrub.

The animal has commonly been recorded from Highlands, Polk, Osceola, and Sa-rasota Counties. It has also been found in Marion, Lake, and Orange Counties. The primary threats to this animal are land conversion to agricultural, residential, or golf course development. Dense ground cover associated with agriculture or residential lawns and golf courses destroys any skink habitat. Preservation and protection of central Florida scrub habitats are keys to the survival of this species. 1. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Since the sand skink has not been documented on the three mine sites, nor do many records exist for this species in the three counties occupied by the mines, it is unlikely this species occurs within the project area. There are, however, some scrubs available on the mine sites that could be potential ha-bitat.



2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT This species spends most of its time under the sand, swimming to plants where it feeds on small invertebrates, such as spiders, termites, and beetle larvae. The females lay two eggs in early summer where the young hatch in July. Little else is known of the biology of the animal. Therefore, bare sandy areas in scrub habitats on the mine sites would be areas most likely to serve as potential habitat. The animal appears to move little in its habitat, so dispersal is usually not widespread. They are active in mornings and evenings, when temperatures are cooler, and spend hotter parts of days under shrubs.


This species is only known from Florida, and little is known of its bi-ology.

b. In the Project Area This species is not commonly found in the counties of the three mine sites. Its preferred range is east of the three mines with perhaps, the Ona mine being closest to the population distribution. No sand skinks have been recorded on Ona. According to FNAI, this animal has been recorded in Hardee and DeSoto Counties, but not Manatee. http://www.fnai.org/bioticssearch.cfm

c. Cumulative Effects Agricultural conversion and residential development will continue to threaten the habitat of this species. Mining west of the preferred range will add little if any threat to this species habitat.

d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date USFWS has issued 18 BOs for this species dating back to 2004 and has also agreed to 14 HCPs. Most of the BOs issued to date have been in Polk and Osceola Counties. USFWS has also issued a 5-year review for the bluetail mole skink (Eumeces egregius lividus) and Sand skink (Neoseps reynoldsi). http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C03V



http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?Method=BiologicalOpinion.Home

4. DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT (IF APPLICABLE) No critical habitat for this species has been designated, nor are any rules proposed.

SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR SAND SKINKS Similar to surveys for bluetail mole skinks, sand skinks can be detected by raking sand in preferred habitat types to expose the animal, using cover board surveys, or pit trapping. USFWS has issued survey protocols for this animal recommending pedestrian surveys in likely habitats with certain preferred soil types. The sand skink leaves distinctive S-shaped tracks in loose sand. Presence of such tracks confirms presence of the animal. If sand skinks are not found but believed present, then USFWS recommends cover board surveys. Cover board surveys are 2- by 2-ft boards placed on the bare sand at a density of 40 per acre. These are used to provide artificial cover for the animals. The boards must be checked at least weekly and lifted carefully to identify any skink tracks. The sand under-neath should be raked to expose any animals. Pit trapping is also a recognized survey technique for reptiles and amphibians but are probably less effective than cover boards. http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Skink/Skink-Survey-Protocol-072602.htm D. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. DIRECT EFFECTS If skinks are present, mining could directly affect habitat of the animal or in-jure or kill individuals. Skinks fleeing the construction activities could be exposed to additional predation.

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects might include the removal of scrub habitat for possible reco-lonization by this animal displaced from other locations.




4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The mine sites are not generally regarded as areas for future residential de-velopment. However, if such are proposed, those effects on habitat could provide a cumulative effect to existing habitat for the sand skink if present. The mine sites themselves do not encourage residential development.


Conservation measures include preservation of scrub habitats containing sand skinks or management of such scrubs using fire to eliminate or minimize ground cover and large trees. No conservation measures are proposed for the mine sites pending positive confirmation the skink exists on the sites. HCPs performed to date can be found at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile .action?spcode=C03V

F. CONCLUSIONS Pending affirmation of presence of this species, no impacts are expected to the species or its habitats. No impacts to critical habitat will occur due to lack of such designation. Therefore mining at the three mine sites is unlikely to affect this spe-cies.

G. LITERATURE CITED http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C03V http://www.fnai.org/bioticssearch.cfm http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=C03V http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?Method=BiologicalOpinion.Home http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Skink/Skink-Survey-Protocol-072602.htm Beever, J.W., III. 2003. Standardized State-Listed Animal Survey Procedures for

SWFWMD ERP Projects. FWC.42 pp. Moler, P.E. (editor). 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume III.

Amphibians and Reptiles.291 pp.


Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Audubon’s Crested Caracara


AUDUBON’S CRESTED CARACARA (Polyborus plancus audubonii)



AUDUBON’S CRESTED CARACARA

(Polyborus plancus audubonii) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

Audubon’s crested caracara is a large, boldly patterned raptor with a white head and throat, white wing tips, and white tail contrasting with a dark body, red face, and signature black crest. The caracara has unusually long, yellow legs. It is a res-ident, diurnal, and nonmigratory species that occurs in Florida as well as the southwestern United States and Central America. In Florida, this species is found in the prairie area of the south-central region of the state. It has been listed under the Endangered Species Act as a federally listed species since 1987. Although no management activities have been undertaken for the United States population of this species, draft habitat management guidelines are being devel-oped that should aid in the caracara’s recovery. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06Q Habitat The Florida caracara population commonly occurs in dry or wet prairie areas with scattered cabbage palms (Sabal palmetto). It may also be found in lightly wooded areas. Scattered saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), scrub oaks (Quercus geminata, Q. minima, Q. pumila), and cypress (Taxodium spp.) may also be present. Common FLUCFCS utilized by the caracara include:

• 190—Open land. • 212—Unimproved pastures. • 213—Woodland pastures. • 310—Herbaceous. • 320—Shrub and brushland. • 321—Palmetto prairie. • 322—Coastal scrub. • 329—Other shrubs and brush.

• 330—Mixed rangeland. • 411—Pine flatwoods. • 412—Open longleaf

pine/xeric oak. • 428—Cabbage palm. • 443—Forest regeneration

areas. • 624—Hydric pine flatwoods.

Widespread changes in land use may have forced a change in the type of habitat this subspecies will use. The caracara now uses improved or semi-improved pas-ture. The presence of seasonal wetlands may be an important factor in the attrac-tiveness of these pastures to caracaras. Humphrey and Morrison characterized habitat features and land use patterns at ac-tive caracara nest sites in south-central Florida. They found that caracaras prefer to nest in cabbage palms surrounded by open habitats with low ground cover and low density of tall or shrubby vegetation. The study also indicated that there was a



strong association of caracara home ranges with improved pasture. In addition, occupancy rate, breeding rates, and nesting success were consistently higher on private lands during the 3-year study. One of the variables that may contribute to the difference in success is vegetation height. This may be related to lower preda-tion rates in areas with less cover, or it may simply be easier for caracaras to walk around and forage in shorter vegetation. Other factors contributing to nest success may be nest tree height and distance to major roads or human activity. Caracaras are carrion feeders. They are often found in association with vultures and are commonly seen on road-killed animals along roadsides. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06Q http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_kingdom=every&search_span=containing&search_value=175595 http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/countiesBySpecies.action?entityId=125 http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf 1. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The caracara has been documented in Manatee, DeSoto, and Hardee Coun-ties. Therefore, this bird has the potential to occur in suitable habitats on all three mine sites. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/Hardee%20County3.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/DeSoto%20County3.pdf http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/CountyList/Manatee.htm

2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT The caracara will utilize existing natural habitats on the current undisturbed mine sites, as well as agricultural land uses associated with the sites. As long as suitable open habitat is available, the bird may forage onsite. Roadsides along each site are also attractants to the bird for carrion as is the current cattle ranching, which also provides carrion. The birds use large acreages for their home ranges and therefore could nest offsite and forage onsite. The birds are loyal to their nest sites and will often return to the same vicini-ty year after year, even if their previous nest has been destroyed or their ha-bitat around the nest is dimishing.



http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Polyborus+plancus+audubonii


The overall range of the crested caracara is from Florida, southern Texas, southwestern Arizona, and northern Baja California through Mexico and Central America to Panama, including Cuba and the Isle of Pines. It is accidental in Jamaica. Other subspecies range into South America as far as Tierra del Fuego and the Falkland Islands. Global abundance comments: Total population size is very large but unknown. Using 1986 Christmas bird count data, Johnsgard estimated the United States population at 2280 birds, with nearly all of these in Texas. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Polyborus+plancus+audubonii

b. In the Project Area The Florida caracara population has undergone a long-term decline through the 1900s; in the mid-1970s, it was estimated at a minimum of 350 to 400 ; in 1987 at 300 adults and approximately 200 immatures (less than one-third of population in 1900); and in 1990 at a minimum of 500 individuals. The range in Florida has shrunk as well; it formerly ranged commonly from northern Brevard County south to Fort Pierce, Lake Okeechobee, and Rocky Lake (Hendry County). The caracara is now only rarely found as far north as Orlando or east of the St. Johns River; it is most abundant in the five-county area of Glades, DeSoto, Highlands, Okeechobee, and Osceola north and west of Lake Okee-chobee. Current estimates predict approximately 500 adult birds in Florida and approximately 150 documented nests. Threats: In Florida, declines have been associated with conversion and degradation of habitat due to intensive agriculture, residential de-velopment, and illegal shooting and trapping; increase in roads and traffic has resulted in increased mortality as the birds feed on road kills. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Polyborus+plancus+audubonii



c. Cumulative Effects Large-scale habitat conversion from native rangeland and pasture to citrus and urbanization in central Florida will continue to reduce via-bility of caracara habitat. Interestingly, data indicates private lands are more conducive to caracara success than on public lands; however, private lands are less controlled in management. Success of the caraca-ra will rest in the ability of private land management trends and incen-tives.

d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date Other activities of caracara review and protection are summarized in http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2507.pdf. USFWS issued the Crested Cararcara 5-Year Review in 2009. No HCPs have been issued, and there are currently no outstanding peti-tions regarding this animal. Eleven BOs have been issued by USFWS including a recent BO on the caracara on Mosaic’s South Fort Meade mine in Hardee County (http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images /biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf.) This BO is applicable to the proposed mines discussed here.

4. DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT (IF APPLICABLE) No critical habitat has been designated or any such rules published for the Florida population of Audubon’s crested caracara. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06Q

SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR CARACARAS Survey techniques for caracaras must provide accurate information on territorial occu-pancy and breeding. This protocol is intended for use by individuals required to survey new habitat for breeding pairs. SURVEY PROTOCOL AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/Management_Practices_Caracara.pdf Caracaras are not often visible to a casual observer even in known occupied, active, nest-ing territories, particularly during certain times of the day and of the year. Casual road-side surveys can grossly underestimate occupancy rates for caracara territories. The prob-ability of seeing a caracara on a roadside survey in a known occupied territory can be as low as 30 percent, even during the breeding season. This protocol is intended to assist individuals in maximizing opportunities for finding nesting pairs and determining breed-



ing status. If possible, surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist, hereby de-fined as one who has had previous experience with caracaras, including observations and, preferably, radio tracking. Ideally, this person will have been trained by a qualified cara-cara researcher in monitoring, observation, and data collection techniques for caracaras, so surveys will be carried out in a standardize manner. TIMING OF SURVEYS

• Best during peak nesting season within overall population—January, Febru-ary, March.

• Surveys are best conducted early in the morning or late in the afternoon. DURATION OF SURVEYS

• When surveying for caracaras in areas where the nest site is not known, ob-servers should remain in each area for 2 to 4 hours during each visit.

• Observers should remain in the vehicle and watch for caracaras over a wide area of suspected habitat.

• Observations may be made on consecutive days, but ideally should be con-ducted at least 2 weeks apart and during the months of January through March.

• If the entire territory cannot be surveyed from a road, areas containing palm trees should be searched by foot if access is feasible.

• Observations should be conducted in an area at least twice a month for at least 3 consecutive months before it is considered to be unoccupied by cara-caras.

SEARCHING FOR NESTS

• Caracaras are site faithful, even to particular nest trees.

• Most caracaras nest in cabbage palms. The nest structure can easily be seen by looking up directly into the palm from alongside the trunk.

• Signs that a suspected nest is active are feces and prey remains below the nest, chicks calling from the nest, or defensive behavior by the adults when the observer is near the tree.

• Nests will most likely be facing south to southeast within the nest tree. Nest trees are generally more than 16 ft (5 meters) in height; have large, full, closed crowns; and are typically on the southeastern to southwestern edge of a group of trees. Nests may also be in lone, freestanding palm trees, in groups of 2 to 10 palms, or (rarely) in tall, emergent palms in the middle of a



large hammock. Oaks and cypress should be checked also, but these are likely to be used as nest trees only if few palms are available within a large area of otherwise suitable pasture and wetland habitat.

• When searching for new breeding pairs, efforts should first concentrate on areas of large contiguous pasture habitat containing scattered palms and oaks and numerous wetlands.

• Observations should be conducted from a position where a large area of suitable habitat can be viewed.

• If possible, observations should also be made from cover, such as a vehicle, to minimize disturbance to the pair. Searching should focus on observing adult behavior (e.g., carrying sticks or food) that would suggest nesting ac-tivity.

• Other behaviors of adults can be used to find nests. During incubation, the adult not currently incubating often will perch high and visibly in a tall tree within 1,000 ft (300 meters) of the nest. Adult caracaras exhibit little de-fense behavior near their nest, but if the chicks are large (5 to 8 weeks), adults may remain close to the nest and exhibit rattle and cackle vocaliza-tions and the head-throwback display.

• If a nest is not found immediately in an area where adult caracaras are known to occur, another visit should be made to that territory within 1 month after the first visit.

• Use of carrion as bait can also facilitate nest finding, determining territory occupancy, and determining the breeding status of a known pair. A carcass or other large piece of carrion can be set in a suspected area the night before a planned observation period. If caracaras are in the area, they will usually find and begin feeding on the carcass just after sunrise the following morn-ing. Individuals can then be observed when they return to the nest site.

NEST MONITORING Subsequent to finding a caracara nest in a new area, monitoring of the nest may be re-quired to obtain information on breeding chronology and reproductive success. If a moni-toring program is initiated in conjunction with a land development program, refer to the monitoring protocol. Currently, Mosaic monitors known caracara nests on its properties and therefore has historical data available. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/Management_Practices_Caracara.pdf



D. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. DIRECT EFFECTS The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect caracara adults, ju-veniles, nests, and fledglings within and around the proposed project area. Potential effects include direct injury, direct mortality, habitat loss or degra-dation, disturbance resulting in indirect injury or mortality of young, and disturbance resulting in intraspecific aggression.

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects of mining on the caracara could include the fragmentation of home ranges and territories for the birds. Loss of prey species due to mining is another indirect effect. Increased traffic could lead to more road-killed an-imals and thus expose the caracara to a higher possibility of vehicle death or injury. Caracara success is also linked to hydrologic regimes, so large-scale changes to hydrology may alter breeding success of the birds. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2507.pdf


4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The mine sites are generally situated in areas not subject to large-scale de-velopment; therefore, cumulative impacts from these type projects would be considered minimal. Mosaic will reclaim mined lands to premining condi-tions, so long-term effects to habitat for caracaras will be minimized.


No formal conservation plans have been created for the Florida population of Au-dubon’s crested caracara. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06Q However, USFWS recommends conservation guidelines, which were adapted from the 2010 BO on the South Fort Meade site (http://www.fws.gov/verobeach /images/pdflibrary/Caracara_Conservation_Guidelines.pdf):

1. Mosaic should conduct preclearing surveys in each mine unit prior to mining.



2. If caracaras have been identified onsite, Mosaic will monitor the birds prior to and during mining as specified in the previously referenced monitoring protocol.

3. If a nest is identified onsite prior to mining or during mining, Mosaic will avoid activities in the primary nest management zone (985 ft) rec-ommended by USFWS during nesting season.

4. Any road-killed animals will be relocated daily from roads incurring mine activity. This will be done to minimize possible vehicle injury to caracaras. Road-killed carcasses will be relocated to suitable habitat to be undisturbed by mining activities, so caracaras may still feed on the carrion.

5. Mosaic will conduct employee and contractor education on identifying caracaras. Employees and contractors will be instructed on not harm-ing or harassing the birds and allowing individuals to leave an area be-fore construction activities can resume. Mosaic will continue to post information on the birds in a location accessible to all personnel.

6. Mosaic will reclaim mined lands to their premining condition.

7. Mosaic will provide USFWS with annual monitoring reports on min-ing progress and status of onsite birds.

8. Mosaic will report dead or injured birds to USFWS.

F. CONCLUSIONS The proposed action at the three mines may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the long-term regional population of caracaras.

G. LITERATURE CITED http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06Q http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_kingdom=every&search_span=containing&search_value=175595 http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/countiesBySpecies.action?entityId=125 http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/Hardee%20County3.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/DeSoto%20County3.pdf



http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/CountyList/Manatee.htm http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Polyborus+plancus+audubonii http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc2507.pdf. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/Management_Practices_Caracara.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/Caracara_Conservation_Guidelines.pdf https://ecos.fws.gov/roar/pub/planImplementationStatus.action?documentId=100026&entityId=125 Beever, J.W., III. 2003. Standardized State-Listed Animal Survey Procedures for

SWFWMD ERP Projects. FWC. 42 pp.


Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Bald Eagle


BALD EAGLE (Haliaeetus l. leucocephalus)



BALD EAGLE

(Haliaeetus l. leucocephalus) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

The bald eagle is the largest raptor found in Florida and can have a wingspan of up to 7 ft. This bird can be found throughout the state, usually near water bodies or the coast. The eagle is primarily a fish eater but is opportunistic and will eat birds and mammals, carrion, or even scavenge at garbage dumps. It tends to nest in living tall pine or cypress trees within less than 2 miles of water. The eagle is usually mated for life when it reaches maturity at 4 years of age. They will construct a nest and return to it year after year, making it a massive nest. Nests can reach 9 ft in diameter and can weigh 1 to 2 tons. Because the state of Florida (FWC) conducts aerial surveys every year, most nest locations are known and mapped. However due to changing territories and natural nest destruction, new nests are formed. Often these nests can be difficult to see from the air and can go undetected for years. Eagles born in Florida typically migrate north if not paired. Paired birds remain here year round. The eagle population in Florida has dramatically increased since the early 1980s such that the bird has been delisted at both the federal and state level. Currently the official federal status is “delisted due to recovery.” Habitats for the eagle generally consist of ecotonal habitats between tall live trees and water or wetlands. Nest sites are usually in trees with good visibility and access to the nest. Eagles can fly great distances in their daily foraging routines. Both adult and sub-adult birds can be seen in the same territories. Therefore, sightings of the bird do not necessarily indicate a nest nearby. Numerous documentation including life history, HCPs, and BOs are found in the following links:

• http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B008.

• http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion.search.

While not currently a listed federal species, the eagle is included here because of its protection under a variety of federal laws and guidelines. Included in these are the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Current protection in Florida comes from the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf). Habitat Bald eagles will utilize most natural habitats in Florida. A mosaic of FLUCFCS types (100s to 700s) too numerous to list comprise the foraging and nesting habi-



tats. Generally any forested systems such as pines or cypress within a mile of wa-ter should be evaluated for nesting. Existing nests are found on FWC’s Eagle Nest Locator Web site (https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx). In South Florida where many tree species are stunted in height, bald eagles will use smaller trees for nesting, and along the coastal areas, they will nest in man-groves. 1. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The bird has been documented nesting and foraging in the three counties proposed for these mines. There is the likelihood the birds forage on all three mine sites and could nest on or near the properties. Currently nest sites identified in the project counties include:

• Hardee = 10 nests. • DeSoto = 9 nests. • Manatee = 33 nests.

https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx

2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT The eagle will utilize premining habitats on all three mine sites. If eagles are known or suspected to nest onsite, surveys need to be conducted to identify the nest tree and provide recommended management plan buffers around the tree. Mining will eventually create foraging habitat for the bird in the form of ponds, clay settling areas, and ditches, all of which will eventually pro-vide habitat to prey species.


The bald eagle has made a remarkable recovery nationally, and the 48 contiguous states are estimated to have nearly 10,000 nesting pairs up from approximately 450 pairs in the early 1960s. In Florida, there are an estimated 2,231 breeding pairs based on 2010 FWC aerial sur-veys. https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx

b. In the Project Area As indicated previously, a total of 52 active nests were recorded last year in the three counties where the mine sites are located. Specific surveys at each mine site will indicate how many birds are using or nesting on the proposed project sites.



c. Cumulative Effects

Primarily because of visibility and protective measures by USFWS and FWC, the eagle is faring well in the state. Nest sites are being identified and protected, and public awareness of the bird offers even more protection. While habitat loss is still a concern, primarily from residential development along lakes and rivers and the coast, most wetlands and water bodies are protected and will continue to afford fo-raging areas. Elimination of many harmful pesticides has also helped the reproductive success of the bird. As Mosaic mines phosphate in the region, more lands will be preserved, and ultimately mined lands will be reclaimed, providing future habitat for the bird.

d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date Prior to the eagle’s delisting, a total of 9 BOs had been issued in cen-tral and south Florida, none in the three counties under review here. USFWS had previously developed a Southeastern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan and have in 2010 released the Bald Eagle Final Post Delisting Monitoring Plan. Also in central and south Florida, a total of 132 HCPs have been approved for various developments to date. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/species/doc3240.pdf http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B008

4. DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT (IF APPLICABLE) No designated critical habitat exists for the eagle in Florida, nor are any rules proposed.

SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR BALD EAGLES Sufficient studies have already been performed on the three sites to provide a general idea of eagle use of the sites. As a start, FWC’s Eagle Nest Locator Web site should be con-sulted for known nests in the site vicinity. Then surveys for nesting birds are best accom-plished using aerial flyovers. Such surveys should be conducted in the November through April time frame, which is the peak nesting season in Florida. Two observers in an air-craft (helicopter preferred) can view out each side of the aircraft and fly the property to achieve visual coverage of the entirety of the site. Where documented nests are known, the aircraft should approach no closer than 500-ft vertical distance or 1,000-ft horizontal distance from the nest. Pedestrian or ground vehicle transects can also be conducted any time of the year to iden-tify use of the site by an eagle. If adult pairs are observed in the November through April time frame, there might be a nest nearby, and additional survey efforts should be con-



ducted in the vicinity. Locations of nests should be confirmed and mapped using a GPS. Nest sites are protected by FWC’s Bald Eagle Management Plan, which adopts the feder-al management recommendations. The guidelines also recommend monitoring protocols for active nest sites particularly if clearing and construction activities are occurring near-by. http://myfwc.com/media/427567/Eagle_Plan_April_2008.pdf D. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. DIRECT EFFECTS Direct effects from mining could potentially include loss of foraging or nest-ing habitat on the mine site. If eagles are present, there could be harm or ha-rassment to the birds from construction activities. That could potentially prevent breeding, nesting, or cause abandonment of nesting. Unless nesting is documented onsite, harassment is not likely to occur.

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects of mining could be those associated with nearby human presence and operation of mining equipment, which could affect the eagle’s behavior, foraging habits, and nest success. Use of USFWS’s recommended nest buffer guidelines and nest monitoring protocol would reduce those po-tential impacts. Incremental human and machinery presence would then al-low the birds to become acclimated to those disturbances. Another potential indirect effect would be loss of potential nest sites through clearing for mining. Although wetland buffers may be protected or pre-served from mining activities, upland nest sites (pine trees) would potential-ly be removed from use by birds looking to build nests.


4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The mine sites are not generally situated in areas subject to other types of large-scale development, and mining does not encourage these other types of development nearby. Mosaic will reclaim mined lands to premining con-ditions, so long-term impacts will be minimized and cumulative effects gen-erally avoided.

5. QUANTITY OF INCIDENTAL TAKE (SITE-SPECIFIC)



E. CONSERVATION MEASURES 1. Mosaic will identify the potential for eagle nests onsite by consulting

FWC’s Eagle Nest Locator and then performing preclearing aerial and ground surveys across the property.

2. Nest surveys will be performed in the nesting season (October through April) prior to clearing.

3. If a nest is found, it will be located using GPS, and appropriate buffers in accordance with the bald eagle management guidelines will be identified.

4. Mosaic employees and contractors will be educated on identifying eagles and nests, and locations with buffer requirements will be provided to indi-viduals working in the area.

5. Mosaic will consult with USFWS and FWC if active nests are identified on-site.

F. CONCLUSIONS

Absent any onsite nests, the mining activities are unlikely to affect the bald eagle. If nesting occurs onsite, the activities may affect but are unlikely to adversely af-fect the bald eagle onsite if the eagle nest management guidelines are followed.

G. LITERATURE CITED http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B008. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion.search. http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf https://public.myfwc.com/FWRI/EagleNests/nestlocator.aspx http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/species/doc3240.pdf http://myfwc.com/media/427567/Eagle_Plan_April_2008.pdf Beever, J.W., III. 2003. Standardized State-Listed Animal Survey Procedures for



Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Wood Stork


WOOD STORK (Mycteria americana)



WOOD STORK

(Mycteria americana) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

The wood stork was listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as endan-gered on February 28, 1984 (49 FR 7332). No critical habitat is designated for the wood stork; therefore, none will be affected. The wood stork is a large, long-legged wading bird with a head-to-tail length of 33 to 45 inches (85 to 115 cm) and a wingspan of 59 to 65 inches (150 to 165 cm). The plumage is white, except for iridescent black primary and secondary wing feathers and a short black tail. Wood storks fly with their neck and legs extended. On adults, the rough scaly skin of the head and neck is unfeathered and blackish in color, the legs are dark, and the feet are dull pink. The bill color is also blackish. During courtship and the early nesting season, adults have pale salmon coloring under the wings, fluffy undertail coverts that are longer than the tail, and their toes are bright pink. Immature wood storks, up to the age of approximately 3 years, have yellowish or straw-colored bills and varying amounts of dusky feathering on the head and neck. The wood stork is primarily associated with freshwater and estuarine habitats used for nesting, roosting, and foraging. Wood storks typically nest colonially in me-dium to tall trees that occur in stands located either in swamps or on islands sur-rounded by relatively broad expanses of open water. Successful breeding sites are those that have limited human disturbance and low exposure to land-based preda-tors. Nesting sites protected from land-based predators are characterized as those surrounded by large expanses of open water or where the nest trees are inundated at the onset of nesting and remain inundated throughout most of the breeding cycle. These colonies have water depths between 3 and 5 ft (0.9 and 1.5 meters) during the breeding season. In addition to limited human disturbance and land-based predation, successful nesting depends on the availability of suitable foraging habitat. Such habitat gen-erally results from a combination of average or above-average rainfall during the summer rainy season and an absence of unusually rainy or cold weather during the winter-spring breeding season. This pattern produces widespread and prolonged flooding of summer marshes that tends to maximize production of freshwater fishes, followed by steady drying that concentrate fish during the season when storks nest. Successful nesting colonies are those that have a large number of fo-raging sites. To maintain a wide range of foraging opportunities, a variety of wet-land habitats exhibiting short and long hydroperiods should be present. In terms of wood stork foraging, USFWS describes a short hydroperiod as one where a wet-land fluctuates between wet and dry in 1- to 5-month cycles, and a long hydrope-riod is that where the wet period is greater than 5 consecutive months. Wood storks, during the wet season, generally feed in the shallow water of short hydro-period wetlands and in coastal habitats during low tide. During the dry season, fo-



raging shifts to longer hydroperiod interior wetlands as they progressively dry down (though usually retaining some surface water throughout the dry season). Because of their specialized feeding behavior (tactile feeding), wood storks forage most effectively in shallow-water areas with highly concentrated prey. Typical fo-raging sites for the wood stork include freshwater marshes, depressions in cypress heads, swamp sloughs, managed impoundments, stock ponds, shallow seasonally flooded roadside or agricultural ditches, narrow tidal creeks, or shallow tidal pools. Good foraging conditions are characterized by water that is relatively calm, open, and having water depths between 5 and 15 inches (5 and 38 cm). Preferred foraging habitat includes wetlands exhibiting a mosaic of submerged and/or emer-gent aquatic vegetation and shallow, open-water areas subject to hydrologic re-gimes ranging from dry to wet. The vegetative component provides nursery habi-tat for small fish, frogs, and other aquatic prey, and the shallow, open-water areas provide sites for concentration of the prey during daily or seasonal low water pe-riods. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/wost.pdf Habitat Wood storks are opportunistic in foraging and must go where water levels in wet-lands are shallow enough to concentrate fish. Therefore, all wetlands in Florida serve as potential foraging habitat. FLUCFCS coverages most likely used by fo-raging storks include:

• 510—Streams and waterways. • 540—Bays and estuaries. • 560—Slough waters. • 610—Wetland hardwood forests. • 621—Cypress. • 630—Wetland forested mixed.

• 641—Freshwater marshes. • 643—Wet prairies. • 644—Emergent aquatic

vegetation. • 650—Non-vegetated. • 742—Borrow areas.


The wood stork has been documented as occurring in Manatee, DeSoto, and Hardee Counties. Additionally nine colonies are known to occur in or within 15 miles of Manatee County; five of DeSoto County; and two of Hardee County. Since wood storks can fly great distances from their colonies or roosts to forage, lack of nesting colonies or roosts onsite does not mean wood storks may not be affected by the proposed project. All three of Mo-saic’s mine sites have wetlands suitable for foraging by wood storks at vari-ous times of the year. USFWS and FWC consider all wetlands within



15 miles of known wood stork colonies in central Florida as part of the birds’ CFA. Therefore, foraging by the bird onsite is highly probable. http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/Documents/20080900_JAXESO_WOST_Key.pdf

2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT Wood storks will use existing natural and manmade wetlands, ditches, and open water areas on the three proposed mine sites for foraging at various times of the year. Wetlands and water bodies surveyed for the site will com-prise the basis of the assessment for wood stork impacts from each of the projects. Wood storks will also utilize mining and postmining wetlands and water bodies created as well. If wood stork colonies are identified within 15 miles of the project sites, USFWS will require a core foraging model as-sessment be made to determine likely use and potential impacts to foraging from mining. Since wood storks are obvious birds to spot, surveys con-ducted onsite for wetlands or wildlife in general will usually document this bird. Aerial surveys are effective in early spring to document potential nest-ing colonies onsite. Currently onsite shallow streams, ditches, swales, cattle ponds, and marshes will serve as potential foraging areas during the year. As wet season hydrol-ogy deepens some water bodies, the birds will shift foraging to shallower water bodies. When dry season occurs, the birds will take advantage of dee-per wetlands as they dry out and concentrate fish. From Mosaic’s BO on wood storks issued by USFWS in 2010 for the South Fort Meade mine in Hardee County, the following conclusions were made regarding foraging. They have identified four variables in assessing wood stork foraging:

• Density of vegetation within habitats suitable for wood stork foraging.

• Hydroperiod of the wetland, which includes two subcompo-nents: (1) fish density per hydroperiod, and (2) fish biomass per hydroperiod.

• Suitability of prey size for the wood stork, which provides an adjustment to the fish biomass per hydroperiod.

• Likelihood that the wood stork is the wetland species that ac-tually consumes the concentrated prey and is referenced as the competition factor.



All four of these parameters when combined provide an estimate of the ef-fect of wetland foraging losses and gains in kilograms of fish in the assess-ment of the effects of the action on wood storks.


a. Rangewide Wood storks are typically found in eastern Mississippi, southern Ala-bama, southern Georgia, southeastern South Carolina, and into por-tions of southeastern North Carolina. The bird is found throughout Florida. From the current proposed delisting of this bird to threatened status, the notice of the status of the bird from the Federal Register re-ports:

The estimated total population of nesting wood storks through-out the southeastern United States declined from 15,000 to 20,000 pairs during the 1930s, to about 10,000 pairs in 1960, to a low of 4,500 to 5,700 pairs in most years during the period be-tween 1977 and 1980. In the 23-year period from the time of listing (1984) to 2006, 13 surveys of the entire breeding range were completed. Eight of those resulted in counts exceeding 6,000 pairs. Five of those higher counts occurred during the past 8 years. In summary, annual nest counts have increased signifi-cantly, from 6,245 to 11,279 pairs in 2006, indicating the popu-lation is stable or increasing across the southeastern United States.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-09-21/pdf/2010-23138.pdf#page=1

b. In the Project Area The following Florida status was reported in the BO issued in 2010 for Mosaic’s South Fort Meade mine site:

Total population and nest data are not available for 2007 and 2008 as all Florida colonies are not monitored every year, but estimates with most colonies reporting were 4,300 in 2007 and 5,900 in 2008. However, all colonies were monitored in south Florida, and nesting data show a significant drop in nesting pairs from 2,710 in 2006 to 770 in 2007 and 704 in 2008. Re-searchers attribute this drop to the drought conditions present in south Florida during the nesting periods. The 2009 wood stork nesting data for Corkscrew Rookery noted 1,120 nests producing 2,570 nestlings. Similar rebounds in nest production were recorded for other south Florida rookeries as



well with probably the largest number of nest starts since 2004. Approximately 3,000 nest starts were estimated throughout the wetland conservation areas and the Tamiami West colony. More recent data noted approximately 6,452 nests in south Florida. Data reports from rookeries in north Florida and Georgia also noted record numbers of wood storks.

As noted previously, there are several colonies within 15 miles of the three-county area. Currently none are known to occur on any of the three Mosaic sites. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf

c. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects most likely to occur to the wood stork will be the loss of wetland habitats from the mine sites and surrounding areas due to other developments. Since the CFAs of known wood stork colonies encompass a 15-mile radius from the colony, a significant amount of acreage is included in any wood stork impact assessment. However the reclamation and preservation of wetlands by Mosaic upon completion of mining will offset most, if not all, of these losses.

d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date Status of the wood stork actions in Florida and the Southeast are sum-marized in http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile .action?spcode=B06O. The wood stork was first listed as endangered by USFWS for the southeast in 1984. In 1990, USFWS published management guidelines for the wood stork. These are still being used today, although these guidelines are being revised. http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Regulatory/DOCS/endangered/habitatGuidelines.pdf In 1997, USFWS issued a revised recovery plan. In 2006, USFWS is-sued the Wood Stork 5-Year Review. Currently there is a petition being reviewed for reclassifying the wood stork to a threatened species instead of endangered. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-09-21/pdf/2010-23138.pdf#page=1



No HCPs have been developed for the bird to date. To date 26 BOs have been issued through USFWS’ Vero Beach office. Mosaic’s South Fort Meade Mine BO is the most current, relevant one to these projects. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf

e. Designated Critical Habitat (if applicable) No critical habitat is designated for the wood stork; therefore, none will be affected.

SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR WOOD STORKS No specific set of survey protocols have been developed for wood storks in general, but there are survey methods that should be employed:

• Firstly, the project site should be mapped with locations of known wood stork colonies included. Use USFWS’s GIS database on wood stork colony locations (http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/wood-storks.htm). This will accomplish two things: identification of known nesting sites on or near the project boundaries and enablement of one to delineate CFAs inter-secting the site (15-mile radius from colony).

• Secondly, surveys for potential nesting on the site (if suspected) can be per-formed via aerial surveys. These should be conducted in January to April to capture the breeding/nesting season.

• Thirdly, it is assumed, given the range of this bird and the large amount of wetlands on each mine site, that foraging does occur. Therefore standard wildlife surveys performed for listed species onsite will identify presence and relative use of the site.

• Finally, the USFWS CFA model would be used if a CFA includes any por-tion of the site.


1. DIRECT EFFECTS Direct effects are those effects caused by the proposed action at the time of construction, are primarily habitat based, are reasonably certain to occur, and might include: a. Temporary loss of available habitat for foraging, feeding, and dispers-

ing wood storks.



b. Changes in hydroperiods of wetlands that support wood stork forag-ing, feeding, breeding, and dispersing wood storks from existing to postreclamation habitats.

c. Fragmentation of wood stork habitat.

d. Harassment by construction activities.

e. Temporary reduction in the geographic distribution of habitat for the species.

f. Habitat mitigation and or creation. If it is determined that a colony is nesting on one of the sites, appropriate buffer/preservation areas will have to be established per the wood stork management guidelines and consultation with USFWS. Nearby construc-tion/mining activities could result in the following direct effects on a nesting colony: a. Harassment of the birds to the point they may abandon the nests, caus-

ing mortality to eggs or young.

b. Loss of nesting habitat either through clearing or changes in hydrolo-gy, causing the birds to abandon the nest site.

c. Increased predation due to changes in hydrology

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects are defined as those effects caused by the proposed action and occurring later in time, but still reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR 402.02). The indirect effects this project may have on the wood stork within the action area are listed and discussed in the following: a. Increases in disturbance frequency, intensity, or severity to wood

storks in the project vicinity due to human activities.

b. Changes in the wood stork prey base.

c. Changes in value of wood stork habitat adjacent to the project due to project-related hydrological alterations.

To establish potential impacts of a project on foraging of the bird and poten-tial incidental take that might be required, USFWS has developed a wood stork foraging assessment model, which is now used as a standard part of formal consultations on USACE permits. This model calculates existing fo-raging habitat in terms of number of acres of certain wetland types and hy-drology classes as well as potential biomass of prey (fish and crayfish) that



could be expected to be available to wood storks within a CFA. The model then allows the applicant to provide the postconstruction information esti-mates, so the postconstruction (postmining) forage biomass can be calcu-lated. If there is a net loss after reclamation and mitigation of wetland habi-tats, that number can be equated to number of birds potentially lost (take) based on average biomass needed to support a wood stork. A copy of the fo-raging model worksheet is attached. While this approach is helpful for estimating impacts to wood stork produc-tion as it relates to the analysis of the effects of the action on the species, there are a number of real world variables that limit the assessment’s utility for estimating incidental take. For example, wood storks nest colonially and often in the same site for many years. The ability to count individual wood storks, their nests or young, and attribute any changes from year to year as an effect of the action is complicated by many factors. Wood stork colonies are censused as esti-mates and do not reflect actual counts, not all wood storks return to the same colony every year even if the colonial site is used, nesting sites may be abandoned if water levels recede too far or there is disturbance to the site, and the colony or individual birds may renest elsewhere . In addition, new wood stork colonies are often discovered, which may represent a shift from historic colonies due to environmental conditions or establishment of a new colony. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter _Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade %20Mine%20052810.pdf

3. EFFECTS OF INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT AC-TIONS At this time, there are no interrelated and interdependent actions.

4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS There are generally not other large-scale developments near the mine sites, so cumulative impacts are considered minimal. However, the wood stork fo-raging model, discussed previously, does take into account other regional impacts to foraging habitat.

5. QUANTITY OF INCIDENTAL TAKE The wood stork foraging model would be used to calculate any take and ap-propriate mitigation to offset any potential take in terms of habitat credits lost or gained as a result of this project.



E. CONSERVATION MEASURES The wood stork habitat management guidelines provide general concepts to re-duce potential impacts to wood storks. These guidelines are primarily geared to-ward protecting colony sites. http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/Documents/19900100_gd_Wood-stork-habitat-guidelines-1990.pdf The wood stork foraging assessment model will also be used to provide guidance on specific quantities and types of wetlands to be preserved, reclaimed, or miti-gated. Dead or injured storks should be reported to the nearest USFWS office. Mosaic employees and contractors will be educated on identification of this bird and other required conservation measures.

F. CONCLUSIONS USFWS has developed a wood stork effects determination key for use by USACE in evaluating wetland permits. This can also be used by Mosaic in developing their mine and reclamation plan for each site. http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/Documents/20080900_JAXESO_WOST_Key.pdf Based on the size of these projects and number of acres of wetlands potentially af-fected, USFWS, as they did for the South Fort Meade mine, may determine that the proposed action may adversely affect the endangered wood stork. The Appli-cants’ proposed mitigation, which includes the hydrological restoration and crea-tion of wetland habitats in the project area, will minimize adverse effects from the proposed action. It is possible that there may be a net gain in foraging habitat val-ue as a result of the project. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf

G. LITERATURE CITED http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20100528_letter_Service%20to%20Corps_BO%20FA1006%20South%20Fort%20Meade%20Mine%20052810.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdflibrary/wost.pdf http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/Documents/20080900_JAXESO_WOST_Key.pdf



http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-09-21/pdf/2010-23138.pdf#page=1 http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06O http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Divisions/Regulatory/DOCS/endangered/habitatGuidelines.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-09-21/pdf/2010-23138.pdf#page=1 http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/wood-storks.htm http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/WoodStorks/Documents/19900100_gd_Wood-stork-habitat-guidelines-1990.pdf http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/PDFVersions/Wood-stork-2005.pdf Beever, J.W., III. 2003. Standardized State-Listed Animal Survey Procedures for





% Exotics F.S.VHydroperiods Crayfish &

Fish g/m^20-25 1 Class 1 (0-60 days) 0.31

Acres Kgrams Acres Kgrams Acres Kgrams Acres Kgrams 25-50 0.64 Class 2 (60-120 days) 0.62Class 1: 0 to 60 Days 0 0 50-75 0.37 Class 3 (120-180 days) 1.32Class 2: 60 to 120 Days 0 0 75-90 0.03 Class 4 (180-240 days) 2.34Class 3: 120 to 180 Days 0 0 >90 0.03 Class 5 (240-300 days) 2.93Class 4: 180 to 240 Days 0 0 Class 6 (300-330 days) 3.36Class 5: 240 to 300 Days 0 0 Class 7 (330-365 days) 3.63Class 6: 300 to 330 Days 0 0Class 7: 330 to 365 Days 0 0TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

IMPACT AREA

Hydroperiods Acres % exotics F.S.V m2 m2

suitablecrayfish & fish g/m2

available biomass

32.5%consum.

Biomass (kg)

FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00FALSE 0.00 0.00 FALSE 0.00 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 0.00 0.00

PRESERVE AREA (PRE)



available biomass

32.5%consum.

Biomass (kg)


TOTAL 0.00 0.00

PRESERVE AREA (POST)



available biomass

32.5%consum.

Biomass (kg)


TOTAL 0.00 0.00

Total Biomass within Existing Footprint 0.0

Total Biomass within Preserve Area Pre-

Enhancement0.0

Total Biomass within Preserve Area Post-

Enhancement0.0

Net Change 0.0

Net Change Per Hydroperiod ClassHydroperiod Existing Footprint Preserve Areas

Pre Enhancement Post Enhancement

Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Florida Scrub Jay


FLORIDA SCRUB JAY (Aphelocoma coerulescens)



FLORIDA SCRUB JAY

(Aphelocoma coerulescens) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

The Florida scrub jay was originally recognized as a subspecies of a western spe-cies but is now classified as a distinct species. The scrub jay resembles the more commonly recognized blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), with both being dominated by blue and white colors. Scrub jays have no crest like the blue jay, nor do they have the distinctive black-bridling about the head and chest. Scrub jays have long-er feet and shorter wings, better suited to their terrestrial lifestyle. They tend to fly shorter distances than blue jays and are nonmigratory. Scrub jays are omnivorous, eating almost anything they can catch. Insects com-prise the majority of the animal diet throughout most of the year. Acorns are by far the most important plant food; surplus acorns are frequently cached in the ground. The Florida scrub jay is endemic to peninsular Florida. The estimated population is between 7,000 to 11,000 individuals. Scrub has been significantly reduced by development activity and now typically occurs only in scattered and often small patches in peninsular Florida. Florida scrub jay populations formerly inhabited 39 of 40 peninsular Florida counties, from Levy, Gilchrist, Alachua, Clay, and Duval Counties southward. Its range currently occurs from Flagler, Marion, and Citrus Counties south to Collier, Glades, and Palm Beach Counties, with the largest re-maining populations in Brevard County (especially coastal scrubs of Merritt Isl-and National Wildlife Refuge and Kennedy Space Center), Highlands County (near Sebring, Lake Placid, and Venus, and on Avon Park Air Force Range), and in Marion County (at Ocala National Forest). Florida scrub jays have a social structure that involves cooperative breeding, a trait that the western North American species of scrub jays do not exhibit. Florida scrub jays live in groups ranging from two (a single mated pair) up to large ex-tended families of eight adults and one to four juveniles. Fledgling scrub jays re-main with the breeding pair in their natal territory as “helpers,” forming a closely knit cooperative family group. Prebreeding numbers are generally reduced to ei-ther a pair with no helpers or families of three or four individuals (a pair plus one or two helpers). To become a breeder, a scrub jay must acquire a territory and mate. Evidence presented by Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick suggests that Florida scrub jays are permanently monogamous. The pair retains ownership and sole breeding privileges in their particular territory year after year. Courtship to form the pair is lengthy and ritualized and involves posturing and vocalizations made by the male to the female. Copulation between the pair is generally out of sight of other jays. Age at first breeding varies from 1 to 7 years, although most individu-als become breeders between 2 and 4 years of age. Persistent breeding populations of Florida scrub jays exist only where there are scrub oaks in sufficient quantity to provide an ample winter acorn supply, cover from predators, and nest sites during the spring. They typically nest at the edge of an oak thicket near an open area.



During the breeding season, which runs from March through June, average pro-duction of young is two fledglings per pair, per year, and the presence of helpers improves fledgling success. Annual productivity must average at least two young fledged per pair for a population of scrub jays to maintain long-term stability. The Florida scrub jay was listed in 1987 by USFWS as threatened. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B082 Habitat According to USFWS, the Florida scrub jay lives only in the scrub and scrubby flatwoods habitats of Florida. This type of habitat grows only on nearly pure, ex-cessively well-drained sandy soils and occurs along present coastlines in Florida, on paleodunes of the high central ridges and other ancient shorelines of the Flori-da Peninsula, and inland on scattered alluvial deposits bordering several major rivers. This species’ habitat is dominated by a layer of evergreen oaks (myrtle oak [Quercus myrtifolia] and/or Archbold oak [Q. inopina], sand live oak [Q. gemina-ta], Chapman oak [Q. chapmanii], and runner oak [Q. minima]), rusty lyonia (Lyonia ferruginea), and Florida rosemary (Ceratiola ericoides). This layer is rarely greater than 2 meters in height, except where fire has been suppressed. Ground cover is sparse, dominated by saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) and sand palmetto (Sabal etonia). Bare sand patches are essential for foraging and acorn-caching. Slash pines (Pinus elliottii) and sand pines (P. clausa) are widely scat-tered with usually less than 15 percent cover. Typical FLUCFCS land covers where the bird may be found in Florida include:

• 211—Improved pasture. • 212—Unimproved pasture. • 213—Woodland pasture. • 221—Citrus groves. • 310-330—Rangeland. • 411—Pine flatwoods.

• 412—Longleaf pine/xeric oak. • 413—Sand pine. • 443—Forest regeneration areas. • 720—Sand other than beaches. • 741—Disturbed rural land. • 745—Disturbed burn areas.

Important to all potential habitats for the scrub jay is the availability of acorns and bare sand patches for caching acorns. 1. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Scrub jays are documented in all three counties occupied by the mine sites. However, since their habitat requirements are specific, those potential habi-tats can be identified on the properties and surveyed accordingly to confirm potential presence.

2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT The Florida scrub jay is an obvious bird to observe in appropriate habitats. Mosaic has considerable experience in dealing with scrub jays on mine sites.



Since their habitats are not easily created, identification of the bird onsite will represent habitat that may need to be preserved. Scrub jays typically need approximately 25 acres of good habitat to support a group of birds. The birds are colonial in nature; therefore, observation of a bird probably indicates the presence of others nearby. Scrub jays may use offsite habitats for nesting and forage onsite. So once birds are observed, they should be tracked to record their use of the site.


Scrub jay populations have not been systematically censused through-out the state, so there are no good estimates of the population state-wide. Current estimates by IFAS provide that probably 3,000 to 4,000 family groups remain in approximately 32 Florida counties. Some estimates by USFWS indicate the population has declined 25 to 50 percent in the last 30 years. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw306 http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Scrub-Jays/2007-Review/2007-Florida-scrub-jay_5-Year_review.pdf

b. In the Project Area As stated previously, scrub jays occur in all three counties where Mo-saic’s mine sites are located.

c. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects would be the elimination of other nearby scrub jay habitat due to other developments. Mosaic’s mining does not typically encourage other types of development nearby, so currently no other cumulative impacts are identified.

d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date The scrub jay was listed as threatened in 1987 by USFWS. USFWS is-sued their Florida Scrub Jay 5-Year Review in 2007 and also devel-oped a Florida scrub jay action plan in 2009. To date, there have been 134 HCPs approved for the bird. USFWS’s Vero Beach office has also issued 33 BOs; two of those in 2010 were for projects in Polk and DeSoto Counties.



http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion.search

4. DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT (IF APPLICABLE) No critical habitat has been designated, nor is any proposed for the scrub jay.

SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR THE FLORIDA SCRUB JAY The most effective method for surveying a site for Florida scrub jays is to traverse the area systematically using a high-quality tape recording of Florida scrub jay territorial scolding in an attempt to attract the jays. The recording should include clear examples of all typical territorial scolds, including the female “hiccup” call. Vocalizations are availa-ble by contacting:

Macaulay Library Cornell Lab of Ornithology 159 Sapsucker Rd. Ithaca, New York 14850 http://birds.cornell.edu

Map plant communities either on a 7.5-ft USGS topographic map or an aerial photograph at a scale of no more than 400 ft per inch. The vegetation map must show all forms of existing development. On the vegetation map, establish parallel line transects with play-back stations along each transect. The transects and playback stations should be spaced so all different scrub types will be sampled for jays (i.e., so the taped calls will be effective-ly broadcast across areas of concern). These scrub types should include not only the more classic xeric oak scrub, scrubby pine flatwoods, scrubby coastal strand, and sand pine scrub, but should also include:

• Pine-mesic oak. • Xeric oak. • Sand live oak. • Improved, unimproved, and

woodland pastures. • Citrus groves. • Rangeland. • Pine flat woods. • Longleaf pine xeric oak.

• Sand pine. • Sand pine plantations. • Forest regeneration areas. • Sand other than beaches. • Disturbed rural land in transition

without positive indicators of in-tended activity.

• Disturbed burned areas.

http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Scrub-Jays/general-survey-guide-082407.htm




1. DIRECT EFFECTS Direct effects on the scrub jay from mining would be the potential loss or in-jury to the birds and nests, loss of suitable habitat, or disturbance or harass-ment to the birds.

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects on the scrub jay from mining would be the potential to ex-pose the birds to human presence and noise, which, while not directly affect-ing their habitat, could cause the birds to forage in less than optimal habitats. Other indirect effects would be the loss of potentially future scrub jay habi-tat from colonization.

3. EFFECTS OF INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT AC-TIONS None anticipated at this time.

4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects would result from other nearby development activities in scrub jay habitats. None are identified at this time.


Potential conservation measures would include the following, if scrub jays are oc-curring onsite:

• Adequate surveys to identify potential use of the site by scrub jays. • Identification and preservation of scrub jay habitat if present. • Mitigation of loss of scrub jay habitat if preservation is not possible,

through contributions toward purchase and management of protected habitats.

• Further research and support for the Translocation program (already supported by Mosaic and Dr. Reed Bowman).

• Education of employees and contractors. • Fire management of any preserved scrubs to encourage utilization.

F. CONCLUSIONS

It is unlikely the three project sites may adversely affect the Florida scrub jay, un-less site-specific evidence finds the birds present.



G. LITERATURE CITED http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B082 http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw306 http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Scrub-Jays/2007-Review/2007-Florida-scrub-jay_5-Year_review.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion.search http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Scrub-Jays/general-survey-guide-082407.htm Beever, J.W., III. 2003. Standardized State-Listed Animal Survey Procedures for

SWFWMD ERP Projects. FWC.42 pp. Rogers, J.A.; Kale, H.W; and Smith, H.T. (editors). 1996. Rare and Endangered

Biota of Florida, Volume V. Birds. 688 pp.


Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Florida Grasshopper Sparrow


FLORIDA GRASSHOPPER SPARROW (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus)



FLORIDA GRASSHOPPER SPARROW

(Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

The Florida grasshopper sparrow is a short-tailed sparrow with a thick base at the bill, primarily gray and black in color, with a buff throat and breast. The bird is small, hard to see, and usually heard before seen. This bird is found primarily in the Kissimmee River Valley to Lake Okeechobee. It has been listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 since 1986. Currently there are no crit-ical habitat, conservation plans, or petitions for changing the listing for this spe-cies. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B07G#lifeHistory Habitat The Florida grasshopper sparrow inhabits poorly drained grasslands that burn fre-quently. They prefer relatively treeless environments with open bare ground for foraging and some grass and shrub cover for nesting. Common habitat plants in-clude bluestems (Andropogon spp.), dwarf oak (Quercus minima), saw palmetto, pineland three awn (Aristida stricta), and St. Johns wort (Hypericum spp.). Fre-quent fires are necessary to maintain the habitat in an early successional stage pre-ferred by the bird (Rogers et al. editors, 1996). Cattle grazing (intensely managed pastures) may not be compatible with ideal habitat for the sparrow. Common FLUCFCS types utilized by the sparrow include:

• 190—Open land. • 212—Unimproved pastures. • 310—Herbaceous. • 320—Shrub and brushland. • 321—Palmetto prairies.

• 329—Other shrubs and brush. • 330—Mixed rangeland. • 443—Forest regeneration areas. • 641—Freshwater marshes. • 643—Wet prairies.

Habitat loss is attributed to intensive rangeland management, where all shrubs and trees are removed and fire is precluded. Conversely, allowing grasslands to suc-ceed to shrubby rangeland or conversion to agriculture or pine plantations may al-so preclude nesting by this bird. Most of the range of this bird occurs on private lands where management cannot be controlled. 1. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Florida grasshopper sparrow is believed to occur in DeSoto, Polk, High-lands, Osceola, and Glades Counties. Of the three mine sites, only one site occurs in one of these counties (DeSoto). Since the range of this bird is thought to be in eastern DeSoto County, the likelihood of it occurring on the DeSoto site is low. It would not be expected on the other two mine sites.



http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/countiesBySpecies.action?entityId=133

2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT The poorly drained pastures of the mine sites would be the possible habitat for these birds. However they are difficult to detect by sight due their secre-tive habits.


Grasshopper sparrows occur commonly throughout the United States to Mexico, Ecuador, and the West Indies. The eastern race is migrato-ry and overwinters in Florida. However, the endangered subspecies is presumably nonmigratory and breeds in central Florida. Population es-timates are inaccurate due to poor surveys of the possible range. Cen-suses conducted in 1997 estimated less than 1,000 adults. However, it is thought that the bird is declining. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/action_plans/doc3069.pdf

b. In the Project Area This bird has not been recorded for the three mine sites, and the range is marginal with respect to their location.

c. Cumulative Effects Large expansive grasslands are either being managed too efficiently for this birds’ success or not managed at all, allowing natural succes-sion to degrade the habitat suitable for the bird. Much of the habitat is on private land, allowing little control or management for the species.

d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date None identified in the three counties occupied by the mine sites. USFWS issued the Florida Grasshopper Sparrow 5-Year Review in 2008. Five BOs have been issued for this bird, all in Polk and High-lands Counties (Avon Park Bombing Range). http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20110419_letter_Service%20to%20AF_F%200110%20APAFR%20OQ%20Burn%20BO1.pdf



4. DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT (IF APPLICABLE) No critical habitat has been designated, nor is any proposed.

SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR FLORIDA GRASSHOPPER SPARROW The recommended survey protocol for determining presence is a three-event survey dur-ing the nesting season (April 1 through June 15). The minimum time between events is 2 weeks. Surveys outside the nesting season may be nonconclusive and not acceptable. The survey protocol should follow the following steps.

1. Conduct the survey only during accepted survey and monitoring periods. Surveys should be conducted by personnel familiar with the Florida gras-shopper sparrow habitat needs and requirements and capable of identifying and locating sparrows based on either song or sighting.

2. Identify all patches of prairielike habitat (unforested sites with some grass cover), regardless of perceived habitat quality within the project area and an approximately 320-ft (100-meter) buffer zone. Potential habitats on the property may not only be the nest sites of the Florida grasshopper sparrow, but could be part of the Florida grasshopper sparrow foraging habitat. This is considered occupied habitat by USFWS, because the habitat fulfills the species life history requirements.

3. Establish a survey grid throughout potential habitat with stations approx-imately 650 ft (200 meters) apart. This distance between transects and sta-tions is generally adequate when using a good-quality, hand-held cassette or CD player broadcasting at full volume. The volume of the player must be sufficient to hear the taped call from a distance of approximately 320 ft (100 meters).

4. Start surveys no earlier than 30 minutes before sunrise and end no later than 3 hours after sunrise. Only morning surveys are acceptable.

5. Survey only on calm days. Surveys should be terminated if winds exceed 15 mph (24 kph).

6. Sample each survey point location using recorded grasshopper sparrow songs. At each station:

a. Record geographic position in the field using GPS. b. Watch and listen for 1 minute for grasshopper sparrow activity. c. Play recording for 30 seconds. d. Watch and listen for 1 minute in four directions 90 degrees apart (i.e.,

north, east, south, and west). e. Move to the next station and repeat procedure.

7. Record dates and times of all surveys, by station, and all survey results (in-clude negative reports).



8. If no Florida grasshopper sparrows are found, repeat the survey. Three nega-tive surveys conducted at least 2 weeks apart are required to presume the sparrow is absent.

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/Florida_Grasshopper_Sparrow_Survey_Protocol.pdf D. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. DIRECT EFFECTS The direct effects of mining on the grasshopper sparrow would be loss of habitat and loss of nests if they occurred on the mine sites. This would be manifested in mortality to adult birds and young, loss of nesting habitat, and loss of foraging habitat.

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects of mining on the birds would be conversion of preferred ha-bitat to less desirable habitat after mining, and forced relocation of the birds to less desirable habitats away from the mining activities.


4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The mine sites are generally situated in areas outside the range of these birds; therefore, no cumulative effects are identified at this time.


No formal conservation plans have been proposed by USFWS. More information on the species range and connectivity of habitats is suggested. Mosaic’s site-specific plans should include preclearing surveys for this species in appropriate habitats. Consultation would be required if found, although it is unlikely based on range and lack of observations on the mine sites to date.

F. CONCLUSIONS The proposed action at the three mine sites is unlikely to affect this species.



G. LITERATURE CITED http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B07G#lifeHistory http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/countiesBySpecies.action?entityId=133 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/action_plans/doc3069.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20110419_letter_Service%20to%20AF_F%200110%20APAFR%20OQ%20Burn%20BO1.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/Florida_Grasshopper_Sparrow_Survey_Protocol.pdf Beever, J.W., III. 2003. Standardized State-Listed Animal Survey Procedures for




Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Red-Cockaded Woodpecker


RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER (Picoides borealis)



RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER

(Picoides borealis) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

The federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker is a small woodpecker, dis-tinguished from other Florida woodpeckers by its black cap and nape, large white cheek patch, and black and white barred back. The male has a small patch (cock-ade) of red feathers on the side of the head, whereas the females do not. This woodpecker is a year-round, nonmigratory resident of mature pine forests of the southeastern United States. It was originally found from Texas to New Jersey. The populations are now fragmented, with the largest concentrations occurring in the coastal plain forests of the Southeast and the Carolina Sandhills. Much of the woodpecker population exists on public lands. In Florida, the bird is widespread but fragmented and also occurs commonly on federal and state lands. The red-cockaded woodpecker’s distribution is closely related to fire. Fire ecology of southern pine forests yields fire resistant trees, in which the woodpecker exca-vates cavities. Old growth pine trees, usually longleaf (Pinus palustris), are pre-ferred when available. However, the bird in Florida will also commonly use slash pine (Pinus elliottii) or loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Another unique aspect of this bird is that the trees selected for cavities are commonly infected with a fungus that decays the heartwood and makes excavating cavities easier for the birds. Since the birds excavate their cavities in living pine trees, resin forms around the cavity and flows down the side of the tree, making identification of the birds’ cavity trees ra-ther unmistakable. This resin flow also serves to deter predators from getting into the nest, the primary predator being climbing snakes. The red-cockaded woodpecker is a group-living species, living in colonies or clans that consist of a breeding pair and several nonbreeding birds. The nonbreed-ers help with taking care of the young. The woodpecker is monogamous, but the birds all roost in individual cavity trees, usually fewer than 15 trees in a cluster, and normally are not separated by more than a few hundred yards. Woodpeckers eat primarily arthropods, which are found under the bark of trees. Foraging habitat are living pine trees within pine flatwoods, often interspersed with cypress domes and strands. Threats to the woodpecker are primarily loss of nesting habitat due to cutting of old age pine stands and commercial (short-term) timber operations. Loss of pine forests also diminishes foraging habitat. Nest trees can be jeopardized by bark beetles, fire, wind, and lightening. Hardwood encroachment into pine forests also diminishes foraging and nesting opportunities.



Habitat Preferred habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker is open, parklike stands of ma-ture pines with little or no midstory vegetation. Typical FLUCFCS classes in Flor-ida where the bird is found include:

• 411—Pine flatwoods. • 412—Longleaf pine/xeric oak. • 414—Pine-mesic oak. • 434—Hardwood-conifer mixed.

• 620—Mixed pine-cypress. • 624—Hydric slash pine

flatwoods. • 745—Burned areas.

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20110405__Biological%20Opinion_FWC%20funding%20to%20Boughton.pdf 1. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Although possible to occur, the red-cockaded woodpecker is not currently known to thrive in DeSoto, Hardee, or Manatee Counties. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/countiesByState.action?entityId=107&state=Florida Additionally, prior land management and uses of the Mosaic property have precluded development of old age pine stands.

2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT The potential for red-cockaded woodpeckers to occur on the mine sites is dependent on forest stand types and age on the three sites. Based on availa-ble data and long-term studies on the sites, preferred habitat is limited. In the late 1990s, both the Pine Level (DeSoto) and Ona sites were reviewed by red-cockaded woodpecker experts. The results indicated, while there was historic evidence that the birds may have resided onsite, at that time, there was no evidence they were currently there or suitable habitat for the success-ful establishment of a clan of birds was present. Suitable potential onsite ha-bitats can be identified from existing vegetation maps and aerial photogra-phy, and then current surveys could be conducted to ascertain possible pres-ence of the birds.


According to the latest 5-year review performed by USFWS (2006), there was an estimated 6,105 clusters of nesting birds throughout the United States range. Florida has a large population of the birds, an es-timated 237 active clusters in 2009.



http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc787.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20110405__Biological%20Opinion_FWC%20funding%20to%20Boughton.pdf

b. In the Project Area As previously mentioned, it is not documented that the three counties proposed for mining activities, have any active clusters of the birds.

c. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects from mining would reduce potential habitat very little in central Florida, especially since the bird is not occupying those counties currently, and there is little preferred habitat on the sites.

d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date The red-cockaded woodpecker was listed as endangered by USFWS in 1970 throughout its range and remains so today. A second draft of the recovery plan was issued by USFWS in 2003. The Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 5-Year Review was issued by USFWS in 2006. Throughout the southeast, there have been 21 HCPs and 13 safe harbor agreements issued for the bird. In Florida, there have been 8 BOs issued by USFWS’s Vero Beach office. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B04F#petitions http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion.search

4. DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT (IF APPLICABLE) No critical habitat has been designated, nor are there any proposed petitions for such for this bird.

SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR THE RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER USFWS has a survey protocol for the bird for South Florida. The approach in general has a logical step-down process:

• Analyze the potential habitat types to determine if nesting or foraging habi-tat is present. If it is not, no further surveys are necessary



• Adequacy of available habitat is based on availability of 60-year-old pines in stands with younger pines.

• If such pines exist onsite, surveys of those areas must be conducted for cavi-ties by experienced personnel. Surveys are conducted in north-south direc-tions, and surveys should be done in breeding season (mid-April through mid-June).

• Foraging surveys should be conducted in such habitats as well both in breed-ing season and nonbreeding season (mid-October through mid-December). Birds or their calls are searched using pedestrian transects. Birds are terri-torial and will make themselves seen or heard when an observer enters their area.

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/2004-07-%20Slopes%20Complete %20-%20Red-cockaded%20Woodpecker%20.pdf D. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. DIRECT EFFECTS Direct effects of mining if woodpecker habitat occurred would be loss of po-tential nesting trees and foraging habitat.

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect effects to the red-cockaded woodpecker from mining would be po-tential fragmentation of remaining foraging habitat for offsite colonies. Long-term effects would be preclusion of fire management on any frag-mented habitats onsite.

3. EFFECTS OF INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT AC-TIONS None identified at this time

4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Cumulative effects would only occur if the mine sites contained foraging habitat currently available to offsite colonies of birds. Mining would remove potential habitat in addition to other habitat alterations offsite, out of Mo-saic’s control.




E. CONSERVATION MEASURES None proposed unless woodpeckers are confirmed using the sites. If confirmed onsite, USFWS should be consulted for specific conservation measures to be tak-en. Mosaic will reclaim mined habitats to premining conditions.

F. CONCLUSIONS The proposed mining in the three sites is not expected to affect the red-cockaded woodpecker.

G. LITERATURE CITED http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20110405__Biological%20Opinion_FWC%20funding%20to%20Boughton.pdf http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/countiesByState.action?entityId=107&state=Florida http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc787.pdf http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B04F#petitions http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion.search http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/2004-07-%20Slopes %20Complete%20-%20Red-cockaded%20Woodpecker%20.pdf Beever, J.W., III. 2003. Standardized State-Listed Animal Survey Procedures for




Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Florida Panther


FLORIDA PANTHER (Puma concolor coryi)



FLORIDA PANTHER

(Puma concolor coryi) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

The Florida panther is the largest member of the cat family in Florida and is ex-tremely rare in the state. The panther is a reddish brown to tawny colored cat, gray underneath, with a long tail. The young are spotted. An adult male cat can reach 7 ft in length from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail and weigh 160 pounds. Females are smaller in size. Today the species is estimated to have 100 to 125 re-maining individuals in the state, although information suggests the numbers are slowly increasing. The Florida panther has been listed as federally endangered since 1967. Its breed-ing range in the state is generally considered south of the Caloosahatchee River in south Florida (Lee, Collier, Hendry, Monroe, and Miami-Dade Counties). Howev-er, records for radio-tagged animals indicate individuals have roamed north of the Caloosahatchee River and have been documented in Flagler, Glades, Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Polk, Sarasota, and Volusia Counties. Certainly unconfirmed sightings have been reported for much of peninsular Florida over the years. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/20081022%20Florida%20Panther%20Recovery%20Plan%20-%203rd%20Revision.pdf Male panthers are polygynous and have large home ranges that overlap with sev-eral females and their dependent young. Sexual activity typically occurs at ap-proximately 3 years of age. A female’s den is dense understory vegetation, usually saw palmetto. Young animals are usually dependent up to approximately 18 months of age. Young males typically disperse significant distances from their birthplace (more than 25 miles). Females disperse much shorter distances. Male home ranges typically average 200 square miles, while females require approx-imately 75 square miles. Home range is dependent on prey abundance, landscape, and habitat quality. Panthers prey on deer, wild hogs, armadillos, raccoons, rabbits, and alligators. Deer and hogs comprise the majority of their diets. Threats to the panther are loss and degradation of habitats (primarily forested sys-tems), fragmentation of habitats, human disturbance, and vehicle interactions. Poaching has occurred, although it is a felony to kill a panther. Indirectly, lack of management of forested systems has reduced prey abundance and distribution. Habitat The Florida panther utilizes a mosaic of pine flatwoods, savannas, hardwood hammocks, and mixed swamp forests. Ecotones between these habitats are espe-



cially important in the variety and density of prey species. FLUCFCS habitats typ-ically used by panthers that occur in the project vicinity include:

• 212—Unimproved pastures. • 213—Woodland pastures. • 320—Shrub and brushland. • 321—Palmetto prairies. • 322—Coastal scrub. • 329—Other shrubs and

brush. • 330—Mixed rangeland. • 411—Pine flatwoods. • 414—Pine-mesic oak. • 420—Upland hardwood fo-

rests. • 421—Xeric oak. • 425—Temperate hardwood

hammock. • 427—Live oak hammock.

• 428—Cabbage palm. • 434—Hardwood-conifer mixed. • 438—Mixed hardwoods. • 510—Streams and water ways. • 560—Sloughs. • 610—Wetland hardwood fo-

rests. • 611—Bay swamps. • 613—Gum swamps. • 620—Wetland coniferous fo-

rests. • 621—Cypress. • 624—Hydric pine flatwoods. • 630—Wetland mixed forest. • 641—Freshwater marshes. • 643—Wet prairies.


The mine sites are outside the breeding range of the Florida panther, and, while there is the chance a roaming male may cross the sites, it is unlikely any panther is using the mine sites for its home territory. The preferred habi-tat types and prey species do exist on the mine sites. The panther has not been officially documented from Manatee, Hardee, or DeSoto Counties, although in 1997, a radio-tagged animal was believed to have crossed the Ona site or very near it. Also that year, a USFWS biologist found a large cat track on the Ona site near Brushy Creek. It was not con-firmed as belonging to a Florida panther. There have been other uncon-firmed reports of large cats in Hardee County since that time.

2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT The male panthers tend to roam great distances from their birth place to find a territory for themselves. In doing so, they might wander northward from South Florida, following river corridors such as the Peace River and its tri-butaries. Therefore, there is a chance panthers could occasionally cross one of the mine sites. However, due to widespread agricultural uses of the mine sites, it would be unlikely a panther would establish a territory on one of the sites. Without a potential mate also wandering that far north, this makes this scenario even more remote.




There is believed to be fewer than 125 panthers in Florida. Historically they ranged throughout the southeastern United States. Now there are no reproducing populations outside of South Florida. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20110405_letter_Service%20to%20Seminoles_CPA0134%20BC%20Homesite%20BO.pdf

b. In the Project Area As stated previously, there are 11 counties north of the Caloosahatchee River where documented panther sightings have occurred; none are in the three counties of Mosaic’s mine sites. Unconfirmed sightings have occurred on some of Mosaic’s sites, although evidence is lacking that they were Florida panthers.

c. Cumulative Effects Large-scale habitat conversion and fragmentation have reduced the large expanses of habitats necessary to support panther breeding. Loss of wildlife corridors exposes the migrating animals to additional ha-zards, including vehicle deaths and human encounters. However it is unlikely the area of Florida proposed for mining will ever be a viable breeding panther territory.

d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date Since its listing in the 1960s, the Florida panther has been the subject of numerous federal actions. Notably the following have occurred to date:

• The Florida Panther Recovery Plan (3rd revision) was drafted in 2008

• The Florida Panther Species Spotlight Action Plan was developed in 2009.

• Florida Panther 5-Year Review was last conducted in 2009

• One HCP has been developed • 42 BOs have been issued by USFWS’s Vero Beach office • No current petitions have been proposed



4. DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT (IF APPLICABLE) No critical habitat has been designated for the panther, nor has any been proposed. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A008

SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR THE FLORIDA PANTHER While no formal protocol is suggested for panther surveys on the mine sites, surveys de-signed for other listed species should be sufficient to observe any incidental panther sign. Panthers are extremely secretive and elusive, so short of tracking dogs or radio telemetry data, survey techniques are limited to accidental sightings, tracks, scats, or road-killed animals. To investigate the status of panther sightings in the proposed project areas, con-sultation should be made with USFWS and FWC panther experts to see if radio-tagged animals have been recently frequenting the project counties. If any signs are found inci-dental to other wildlife surveys, USFWS or FWC should also be immediately consulted to provide input on the veracity of the find and make recommendations for further sur-veys. USFWS has also developed a panther key to assist USACE in making a project determi-nation effect decision for the panther. This key is also an aid to consultants performing panther analysis on a project site. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/20070219_Letter_SFESO%20to%20COE_Panther_Key.pdf D. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. DIRECT EFFECTS The proposed action has a low potential to harm the animal through injury or death, although harassment is possible from mining activities if an animal were present onsite. Potential habitat loss is the more likely direct effect, and this would be manifested in loss of cover and foraging habitat. Fragmenta-tion of travel corridors is another potential direct effect. This results in limit-ing the dispersal ability of roaming animals and possible increasing of their range.

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS Potential indirect effects to the Florida panther would be reduction in habitat to support prey species or increased exposure to human activity and possible vehicle interactions.



3. EFFECTS OF INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT AC-TIONS None identified at this time

4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Since the proposed mine sites are not in the known breeding range of the Florida panther, it is unlikely mining will significantly add to the cumulative effects of development in South Florida. Mosaic typically preserves major riverine habitats that serve as travel corridors and will reclaim mined lands to premining conditions, meaning habitat will be available to panthers.


E. CONSERVATION MEASURES Other than Mosaic employee and contractor education about the Florida panther, no specific measures are recommended. Panther conservation success lies in widespread habitat preservation within the breeding range, through regulation of development, preservation and management of public lands, and continued re-search.

F. CONCLUSIONS Using the panther key, the projects may affect but are unlikely to adversely affect the Florida panther. This is due to the fact that the mine sites are outside the des-ignated panther focus areas, although the mines may generate additional traffic. There will be no effect on critical habitat since none has been established.

G. LITERATURE CITED http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/20081022%20Florida%20Panther%20Recovery%20Plan%20-%203rd%20Revision.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/biologicalopinion/20110405_letter_Service%20to%20Seminoles_CPA0134%20BC%20Homesite%20BO.pdf http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A008 http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/20070219_Letter_SFESO%20to%20COE_Panther_Key.pdf Beever, J.W., III. 2003. Standardized State-Listed Animal Survey Procedures for

SWFWMD ERP Projects. FWC.42 pp. Humphrey, S.R. (editor). 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume I.

Mammals. University Press of Florida. 392 pp.

Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Florida Bonamia


FLORIDA BONAMIA (Bonamia grandiflora)



FLORIDA BONAMIA

(Bonamia grandiflora) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

The Florida bonamia is a trailing vine with stems up to 3 ft long, alternate lea-thery, 1- to 2-inch-long oval leaves with pointed tips and entire margins, and soli-tary bright to pale blue flowers with five lobes. Florida bonamia resembles the common morning glory, but can be distinguished by its small, oval leaves with en-tire margins and shorter, trailing (rather than high-climbing) stems. Florida bona-mia mostly occurs in openings or disturbed areas of white sand scrub on central Florida ridges. It has been listed as threatened under the 1973 Endangered Species Act since November 2, 1987 (52 FR 42068). Currently, there are no critical habi-tat, conservation plans, or any petitions for changing the listing for this species. http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/Bonamia_grandiflora.pdf Habitat Florida bonamia’s habitat is white sand scrub vegetated with evergreen scrub oaks (Quercus inopina, Q. geminata, and Q. myrtifolia) and sand pine (Pinus clausa). Florida bonamia is dependent upon sunny, cleared areas left by periodic fires or physical disturbance. The only FLUCFCS types where Florida bonamia could be found potentially growing within its range on the mine sites are:

• 413—Sand Pine. • 421—Xeric oak. • 432—Sand live oak.


Florida bonamia is endemic to the Florida peninsula and has been recorded occurring in Marion, Volusia, Polk, Orange, Highlands, Hillsborough, Har-dee, Lake, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties. The scrub habitat has been searched on the three mine sites, and the Florida bonamia was never found. Since the likelihood of occurrence for this species on the mine sites is ex-tremely low, it would not be expected. http://www.fws.gov/southeast/5yearReviews/5yearreviews/FlBonamia.pdf

2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT The scrub areas of the mine sites would be the possible habitat for Florida bonamia. However, after repeated searches, this extremely easy-to-identify species was never found.



3. CURRENT CONDITIONS FOR SPECIES a. Rangewide

Historical records from herbaria provide historic collection locations in Volusia and Marion Counties south through Lake, Orange, Polk, Highlands, Hardee, and west to Hillsborough, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties. The South Florida multispecies recovery plan indicates the plant was found in Charlotte, Hardee, Highlands, Lake, Manatee, Ma-rion, Orange, Osceola, and Polk Counties, but the Charlotte and Os-ceola County records are not represented in herbaria. Florida bonamia has apparently been extirpated from Volusia and Sarasota Counties. It is most abundant in the Ocala National Forest. In 2006, it was esti-mated that Florida bonamia was known from only 66 locations. Twen-ty-five of the locations occurred on 19 parcels of land considered to be protected. http://www.fws.gov/southeast/5yearReviews/5yearreviews/FlBonamia.pdf

b. In the Project Area Florida bonamia has been recorded as occurring in Manatee and Har-dee Counties in scrub habitat. Since two of the mine sites (Ona and Wingate East) occur within the species range of distribution and sup-port scrub habitat (i.e., FLUCFCS 413, 421 and/or 432), there is a li-kelihood of occurrence for Florida bonamia. However, these mine sites have been searched for Florida bonamia repeatedly, and none have been found. Therefore, it has been determined that the likelihood for occurrence is extremely low.

c. Cumulative Effects Sixty-two percent of known Florida bonamia populations grow on un-protected, private lands that are vulnerable to destruction or decline in the future due to development and/or not being managed. Any future loss or decline in Florida bonamia populations on unprotected, private lands would result in a net decrease in the rangewide distribution and/or abundance of this species. Accordingly, this species is likely to decline in the future, even though a substantial number of populations are protected on public lands.

d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date None identified in the two counties (i.e., Manatee and Hardee) occu-pied by the mine sites (i.e., Wingate East and Ona). The species has not been reported in DeSoto County, so it is unlikely it could occur on the DeSoto site as well. USFWS has issued one BO for the plant in the



Lake Wales Ridge area. USFWS also issued the Florida Bonamia 5-Year Review in 2008. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion.search http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q26B


SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR FLORIDA BONAMIA The recommended survey protocol for determining presence is to search for signs of Florida bonamia within and along the edges of the scrub habitats identified for the mine sites. The best survey season is the flowering period from May through August, but the leaves and vines of Florida bonamia persist and are distinctive all year. The survey proto-col should follow the following steps:

1. Conduct the survey during the flowering period, if possible. Surveys should be conducted by two qualified plant taxonomists with experience in identify-ing and surveying for Florida bonamia.

2. Identify the mapped FLUCFCS 413, 421, and 432 polygons overlaid on cur-rent aerial photographs for the two mine sites located in the historic range of the species (i.e., Wingate East and Ona).

3. For each FLUCFCS mapping unit identified as potential habitat, conduct an intensive pedestrian survey. The survey should consist of a sufficient num-ber of parallel, overlapping belt transects across the suitable habitat, includ-ing edges and ecotones, to ensure a 100-percent visual coverage of the ground and vegetation. If the vegetation is too dense to get through, the bo-tanist can continue to search along the transect meandering around obstacles present. The spacing between transects is dependent on the ground cover and visibility (i.e., the more dense the vegetation, the closer the transects). The survey transects should be recorded by using a hand-held GPS unit.

4. If Florida bonamia is identified during the surveys, record the geographic locations of the population centers in the field with a GPS unit and take a photograph. Provide a distinct code for each surveyed population and record the following:

a. Number of individuals in the population. b. Date and time of the survey. c. Condition of the population (e.g., flowering, vegetative, insect dam-

age, recently mowed, seedlings, etc.). d. Dominant plant species occurring in proximity to the population.



e. Number and direction of the photograph taken. f. Additional pertinent data.

5. The survey report should include:

a. A vegetation map depicting the location, configuration, and acreage of the FLUCFCS mapping units searched, survey transects recorded by GPS, and locations of any sightings of Florida bonamia.

b. A table of the acreage of each polygon and the density (number of in-dividuals per acre) and abundance (density times acreage of habitat) of any Florida bonamia discovered.

c. The names of the personnel who conducted the survey, survey dates and times, and a description of the survey methodology.

d. A description of the dominant vegetation present and detailed informa-tion on the populations of Florida bonamia found.

e. Photographs of each population of Florida bonamia discovered. http://www3.leegov.com/dcd/Environmental/ProtectedSpecies.htm D. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. DIRECT EFFECTS The direct effects to the Florida bonamia would be the loss of habitat and loss of any extant populations, if occurring on the mine sites.

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS Any losses of extant population on the mine sites would enhance the decline of the species. Indirect effects to the Florida bonamia from mining would al-so include the conversion of suitable habitat to potentially unsuitable habitat after mining/reclamation (only if populations of Florida bonamia currently exist on the mine sites).


4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Florida bonamia has not been found at any of the mine sites. Therefore, no cumulative effects have been identified at this time.




E. CONSERVATION MEASURES

No formal conservation plans have been proposed by USFWS. No systematic sur-veys have been conducted for this species throughout its range; therefore, only li-mited information on abundance and population trends is available. Mosaic’s site-specific plans should include preclearing surveys for the species in appropriate habitats. Consultation with USFWS would be required if the species is found on-site, although it is highly unlikely based on the lack of observations on the mine sites to date.

F. CONCLUSIONS The proposed action at the three mine sites is unlikely to affect this species.

G. LITERATURE CITED http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/Bonamia_grandiflora.pdf http://www.fws.gov/southeast/5yearReviews/5yearreviews/FlBonamia.pdf http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion.search http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q26B http://www3.leegov.com/dcd/Environmental/ProtectedSpecies.htm http://www.florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/Plant.aspx?id=1223 Turner, W.R.; Wilcove, D.S.; and Swain, H.M. 2006. State of the Scrub: Conser-

vation progress, management responsibilities, and land acquisition priori-ties for imperiled species of Florida’s Lake Wales Ridge, Archbold Biolog-ical Station, Lake Placid, Florida.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Florida Bonamia (Bonamia grandiflora)

5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 21 pages. Wunderlin, R.P.; and Hansen, B.F. 2011. Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants, Insti-

tute for Systematic Botany (ISB), University of South Florida Herbarium, Tampa, Florida.


Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Florida Golden Aster


FLORIDA GOLDEN ASTER (Chrysopsis floridana)



FLORIDA GOLDEN ASTER

(Chrysopsis floridana) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

The Florida golden aster is a perennial herb, 10 to 16 inches tall, with wooly erect branches rising from a rosette of densely wooly, spoon-shaped leaves. The stem leaves are approximately 0.5 to 1.2 inches long, densely wooly, somewhat wider above the middle, with rounded tips and slightly clasping the stem. The flower heads are approximately 1 inch across in flat-topped clusters of up to 25 heads, with golden yellow disk and ray flowers. Florida golden aster occurs on sunny, bare patches of sand in white sand scrub; on the low sand edges of excessively well-drained, fine sands; and railroad and highway rights-of-way. It has been listed as endangered under the 1973 Endangered Species Act since May 16, 1986 (51 FR 17974). Currently, there are no critical habitat, conservation plans, or any petitions for changing the listing for this species. However, in 2009, USFWS rec-ommended the species be reclassified from endangered to a threatened status in the 2009 5-year review. http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/action_plans/doc3066.pdf Habitat Florida golden aster’s habitat is typically open, sunny areas of white sand scrub habitat with sand pine (Pinus clausa) and scrubby evergreen oaks (Quercus gemi-nata, Q. myrtifolia, and Q. incana). Smaller shrubs that also can occur include tar-flower (Bejaria racemosa), rusty lyonia (Lyonia fruticosa), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), paw paw (Asimira reticulata), and hog plum (Ximenia americana). Open, sandy areas are also vegetated by lichens, wiregrass (Aritida spp.), and other herbs such as Liatris tenuifolia, Carphephorus corymbosus, Stillingia sylvatica, Polygo-nella ciliata, and Dalea feayi. The only FLUCFCS types where Florida golden aster could be potentially found growing within its range on the mine sites are:

• 413—Sand Pine. • 421—Xeric Oak. • 432—Sand Live Oak.

http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/Chrysopsis_floridana.pdf 1. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Florida golden aster is endemic to west-central Florida. It has been recorded as occurring in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Hardee Counties. The scrub habitat has been searched on the three mine sites, and the Florida gol-den aster was never found. Since the likelihood of occurrence for this spe-cies in the mine sites is extremely low, it would not be expected.



http://www.florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/Plant.aspx?id=1217

2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT The scrub areas of the mine sites would be possible habitat for Florida gol-den aster. However, after repeated searches, this extremely easy-to-identify species was never found.


The Florida golden aster has only been recorded as occurring in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Manatee, and Hardee Counties in west-central Florida. USFWS has recommended that surveys for this species in-clude Sarasota and DeSoto Counties. There are thousands of plants under county and state protection, mostly in Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Manatee Counties. http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/Fla-Golden-Aster-2005.htm

b. In the Project Area Florida golden aster has been recorded as occurring in Manatee and Hardee Counties in scrub habitat. In addition, USFWS recommends that Sarasota and DeSoto Counties be included in any searches for this species. Since all three mine sites (i.e., Wingate East, Ona, and DeSo-to) occur within the species range of distribution and support scrub habitat (i.e., FLUCFCS 413, 421, and 432), there is a likelihood for occurrence for Florida golden aster on all three mine sites. However, these mine sites have been searched for Florida golden aster repeated-ly, and none have been found. Therefore, it has been determined that the likelihood for recurrence is extremely low.

c. Cumulative Effects The most significant threat to the Florida golden aster is the direct loss of habitat due to development. Other threats include mowing, clearing, use of herbicides, dumping, excessive grazing, and off-road vehicle use. Approximately 20 populations are known, mostly on conservation lands. Although thousands of plants are protected on public lands, any future loss or decline in Florida golden aster populations on unpro-tected private lands would result in a net decrease in the rangewide distribution and/or abundance of this species. Accordingly, this species is likely to decline in the future, even though a substantial number of populations are protected on public lands.



d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date

None identified in the three counties (i.e., Manatee, Hardee, and De-Soto) occupied by the mine sites. USFWS has issued the Florida Gol-den Aster 5-Year Review (2009). No HCPs or BOs have been issued. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q272


SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR FLORIDA GOLDEN ASTER The recommended survey protocol for determining presence of Florida golden aster is to search for any signs within and along the edges of the scrub habitats identified for the three previously identified mine sites. The best survey season is the flowering season in November through December. The survey protocol should follow the following steps:

1. Conduct the survey only during the flowering season. Surveys should be conducted by two qualified plant taxonomists with experience in identifying and surveying for Florida golden aster.

2. Identify the mapped FLUCFCS 413, 421, and 432 polygons overlaid on cur-rent aerial photographs for the mine sites.

3. For each FLUCFCS mapping unit identified as potential habitat, conduct an intensive pedestrian survey. The survey should consist of a sufficient num-ber of parallel, overlapping belt transects across the suitable habitat, includ-ing edges and ecotones, to ensure a 100-percent visual coverage of the ground and vegetation. If the vegetation is too dense to get through, the bo-tanist can continue to search along the transect by meandering around ob-stacles present. The spacing between transects is dependent on the ground cover and visibility (i.e., the more dense the vegetation, the closer the tran-sects). The survey transects should be recorded by using a hand-held GPS unit, and photograph should be taken.

4. If Florida golden aster is identified during the surveys, record the geographic locations of the population centers in the field with a GPS unit and take a photograph. Provide a distinct code for each surveyed population and record the following:

a. Number of individuals in the population. b. Fate and time of the survey. c. Condition of the population (e.g., flowering, vegetative, insect dam-

age, recently mowed, seedlings, etc.). d. Dominant plant species occurring in proximity to the population.



e. Number and direction of the photograph taken. f. Additional pertinent data.


a. A vegetation map depicting the location, configuration, and acreage of FLUCFCS mapping units searched, survey transects recorded by GPS, and locations of any sightings of Florida golden aster.

b. A table of the acreage of each polygon and the density (number of in-dividuals per acre) and abundance (density times acreage of habitat) of any Florida golden aster discovered.


d. A description of the dominant vegetation present and detailed informa-tion on all of the populations of Florida golden aster found.

e. Photographs of each population of Florida golden aster discovered. http://www3.leegov.com/dcd/Environmental/ProtectedSpecies.htm D. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. DIRECT EFFECTS The direct effects would be loss of habitat and any extant populations of Florida golden aster, if present on the mine sites.

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS The plant is unable to disperse into isolated, suitable sites, which may pose an indirect threat to the long-term survival of the species. Any losses of ex-tant populations on the mine sites would enhance the decline of the species. Indirect effects of mining on the Florida golden aster would also include the conversion of suitable habitat to potentially unsuitable habitat after min-ing/reclamation (only if populations of Florida golden aster exist on the mine sites).


4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Florida golden aster has not been found at the mine sites; therefore, no cu-mulative effects are identified at this time.




E. CONSERVATION MEASURES

No formal conservation plans have been proposed by USFWS. Mosaic’s site-specific plan should include preclearing surveys for this species in appropriate ha-bitats. If found, consultation with USFWS would be required, although this is un-likely based on the lack of prior observations on the mine sites to date.

F. CONCLUSIONS The proposed action at the three mine sites is highly unlikely to affect this species.

G. LITERATURE CITED http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/action_plans/doc3066.pdf http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/pdf/Chrysopsis_floridana.pdf http://www.florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/Plant.aspx?id=1217 http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/Species-Accounts/Fla-Golden-Aster-2005.htm http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=Q272 http://www3.leegov.com/dcd/Environmental/ProtectedSpecies.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Recovery Plan for Florida Golden Aster

(Chrysopsis floridana), 15 pages. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. May 14, 2009. Florida Golden Aster 5-Year Re-

view. Wunderlin, R.P., and Hansen, B.F. 2011. Atlas of Florida vascular Plants, Institute

for Systematic Botany (ISB), University of South Florida Herbarium, Tampa, Florida.


Species Assessment Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC Perforated Reindeer Lichen


FLORIDA PERFORATE REINDEER LICHEN (Cladonia perforata)



FLORIDA PERFORATE REINDEER LICHEN

(Cladonia perforata) C. SPECIES AND SUITABLE HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

The Florida perforate reindeer lichen (Florida perforate cladonia) is a conspicuous lichen that forms large, dense, branching clusters. These fruticose lichens are re-stricted to the high, well-drained sands of rosemary scrub in Florida. Florida per-forate reindeer lichen is easily recognized in the field by the conspicuous holes or perforations below each dichotomous branch point and its wide, smooth, yello-wish gray-green branches. Up to eight species of other fruticose, terrestrial rein-deer lichen species commonly coexist with Florida perforate reindeer lichen in Florida scrub. However, Florida perforate reindeer lichen can be distinguished from other Cladonia and Cladina species by color, shape, and texture. This lichen species was listed as endangered under the 1973 Endangered Species Act on April 27, 1993 (48 FR 25746). There are no critical habitat or conservation plans for this species. However, there have been two notices of findings on petitions to amend the listing for Cladonia perforata on October 18, 1989, and August 3, 1990. The 90-day and 12-month petition findings were deemed “substantial” and “warranted but precluded,” respectively. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?Spcode=U000 Habitat In the Lake Wales Ridges of Florida, Florida perforate reindeer lichen is found on the highest xeric white sands in sand pine (Pinus clausa) scrub, typically in the ro-semary (Ceratiola ericoides) phase. Rosemary scrub or balds are particularly well-drained and structurally open. Scrub oaks (Quercus inopina, Q geminata, Q. myrtifolia) are typically growing in clumps and scattered throughout. While sand pine dominates the canopy layer and rosemary dominates the shrub layer, Florida perforate reindeer lichen typically grows in open patches of sand between shrubs in areas of sparse or no herbaceous cover. In addition to other, more common reindeer lichens, Florida perforate reindeer lichen may be found growing with Se-renoa repens, Sabal etonia, Lyonia ferruginea, L. fruticosa, Sideroxylon tenax, Asimina obovata, Persea humilis, Licania michauxii, Hypericum cumilicola, Po-lygonella basiramia, Opuntia humifusa, Lechea cernua, and Selaginella arenico-la. The only FLUCFCS types where Florida perforate reindeer lichen could be po-tentially found growing within its range on the mine sites include:

• 413—Sand Pine. • 421—Xeric Oak. • 432—Sand Live Oak.

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/clpe.PDF



1. THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Florida perforate reindeer lichen is known to occur on approximately 27 sites in Florida; all but two sites are in southern Florida. Sixteen of these sites are protected on public lands. Only one disjunct site for this lichen has been found in Manatee County. The scrub habitat has been searched on the three mine sites, and Florida perforate reindeer lichen was never found. Since the range of distribution of this species is extremely limited (i.e., only one site previously found within Manatee County), overall occurrence in the state of Florida is extremely rare, and Florida perforate reindeer lichen was not found during prior searches on potential habitat on the mine sites, the li-kelihood of occurrence for this species on the mine sites is extremely low and it would not be expected.

2. THE SPECIES BIOLOGY PERTINENT TO THE PROJECT The scrub areas (i.e., FLUCFCS 421 and 432) of the mine site (i.e., Wingate East) located in Manatee County would be possible habitats for Florida per-forate reindeer lichen. However, after repeated searches, this somewhat easy-to-identify species was never found.


The distribution of this species is scattered from Santa Rosa and Oka-loosa Counties in the Florida panhandle south to Polk, Manatee, and Highland Counties in west-central Florida and east to Martin and Palm Beach Counties in south Florida. Approximately 27 sites have been recorded to date, and only one of these occurs within Manatee County.

b. In the Project Area Florida perforate reindeer lichen has been recorded in one location in Manatee County within sand pine scrub along the Little Manatee Riv-er. Since only one of the mine sites (Wingate East) occurs within the same county as the one recorded, disjunct population and supports scrub habitat, there is a likelihood of occurrence for Florida perforate reindeer lichen. However, Wingate East was searched for Florida per-forate reindeer lichen repeatedly, and none has been found. Therefore, it has been determined that the likelihood of occurrence is extremely low.

c. Cumulative Effects Sixteen of the 27 sites where Florida perforate reindeer lichen occurs are on public lands. The biggest threat to this species is loss of habitat. Any future loss or decline in Florida perforate reindeer lichen popula-



tions on unprotected private lands would result in a net decrease in the rangewide distribution and/or abundance of this species. Accordingly, this species is likely to decline in the future, even though a substantial number of populations are protected on public lands.

d. Other Consultation of Federal Actions in the Area to Date USFWS issued the Florida Perforate Cladonia 5-Year Review in 2007. As previously mentioned no current petitions are outstanding. USFWS has issued three BOs for the plant in the Lake Wales Ridge and Jupiter areas. No actions have been taken by USFWS in the counties occupied by the mine sites. http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion.search http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=U000


SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR FLORIDA PERFORATE REINDEER LICHEN The recommended survey protocol for determining presence is to search for signs of Florida perforate reindeer lichen within and along the edges of the scrub habitat identified for the mine sites. The best survey season is the flowering season in November through December. The survey protocol should follow the following steps:

1. Conduct the survey only during the flowering season. Surveys should be conducted by two qualified plant taxonomists with experience in identifying and surveying for Florida perforate reindeer lichen.

2. Identify the mapped FLUCFCS 421 and 432 polygons overlaid on current aerial photographs for the mine site.

3. For each FLUCFCS mapping unit identified as potential habitat, conduct an intensive pedestrian survey. The survey should consist of a sufficient num-ber of parallel, overlapping belt transects across the suitable habitat, includ-ing edges and ecotones, to ensure a 100-percent visual coverage of the ground and vegetation. If the vegetation is too dense to get through, the bo-tanist can continue to search along the transect by meandering around ob-stacles present. The spacing between transects is dependent on the ground cover and visibility (i.e., the more dense the vegetation, the closer the tran-sects). The survey transects should be recorded by using a hand-held GPS unit.



4. If Florida perforate reindeer lichen is identified during the surveys, record the geographic locations of the population centers in the field with a GPS unit and take a photograph. Provide a distinct code for each surveyed popu-lation and record the following:

a. Number of individuals in the population. b. Date and time of the survey. c. Condition of the population (e.g., flowering, vegetative, insect dam-

age, recently mowed, seedlings, etc.). d. Dominant plant species occurring in proximity to the population. e. Number and direction of the photograph taken. f. Additional pertinent data.


a. A vegetation map depicting the location, configuration and acreage of FLUCFCS mapping units searched, survey transects recorded by GPS, and locations of any sightings of Florida perforate reindeer lichen.

b. A table of the acreage of each polygon and the density (number of in-dividuals per acre) and abundance (density times acreage of habitat) of any Florida perforate reindeer lichen discovered.


d. A description of the dominant vegetation present and detailed informa-tion on the populations of Florida perforate reindeer lichen found.

e. Photographs of each population of Florida perforate reindeer lichen discovered.

http://www3.leegov.com/dcd/Environmental/ProtectedSpecies.htm D. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. DIRECT EFFECTS The direct effects would be loss of habitat and any extant populations of Florida perforate reindeer lichen, if present on the mine sites.

2. INDIRECT EFFECTS The plant is extremely rare and is scattered throughout the state of Florida at only a relatively few locations. Any losses of extant populations on the mine site would enhance the decline of the species. Indirect effects of mining on the Florida perforate reindeer lichen would also include the conversion of suitable habitat to potentially unsuitable habitat after mining/reclamation



(only if populations of Florida perforate reindeer lichen exist on the mine sites).


4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Florida perforate reindeer lichen has not been found at the mine sites; there-fore, no cumulative effects are identified at this time.


E. CONSERVATION MEASURES No formal conservation plans have been proposed by USFWS. Mosaic site-specific plans should include preclearing surveys for this species in appropriate habitats. Consultation with USFWS would be required, if found. However, this is unlikely based on the lack of prior observations on the mine site to date.

F. CONCLUSIONS The proposed action at the mine site is highly unlikely to affect this species.

G. LITERATURE CITED http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?Spcode=U000 http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/images/pdfLibrary/clpe.PDF http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=biologicalopinion.search http://www3.leegov.com/dcd/Environmental/ProtectedSpecies.htm Turner, W.R.; Wilcove, D.S.; and Swain, H.M. 2006. State of the Scrub: Conser-

vation progress, management responsibilities, and land acquisition priori-ties for imperiled species of Florida’s Lake Wales Ridge, Archbold Biolog-ical Station, Lake Placid, Florida.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Florida perforate cladonia (Cladonia perfo-

rata) 5-year Review, Survey and Evaluation.
