Programmatic Biological Opinion Fort Benning's Conservation and Crediting Program for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Through Off-Post Conservation and Management of the Longleaf Pine Ecosystem FWS Log#: 04EG 1000-2018-F-2869 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services - West Georgia Sub-Office Columbus, Georgia 31995 By: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services- Raleigh Field Office Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 1-,/21 /1013 Pete Benjamin, eld Supervisor Date Ecological Services U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office
58
Embed
Programmatic Biological Opinion - Fort Benning · 2020. 2. 27. · Fort Benning's Conservation and Crediting Program for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Through Off-Post
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Programmatic Biological Opinion
Fort Benning's Conservation and Crediting Program for the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Through Off-Post Conservation and
Management of the Longleaf Pine Ecosystem
FWS Log#: 04EG 1000-2018-F-2869
Prepared for:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services - West Georgia Sub-Office
Columbus, Georgia 31995
By:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services- Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
1-,/21 /1013 Pete Benjamin, eld Supervisor Date Ecological Services U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONSULTATION HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................... iii BIOLOGICAL OPINION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 2. PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1. Action Area ................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2. On-Post Action Area ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3. Off-Post Action Area ................................................................................................................................... 3
2.4. Tiered Consultation/Implementation Process ............................................................................................ 4
2.5. Off-Post Land Conservation Initiatives ....................................................................................................... 5
2.6. Off-Post Habitat Management Plan Requirements .................................................................................... 7
2.8. Interrelated and Interdependent Actions ................................................................................................. 18
2.9. Tables and Figures for Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 18 3. STATUS OF SPECIES ..................................................................................................................................... 20
3.1. Species Description ................................................................................................................................... 21
3.2. Life History ................................................................................................................................................ 21
3.3. Population Dynamics ................................................................................................................................ 22
3.4. Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution ................................................................................................ 25
4.1. Action Area Numbers, Reproduction, and Distribution ............................................................................ 27
4.2. Action Area Conservation Needs and Threats .......................................................................................... 28
4.3. Tables and Figures for Environmental Baseline ........................................................................................ 32 5. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ............................................................................................................................. 33
5.1. Effects of Ft. Benning’s Conservation and Crediting Program for the ...................................................... 33
Red-cockaded woodpecker Through Off-Post Conservation and Management of the Longleaf Pine Ecosystem .. 33 6. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ................................................................................................................................ 38 7. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 39 8. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 43
8.1. Amount or Extent of Take ......................................................................................................................... 44 9. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................... 45 10. REINITIATION NOTICE ................................................................................................................................. 46 11. LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................................................... 46
iii
CONSULTATION HISTORY
This section lists key events and correspondence during the course of this consultation. A
complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in the Service’s West Georgia
Sub-Office.
1994-22-September The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determined that military
training and related management activities at Fort Benning Army
Installation (Ft. Benning/Installation) were likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) on Ft.
Benning.
2001-14 August Ft. Benning’s first Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
(INRMP) was provided to the Service, followed with a request from Ft.
Benning on 22 August 2001 to initiate formal consultation on the INRMP
and associated Endangered Species Management Plans (ESMP), including
the RCW ESMP.
2002-27-September The Service approved Ft. Benning’s INRMP and ESMP which
implemented the 1996 Army RCW Guidelines and relieved Ft. Benning of
the Jeopardy Opinion issued in 1994 (FWS Log Number 99-0620).
2004-12-March Ft. Benning provided a Biological Assessment (BA) of the Construction,
Operation and Maintenance of a Proposed Digital Multipurpose Range
Complex (DMPRC).
2004-22- July The Service issued a final Biological Opinion (BO) on the DMPRC (FWS
Log No: 03-0584) which authorized incidental take for nine RCW groups
that were anticipated to be adversely impacted by the proposed action.
2007-13-April Ft. Benning provided a BA of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Transformation and requested initiation of formal consultation.
2007-20-August The Service issued a final BO on BRAC Transformation (FWS Log No:
07-FA-0954) which resulted in 32 RCW groups anticipated to be
adversely impacted by the proposed action.
2008-27-October Ft. Benning provided a BA of the Maneuver Center of Excellence and
requested initiation of formal consultation.
2009-29-May The Service issued a final BO on the Maneuver Center of Excellence
(FWS Log Number 2009-FA-0118) which authorized incidental take for
81 RCW groups that were anticipated to be adversely impacted by the
proposed action.
iv
2014-09-April The Service issued general ACUB expansion concurrence letter (FWS
Log Number # 2014-CPA-0468).
2014-20-November The Service approved Ft. Benning’s RCW Endangered Species
Management Component (ESMC), which implemented the 2007 Army
RCW Guidelines (Service Log Number 2014-F-1128).
2015-11-September The Service issued a final BO on Enhanced Training at Ft. Benning (FWS
Log Number FF04EG1000-2015-F-0833).
2016-14-July Ft. Benning sent the Service a letter requesting concurrence on specific
ACUB expansion for 8,884 Acres.
2016-01-August The Service issued the specific 8,884-acre ACUB expansion concurrence
letter (FWS Log Number # 04EG1000-2016-CPA-0676).
2017-14-December Army Headquarters Installation Management Command (HQ-IMCOM),
Army Environmental Center (AEC), and Ft. Benning met with the Service
to discuss the development of the Programmatic BA (PBA), coupled with
discussions about the species dynamics of the RCW, so as to enhance the
development of the compensatory mitigation proposal.
2018-13-June Ft. Benning and AEC met with the Service to address comments and
revisions identified in the Draft PBA.
1
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
1. INTRODUCTION
A biological opinion (BO) is the document that states the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), as to whether a
Federal action is likely to:
jeopardize the continued existence of species listed as endangered or threatened; or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
The Federal action addressed in this BO is the Fort Benning Army Installation’s (Ft. Benning
/Installation) proposed Conservation and Crediting Program for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) Through Off-Post Conservation and Management of the Longleaf Pine
Ecosystem (the Action). This Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) considers the effects of
the Action on red-cockaded woodpeckers. The Action does not affect designated critical habitat;
therefore, this BO does not further address critical habitat.
A BO evaluates the effects of a Federal action along with those resulting from interrelated and
interdependent actions, and from non-Federal actions unrelated to the proposed Action
(cumulative effects), relative to the status of listed species and the status of designated critical
habitat. A Service opinion that concludes that a proposed Federal action is not likely to
jeopardize species and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat fulfills the
Federal agency’s responsibilities under §7(a)(2) of the ESA. In this BO, only the jeopardy
definition is relevant, because the Action does not affect designated critical habitat. “Jeopardize
the continued existence” means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected,
directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a
listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species
(50 CFR §402.02). The basis of our opinion for red-cockaded woodpeckers is developed by
considering the status of the species, its environmental baseline, the effects of the Action, and
cumulative effects.
The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is a federal candidate species that occurs on Ft.
Benning and lands containing suitable habitat adjacent to and near the Installation. The Service
and Department of Defense conferred on the Gopher Tortoise Conservation and Crediting
Strategy in 2017, with a framework similar to the one for this Conservation and Crediting
Program for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. The Service rendered a conference opinion on the
gopher tortoise strategy on December 15, 2017. The Army’s ACUB partners will conduct
gopher tortoise surveys on ACUB properties identified under the RCW conservation and
crediting program. Where tortoises are detected, Ft. Benning will initiate the Tier 2 Conference
process outlined in the Department of Defense Gopher Tortoise Conservation and Crediting
Strategy to establish and maintain gopher tortoise conservation areas on ACUB properties as
appropriate to support Mission requirements.
A Conference Opinion (CO) is equivalent to a BO, but addresses species that are not yet listed
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and/or proposed critical habitats not yet designated.
2
Therefore, the ESA prohibitions against jeopardy, adverse modification, and taking do not yet
apply. The Service may adopt a CO as a BO if and when the evaluated species/critical habitat are
listed/designated and while the action agency's discretion and involvement in the action continue.
This BO uses hierarchical numeric section headings. Primary (level-1) sections are labeled
sequentially with a single digit (e.g., 2. PROPOSED ACTION). Secondary (level-2) sections
within each primary section are labeled with two digits (e.g., 2.1. Action Area), and so on for
level-3 sections etc.
2. PROPOSED ACTION
The federal action for the purposes of this PBO, and initiating formal consultation under Section
7(a)(2) of the ESA, is the Army/Ft. Benning’s Conservation and Crediting Program for the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW) Through Off-Post Conservation and
Management of the Longleaf Pine Ecosystem within Ft. Benning’s approved Army Compatible
Use Buffer (ACUB) Priority Areas (PA); hereafter referred to as the Ft. Benning RCW
Conservation and Crediting Program or Program.
Off-Post conservation of the RCW will occur on individual properties or conservation areas,
where a conservation area may be comprised of multiple and adjoining individual properties, and
includes the subsequent establishment and use of generated conservation values to offset any
adverse effects of military training, facilities development or specific forest management
practice, through a Programmatic Compensatory Mitigation Program.
This Action establishes a vehicle whereby Ft. Benning, in collaboration with the Service, will
seek to:
identify, acquire, enhance, reintroduce, and perform or support other conservation
activities (e.g. land protection, habitat management, species monitoring, etc.) that will
contribute to the conservation of ESA-listed species on individual properties and
conservation areas off of the Installation to generate “conservation credits,” and
utilize those conservation credits to offset any adverse effects to listed species of current
or future military installation-related training and other activities for the purpose of
ensuring that such activities can proceed without restrictions pertaining to listed species,
in compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
The analysis contained in the PBA and this Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) constitutes
Tier 1 of a two-tiered process. Tier 1 evaluates the effects of the proposed action at the program
level; establishes coordination, evaluation, monitoring and reporting requirements; and
determines whether the proposed action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species. The Tier 2 reviews will include analysis of beneficial effects from off-Post
conservation (Tier 2A), as well as project-specific jeopardy determinations developed in the
context of the environmental baseline recorded in the PBO, and include individual incidental
take statements documenting the “take” on-Post (Tier 2B).
3
The proposed action would provide Ft. Benning with more flexibility to conduct training,
multiple-use natural resource management and infrastructure development (Army/Ft. Benning
2018). The Installation proposes that as conservation areas are formalized in the Tier 2 reviews,
their intent is that all incidental take for those geographic areas will eventually be fully offset via
the off-Post conservation actions and metrics identified within this PBO. Spatial distribution of
breeding groups and their territories is important to species viability, including groups on the
installation. Moving forward, Tier 2 actions will need to take into account the environmental
baseline established in previous consultations.
It is important to note that the program and processes identified in the PBA are tools that can be
utilized as part of ESA compliance for Ft. Benning. All actions on Ft. Benning will be evaluated
with standard section 7 methodologies and consultation to determine, define, and evaluate effects
to listed species. If during those standard and established processes it is determined that
compensatory mitigation is the preferred conservation measure then the process defined herein
will be utilized to provide the necessary conservation offset.
The PBA describes the proposed Conservation and Crediting Program as being comprised of two
tiers. The first tier is the programmatic section 7 consultation, to result in the issuance of a
programmatic biological opinion (PBO) that establishes the outline and formalizes the process
for streamlining consultation for second tier (Tier 2) activities. Tier 2 actions either add
conservation value/credits or will require incidental take of RCWs and associated debiting of
credits. Ft. Benning will develop individual action program reviews that will be tiered to the
PBO, which is consistent with the provisions of programmatic consultations. The tiered approach
allows the identification and consideration of site-specific information necessary to support both
an analysis of the effects of the Tier 2A and associated Tier 2B action, and the preparation of the
incidental take statement covering take associated with both the mission and conservation
activities identified in the project review.
2.1. Action Area
For purposes of consultation under ESA §7, the action area is defined as “all areas to be affected
directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the
action” (50 CFR §402.02). The “Action Area” for this consultation includes the On-Post Action
Area and the Off-Post Action Area.
2.2. On-Post Action Area
The action area “on” Ft. Benning is defined by the geographic boundaries of known suitable and
occupied RCW PBGs in which military training, construction, operations, maintenance, and
recreation are identified to occur that may affect the RCW. For the purposes of this BO, we
include and analyze habitat occurring on Ft. Benning. However, Ft. Benning and the Service will
identify and evaluate the individual RCW PBG’s actually affected in the tiered site- or project-
specific consultations pursuant to the issuance of this PBO.
2.3. Off-Post Action Area
The action area “off” Ft. Benning is defined by the fullest geographic extent with the potential
for RCWs which contribute to the Installation’s Primary Recovery Population. This includes all
known and potential sites suitable now and in the future for the RCW in relation to habitat,
4
natural population expansion numbers, and reintroduction, inside the Ft. Benning approved
ACUB PA boundaries. Ft. Benning and the Service will identify and evaluate the individual
conservation areas affected in tiered site- or project-specific consultations pursuant to the
issuance of this PBO.
2.4. Tiered Consultation/Implementation Process
2.4.1. Two-tiered implementation approach
Implementing this Action utilizes a two-tiered, programmatic approach pursuant to section 7(a)
(2) of the ESA, as further defined below. Ft. Benning will develop individual action program
reviews tiered to the PBO. The tiered approach allows the identification and consideration of
site-specific information necessary to support both an analysis of the effects of the Tier 2 A and
associated Tier 2B action, and the preparation of the incidental take statement (ITS) covering
take associated with both the mission and conservation activities identified in the project review.
(i). Tier 1 is addressed in the PBA and this PBO. Tier 1 analyzes the action as a whole for
beneficial and adverse effects to RCWs to determine whether the action is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of these species. As necessary for the duration of the action, Ft. Benning
and the Service will review the progress of the action, considering (a) monitoring results
provided through annual reporting, and (b) best available data about the status of the species, to
determine whether conditions warrant reinitiating consultation. Final establishment of Tier 1
occurs with Service issuance of this PBO.
(ii). Tier 2 is the individual project level review and analysis, when requested by the Installation
pursuant to the Tier 1 PBO. Projects include both those that create conservation value/credits
(Tier 2A) and those that seek to apply such value/credits (Tier 2B) to offset adverse effects of
identified actions on the installation. If the project is fully consistent with the programmatic
action, the Service will rely on the findings of the Tier 1 PBO to formulate a project-specific
ITS, if take is reasonably certain to occur.
2.4.2. Consultation Implementation process outline
The following sections outline the process that Ft. Benning and the Service will use to implement
this conservation program, ensure ESA compliance is achieved, and species conservation metrics
are met in an efficient and timely manner.
(i). As the first step toward completion of this Tier 1 Consultation, Ft. Benning submitted their
PBA (this proposed Action) to initiate formal consultation.
(ii). The Service, pursuant to the ESA, will issue this PBO, analyzing the action and the process
of implementation as a whole, and thus finalizing the Tier 1 consultation.
(iii). As Tier 2A “Credit Actions” are identified or conservation milestones are met off-Post, Ft.
Benning will initiate a formal review request to the Service pursuant to the Tier 1 PBO. At a
minimum, the request shall include spatial information (maps or Geospatial Information Systems
(GIS) products), real property information (deed or easement), an individual property or
6. Effects of the Action…………………………………………………………..33
7. Conclusion and Determination………………………………………………38
8. Literature Citied……………………………………………………………...40
9. Appendices.…………………………………………………………………....44
Appendix A – Glossary of Terms………………………………………44
Appendix B – Pine Dominated Forest Land Evaluation Criteria……46
3
1 Introduction
The federal action for the purposes of this Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA), and
initiating Formal Consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) [16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544], is Fort Benning’s Conservation and Crediting Program for the Red-
cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW) Through Off-Post Conservation and
Management of the Longleaf Pine Ecosystem. This includes the establishment and management
of RCW Conservation Areas and the subsequent use of generated conservation value to offset the
effects of military training through a Programmatic Compensatory Mitigation Program. This
action establishes a vehicle where by Fort Benning, in collaboration with the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service (USFWS), will seek to (a) identify, acquire, enhance, reintroduce, and perform
or support other conservation activities, in Fort Benning’s approved Army Compatible Use
Buffer (ACUB) Priority Areas (PA), that will contribute to the conservation of ESA-listed
species off of Fort Benning to generate “Conservation Credits”, and (b) utilize those
conservation credits to offset the effects to listed species of current or future military installation-
related training and other activities for the purpose of ensuring that such activities can proceed
without restrictions pertaining to listed species, in compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
The intent of this PBA is to support analysis and issuance of a Programmatic Biological Opinion
(PBO) evaluating the effects to listed species from the proposed action as Tier 1 in a two-tier
process. The application of accrued “conservation credits” will be executed through site-specific
Tier 2 project reviews to the anticipated PBO. The Tier 2 reviews will include a jeopardy
determination mirroring the PBO, and include an individual Incidental Take Statement
documenting the “take” on-Post and its beneficial offset from off-Post conservation. This
assessment’s relationship to existing Section 7 Consultations, is a follow-on to remove
conservation measures and offset incidental take, which have resulted in restrictions on training,
natural resource management, construction and use of otherwise lawful activities. As areas are
formalized in the Tier 2 reviews, the intent is that all incidental take for those geographic areas
will be fully offset via the off-Post conservation actions and metrics identified within this PBA.
Upon approval of Tier 2 actions to this consultation by USFWS, tracking and reporting of
incidental take pursuant to all other consultations for those individual areas and PBG’s will be
superseded and no longer warranted since in perpetuity offsets are the keystone metric described.
Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) (GT) Federal Candidate
Effects to GT in relation to conservation area development and conservation offsets have already been evaluated in the Tier 1 Framework Programmatic Conference
Opinion for the Department of Defense Gopher Tortoise Conservation & Crediting
Strategy, 07 November 2017. Presence of GT on ACUB lands identified and acquired
under this RCW Framework will follow the Tier 2 Conference process identified in the
above Tier 1 GT Conference Opinion for the establishment and management of GT
Other Federally Listed/Considered Species (Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, or Proposed)
May be or may become present on individual ACUB properties throughout time. This
assessment does not evaluate effects of off-Post management actions on those species as
there is no way to know their presence until property specific information becomes
available as part of the acquisition process. Therefore, effects to other federally listed
species will be assessed in the Tier 2 Consultation process identified in this assessment.
FORT BENNING DESCRIPTION
The Department of Defense’s military mission at Fort Benning is “The Maneuver Center of
Excellence and Fort Benning provide trained and combat–ready Soldiers and leaders; develop
the doctrine and capabilities of the Maneuver Force and individual Soldier; and provide a world-
class quality of life for our Soldiers, civilians, and Army families to ensure our Army’s
Maneuver Force remains the world’s premier combat force ready to "Win in a Complex
World."” The Fort Benning Army Installation is located in the southeastern United States. It lies
south and east of the cities of Columbus, Georgia, and Phenix City, Alabama (Figure 1). The
installation occupies 182,000 acres; approximately 170,000 acres of which are in Muscogee and
Chattahoochee Counties, Georgia, and approximately 12,000 acres are in Russell County,
Alabama. The Chattahoochee River meanders through the western part of the Installation and
separates the Georgia and Alabama portions.
Fort Benning’s primary military activities include: training entry-level Soldiers, providing the
Nation’s primary facility for training the U.S. Army Infantry and Armor, conducting Airborne
and Ranger candidate training, hosting the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security
Cooperation and the Army’s Noncommissioned Officer Academy, and providing a power
projection platform for rapid deployment. Besides its resident training units, Fort Benning also is
home to a number of tenant units that conduct much of their training at the installation. Tenant
units include the Task Force 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment, 1st Security Force Assistance
Brigade, 14th Combat Support Hospital, Army Marksmanship Unit and the 3rd Battalion 75th
Ranger Regiment, as well as the 75th Ranger regimental headquarters. Over 14,000 Soldiers call
Fort Benning home.
The types of training and the requirements of units present at the Installation affect the nature
and extent of natural resource impacts at Fort Benning. Impacts result from direct removal of or
damage to vegetation, digging activities, ground disturbance from vehicles, use of obscurant
smoke and teargas-like agents, and munitions detonation. The mechanized forces in particular,
which use vehicles that include the M1A1 Main Battle Tank and the M2A2 Bradley Fighting
Vehicle, can produce adverse direct and indirect impacts to natural resources. Often these
impacts are related to soil disturbance and movement that may result in soil erosion and stream
sedimentation. Fort Benning has numerous ranges, eight of which can accommodate fire from
mechanized vehicles, and ten impact areas that can accommodate a variety of munitions. Cleared
areas include firing points, bivouac sites, landing zones (landing strips and pads) for fixed and
rotary-wing aircraft, and drop zones for airborne training. Projected training, proposed future
range improvements, and upkeep and maintenance of so many training assets necessitate a close
integration with the resource management strategies specified in this management plan to ensure
5
a sustainable training environment. Figure 2 depicts the locations and proximity ranges,
airfields, training areas (TAs), impact areas, and other facilities on Fort Benning.
Current species management on Fort Benning is accomplished through the implementation of the
Fort Benning Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (Benning, 2016), its appendices and
other interrelated management plans such as but not limited to: Endangered Species Management
Components, Forestry Management Plan, Integrated Wildland Fire Management Plan, Pest
Management Plan, and Range Complex Master Plan. Several Endangered Species Section 7
Biological Opinions and Concurrence Letters have been issued by the USFWS listed in the
consultation history section below.
Even with the management and compliance requirements of the aforementioned documents,
considerable restrictions remain on current and future military training in forested habitats. For
more comprehensive and detailed information on these requirements and management plan
objectives, please reference these documents directly.
Figure 1: Fort Benning Geographic Location and General Features Map.
6
Figure 2: Fort Benning Training Land Use Map.
CONSULTATION HISTORY
22 September 1994 USFWS determined that military training and related management
activities at Fort Benning were likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of the RCW on Fort Benning.
7
14 August 2001 Fort Benning’s first Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
(INRMP) was provided to USFWS, followed with a request from Fort
Benning on 22 August 2001 to initiate Formal Consultation on the INRMP
and associated Endangered Species Management Plans (ESMP), including
the RCW ESMP.
27 September 2002 USFWS approved Fort Benning’s INRMP and ESMPs which
implemented the 1996 Army RCW Guidelines and relieved Fort Benning
of the Jeopardy Opinion issued in 1994. (FWS Log Number 99-0620)
12 March 2004 Fort Benning Provided a Biological Assessment of the Construction,
Operation and Maintenance of a Proposed Digital Multipurpose Range
Complex (DMPRC).
22 July 2004 USFWS Issues Final Biological Opinion on DMPRC (FWS Log No: 03-
0584)
13 April 2007 Fort Benning Provided a Biological Assessment of the Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) Transformation and Requested Initiation of Formal
Consultation.
20 August 2007 USFWS Issues Final Biological Opinion on BRAC Transformation. (FWS
Log No: 07-FA-0954)
27 October 2008 Fort Benning Provided a Biological Assessment of the Maneuver Center
of Excellence and Requested Initiation of Formal Consultation.
29 May 2009 USFWS Issues Final Biological Opinion on Maneuver Center of
Excellence at Fort Benning. (Consultation # 2009-FA-0118)
09 April 2014 USFWS Issued General ACUB Expansion Concurrence Letter
(Consultation# 2014-CPA-0468)
20 November 2014 USFWS Approved Fort Benning’s RCW Endangered Species
Management Component (ESMC) which implemented 2007 Army RCW
Guidelines. (USFWS Log # 2014-F-1128)
11 September 2015 USFWS Issues Final Biological Opinion on Enhanced Training at Fort
Benning. (Consultation # FF04EG1000-2015-F-0833)
14 July 2016 Fort Benning Letter Requested USFWS Concurrence on Specific ACUB
Expansion for 8,884 Acres
01 August 2016 USFWS Issued Specific 8,884 Acre ACUB Expansion Concurrence Letter
(Consultation# 04EG1000-2016-CPA-0676)
8
14 December 2017 HQ-IMCOM, AEC, and Fort Benning met with the USFWS to discuss
development and species dynamics related to compensatory mitigation
elements and PBA development supporting formal consultation.
13 June 2018 AEC and Fort Benning met with the USFWS to address comments and
revisions identified in the Draft PBA.
2 Description of the Proposed Action
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The federal action for the purposes of this PBA, and initiating formal consultation under Section
7(a)(2) of the ESA, is Fort Benning’s Conservation and Crediting Program for the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW) Through Off-Post Conservation and Management of the
Longleaf Pine Ecosystem within Fort Benning’s approved Army Compatible Use Buffer
(ACUB) Priority Areas (PA).Off-Post conservation of the RCW will occur on individual
properties and/or conservation areas, where a conservation area may be comprised of multiple
and adjoining individual properties, and includes the subsequent establishment and use of
generated conservation values to offset any adverse effects of military training through a
Programmatic Compensatory Mitigation Program.
This action establishes a vehicle whereby Fort Benning, in collaboration with the USFWS, will
seek to (a) identify, acquire, enhance, reintroduce, and perform or support other conservation
activities (e.g. land protection, habitat management, species monitoring, etc.) that will contribute
to the conservation of ESA-listed species on individual properties and/or conservation areas off
of Fort Benning to generate “Conservation Credits”, and (b) utilize those conservation credits to
offset any adverse effects to listed species of current or future military installation-related
training and other activities for the purpose of ensuring that such activities can proceed without
restrictions pertaining to listed species, in compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
The intent of this PBA is to support analysis and issuance of a Programmatic Biological Opinion
(PBO) evaluating the effects to listed species from the proposed action as Tier 1 in a two-tier
process. The application of accrued “conservation credits” will be executed through site-specific
Tier 2 project reviews to the anticipated PBO. The Tier 2 reviews will include a jeopardy
determination mirroring the PBO, and include an individual Incidental Take Statement
documenting the “take” on-Post and its beneficial offset from off-Post conservation. This
assessment’s relationship to existing Section 7 Consultations, is a follow-on to remove
conservation measures and offset incidental take, which result in restrictions on training, natural
resources management, construction and use of otherwise lawful activities (Benning, 2018). As
areas are formalized in the Tier 2 reviews, the intent is that all incidental take for those
geographic areas will be fully offset via the off-Post conservation actions and metrics identified
within this PBA. Upon approval of Tier 2 actions to this consultation by USFWS, tracking and
reporting of incidental take pursuant to all other consultations for those individual areas and
PBG’s will be superseded and no longer warranted since in perpetuity offsets are the keystone
metric.
9
It is important to note that the program and processes identified in this PBA is a tool that can be
utilized as part of ESA compliance for Fort Benning. All actions on Fort Benning will be
evaluated with standard Section 7 methodologies and consultation to determine, define, and
evaluate effects to listed species. If during those standard and established processes it is
determined that compensatory mitigation is the preferred conservation measure then the process
defined herein will be utilized to provide the necessary conservation offset.
1) Tiered Consultation/Implementation Process
1. Two-tiered implementation approach
Implementing this action utilizes a two-tiered, programmatic approach pursuant to
section 7(a) (2) of the ESA, which is further defined below. Individual action
program reviews tiered to the PBO, consistent with the provisions of
Programmatic Consultations, will be developed. The tiered approach allows the
identification and consideration of site-specific information necessary to support
both an analysis of the effects of the conjoined action, and the preparation of the
Incidental Take Statement covering take associated with both the mission and
conservation activities identified in the project review.
i. Tier 1 is addressed in this Biological Assessment, which analyzes the
action as a whole for beneficial and adverse effects to RCW to determine
whether the action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these
species. As necessary for the duration of the action, Fort Benning and the
USFWS will review the progress of the action, considering (a) monitoring
results provided through annual reporting, and (b) best available data
about the status of the species, to determine whether a reinitiation of
consultation is warranted. Final establishment of Tier 1 occurs when a
PBO is issued by the USFWS.
ii. Tier 2 is the individual project level review and analysis, when requested
by Fort Benning pursuant to the Tier 1 PBO. Projects include both those
that create conservation value/credits (Tier 2A) and those that seek to
apply such value/credits (Tier 2B) to offset adverse effects of identified
actions on the installation. If the project is fully consistent with the
programmatic action, the USFWS will rely on the findings of the Tier 1
PBO to formulate a project-specific Incidental Take Statement, if take is
reasonably certain to occur.
2. Consultation Implementation process outline
The following sections outline the process that Fort Benning and USFWS will use
to implement this conservation program, ensure ESA compliance is achieved, and
species conservation metrics are met in an efficient and timely manner.
i. To initiate Formal Consultation on this action, Fort Benning submits
this Biological Assessment of the proposed action as a first step toward completion of Tier 1 Consultation.
ii. The USFWS, pursuant to the ESA, will issue a Programmatic
10
Biological Opinion, analyzing the action and the process of implementation as a whole, and thus finalizing the Tier 1 Consultation.
iii. As Tier 2A “Credit Actions” are identified or conservation milestones are met off-Post, Fort Benning will initiate a formal review request to the USFWS pursuant to the Tier 1 PBO. At a minimum, the request shall include spatial information (maps or GIS), real property information (deed or easement), a property and/or conservation area-specific habitat management plan, long-term management assurance (per Army Authorities), summary of surveys to date documenting (habitat &/or species), documentation of successful reintroduction of a new population or improved status of an existing population (if applicable), and an assessment of conservation value (credits) generated.
iv. The USFWS will review the information submitted by Fort Benning in “iii” above to ensure it is consistent with the Tier 1 PBO. The USFWS will provide concurrence generating the identified conservation/credit value or non-concurrence with comments to the request within 30 days of receipt.
v. As Tier 2B “Offset/Debit Actions” are identified on-Post, Fort Benning
will initiate a formal review request to the USFWS pursuant to the Tier 1 PBO. At a minimum, the request shall include spatial information (maps or GIS), summary of surveys to date (habitat and/or species), an assessment of conservation value impacted (debits), and which corresponding “conservation/credit value” generated in Step “iv” are proposed as the offset.
vi. The USFWS will review the information submitted by Fort Benning in “v” above to ensure it is consistent with the Tier 1 PBO. USFWS will then provide concurrence or non-concurrence with comments to the request within 90 days of receipt.
vii. The USFWS will maintain the administrative record for each
conservation area, containing all documents, including Tier 2A requests for the creation of the area and Tier 2B requests for use of conservation/credit value from the area. The USFWS will also maintain a current summary of credits and debits by conservation area/action, as well as copies of all monitoring reports.
viii. Tier 2A and Tier 2B actions can be conducted or requested simultaneously or combined at any time to ensure a sufficient conservation balance to meet the necessary offset. If combined, both Fort Benning and the USFWS will ensure documents clearly articulate the intent and individuality of each area for appropriate review and accounting.
11
2) Off-Post Land Conservation Initiatives
The Army has several authorities that allow us to invest and partner with eligible entities
for the conservation and management of land off-Post. These are almost always through a
partner via a Cooperative Agreement undertaken on the Army’s behalf. While there are
two main authorities described below, this consultation is not limited to them alone. Fort
Benning and the Army will explore and utilize any current or future authorities that result
in in perpetuity conservation and management for the RCW that generate conservation
value, as described later within this BA. The intent is to utilize these and other authorities
to ensure legal real estate interest and financial assurances are provided to maintain
natural resource durability for use as compensatory mitigation.
1. 10 USC 2684a “Agreements to Limit Encroachments and Other Constraints on
Military Training, Testing, and Operations”
i. The ACUB program operates under this authority.
ii. Section (a) states that the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a
military department may enter into an agreement with an eligible entity or
entities described in subsection (b) to address the use or development of
real property in the vicinity of, or ecologically related to, a military
installation or military airspace for purposes of—limiting any
development or use of the property that would be incompatible with the
mission of the installation; preserving habitat on the property in a manner
that— is compatible with environmental requirements; and may eliminate
or relieve current or anticipated environmental restrictions that would or
might otherwise restrict, impede, or otherwise interfere, whether directly
or indirectly, with current or anticipated military training, testing, or
operations on the installation.
iii. Section (d) (2) requires that property or interests may not be acquired
pursuant to the agreement unless the owner of the property or interests
consents to the acquisition.
iv. Section (d)(3) states that an agreement may provide for the management
of natural resources on, and the monitoring and enforcement of any right,
title, real property in which the Secretary concerned acquires any right,
title, or interest in accordance with this subsection and for the payment by
the United States of all or a portion of the costs of such natural resource
management and monitoring and enforcement if the Secretary concerned
determines that there is a demonstrated need to preserve or restore habitat.
v. More details can be found in the full Code. However, the above provide
the main framework and concepts related to this authority.
2. 16 USC 670 “Sikes Act”
i. Specifically 16 USC 670c-1, section titled “Cooperative and Interagency
Agreements for Land Management on Installations”
ii. Section (a) states that a Secretary of a military department may enter into
cooperative agreements with States, local governments, Indian tribes,
nongovernmental organizations, and individuals, and into interagency
agreements with the heads of other Federal departments and agencies, to
12
provide for the following: The maintenance and improvement of natural
resources located off of a military installation or State-owned National
Guard installation if the purpose of the cooperative agreement or
interagency agreement is to relieve or eliminate current or anticipated
challenges that could restrict, impede, or otherwise interfere with, whether
directly or indirectly, current or anticipated military activities.
iii. Section (b)(2)(a) states that for these off-base agreements, funds may be
paid in a lump sum and may include an amount intended to cover the
future costs of the natural resource maintenance and improvement
activities provided for under the agreement. Such funds may be placed by
the recipient in an interest-bearing or other investment account, with
resulting interest or income being applied for the same purposes as the
principal.
iv. More details can be found in the full Code. However, the above provides
the main framework and concepts related to this authority.
3. Fort Benning and the Army intended to use these and other appropriate authorities
to seek out, identify, acquire, enhance, reintroduce, and perform or support other
conservation activities that will contribute to the conservation of the RCW off-Post
contributing to the Fort Benning Primary Core Population to generate conservation
value and credit. Properties and investments will be evaluated individually based
on their potential to support and achieve the conservation metrics outlined later in
this BA.
3) Off-Post Habitat Management Plan Requirements
This section identifies the mandatory Property and/or conservation area’s Specific
Habitat Management Plan (Plan) outline and requirements to maintain and enhance
natural resource durability toward compensatory mitigation for the target species and
habitats. Headquarters, Installation Management Command (IMCOM) has approved an
overarching Comprehensive ACUB Land Management Plan (TNC, 2018) which may
serve as the management plan for any individual properties and/or conservation areas and
must guide and align any other management plans for ACUB properties which are
proposed for use in compensatory mitigation. The Plan addresses the following topics:
1. Army and USFWS Approvals
i. Plan is developed by the Partner/Cooperator Landowner, then reviewed
and mutually approved by Fort Benning, IMCOM and the USFWS during
the Tier 2A project reviews.
ii. Management plans will be reviewed annually for operation and effect and
revised as needed, any major revisions will require the approval of both
the USFWS and Fort Benning.
iii. Management plans shall be revised, updated, and re-approved by the
USFWS & Fort Benning at least every 10 years.
2. Goals and objectives
i. Goals
a. Objectives to achieve goals
13
b. Metrics to measure success
3. Compatible Land Uses
i. Must define a list and or limitations to be compatible.
4. Incompatible Land Uses
i. Define a list of incompatible uses.
5. Prescribed (Rx) Burning
i. Dormant and Growing season objectives
ii. 2-3 Year fire return interval upon initial introduction of Rx fire
iii. Burn units and maps
iv. Firebreak construction/maintenance
v. Unique or sensitive considerations (e.g., reducing smoke and preventing
burning out of prescription)
6. Invasive Species Management
i. Animals targeted
a. Trapping
b. Shooting
c. Exclusion
ii. Plants targeted
a. Hand removal specs
b. Mechanical removal specs
c. Herbicide use
7. Habitat Enhancement and Monitoring
i. Species to be used
ii. Planting methods
iii. Monitoring method
a. Items measured
b. Frequency
c. Statistics used
8. Species Enhancement and Monitoring
i. Reintroduction methodology
a. Translocation
ii. Population monitoring method
a. Items measured
b. Frequency
c. Statistics used
9. Other Federally Listed, Candidate, or Proposed Species
i. Identify other ESA-regulated species present and methodologies for
minimizing effects on them while maximizing collective benefit.
10. Adaptive Management
i. Describe how adaptive management will be employed to facilitate
implementation of the plan
11. Budget and Implementation
i. Establish the process for identifying costs and securing funding assurances
for anticipated costs for near term (10yr) restoration actions and perpetual
annual management requirements
14
12. Reporting
i. Partner reporting process and timeline for adverse impacts (trespass,
wildfire, species harm, etc.)
ii. Partner reporting process and timeline for significant events (species
survey, translocation, research completion, education outreach events,
etc.)
iii. Partner(s) providing ACUB Annual Report(s) to the Army prior to or upon
the Army established suspense date each year
iv. Army consolidates with partner(s) for reporting to USFWS within 90 days
of receipt of ACUB Annual Report by providing written report
4) Red Cockaded Woodpecker Framework
Fort Benning and USFWS recognize that multiple factors go into determining both the
aggregate mitigation potential of qualifying ACUB properties, defined herein as RCW
Conservation Values, and the degree to which the use of such mitigation identified in
future Tier 2 Consultations will be required. Furthermore, mitigation potential cannot be
identified and quantified in the abstract; the nature, magnitude and duration of potential
impacts to RCW on Fort Benning will have the potential to affect the mitigation values
provided by the ACUB landscape largely due to the consequences of such Installation
impacts to the potential use by RCW of habitat on both the Installation itself and on the
ACUB properties. Additionally, the aggregate RCW Conservation Values provided by
qualifying ACUB properties will be subject to change as a result of subsequent additions
to the set of qualifying properties, as additional properties are acquired and/or put under
conservation management and funded as previously described. Furthermore, external
factors, such as growth and distribution of the collective Installation and ACUB RCW
population, climactic variability, and the risk of stochastic events such as catastrophic fire
and/or natural weather/climate events may affect the potential distribution over the
ACUB landscape of future PBGs.
For all of these reasons, Fort Benning anticipates that the determination of available
RCW Conservation Values will be an iterative process requiring periodic re-examination
and re-evaluation. This process will begin with the execution of this Programmatic
Biological Assessment and the recognition by USFWS that the number of future RCW
PBGs that the qualifying ACUB lands are capable of supporting, determined through
methodologies including primarily the metrics described in Section 2.4.5 (Net Present
Conservation Value) below, but also Pattern-Oriented Modeling (POM), Landscape
Equivalency Analysis (LEA), other modeling, and/or the use of Geospatial Information
Systems (GIS) as necessary, will be used to determine RCW Conservation Values for use
as mitigation in future Fort Benning consultations. Previous modeling exercises
completed in 2013 analyzed theoretical RCW occupancy of a “max” and “corridor”
ACUB protected and managed landscape along with a best and worst case RCW
population inside the Fort Benning boundary. The modeling predicted a significant
increase in PBGs due to the addition of habitat on ACUB for all scenarios (ESM Inc.,
2013). Additional modeling scenarios may be most warranted when analysis of impacts
suggests demographic isolation is likely to occur between the Fort Benning and ACUB
properties, or within the Fort Benning Boundary, or if the anticipated amount of take is
15
determined to potentially jeopardize recovery even with the anticipated conservation
values attributed to the ACUB landscape.
1. Initial Identification of Available RCW Conservation Values
Fort Benning and USFWS agree that the 8,894 acres of lands on ACUB properties
contiguously adjacent to Fort Benning that were accepted by USFWS as additional
to Fort Benning’s baseline RCW habitat represents an initial pool of RCW
Conservation values than can be evaluated for available PGB’s for use as offsets.
That determination is based on the prior determination that the lands in question
were contiguously adjacent to Fort Benning, protected against adverse lands uses
in perpetuity, were subject to appropriate management plans, and had funding
assurances in place (USFWS, 2016). This initial RCW Conservation Values
determination will be subject to re-evaluation as defined in this Tier 1 PBA and
the Tier 1 PBO once issued.
2. Basis for Advance Credit Accrual
Fort Benning’s history of success in managing stand structure development
provides a basis for concluding that, with funding and management assurances,
qualifying ACUB lands can be managed to provide habitat for RCW in the future,
regardless of the current habitat conditions. Further, qualifying ACUB lands
provide new capacity for RCW population growth and expansion. This, combined
with artificial recruitment capabilities through the installation of artificial cavities
and the translocation of RCW, is the foundation of this consultation. In order to
find success in these efforts, translocation will not be considered until suitable
habitat is sufficient to support recruitment clusters. Additionally any translocation
conducted would be in accordance with the USFWS Section 10(a)(1)(A)
Permitting Process of which has already been evaluated in 2003 for incidental take
under a USFWS Biological Opinion on the permitting process (USFWS, 2003b).
3. Advance Credit Analysis
Through this Strategy, available mitigation will be determined based on habitat
type/age. The Programmatic Biological Assessment assigns increasingly greater
mitigation value for demonstrated management success as forest stands age, Basal
Area measurements, and other habitat values come into being and provide
foraging, nesting and occupied fully restored habitat. This dynamic (increasing
mitigation value is realized as habitat values increase through management) is
likewise consistent with the increasing conservation investment associated with the
acquisition and funding of habitat development activities, and the protection from
inconsistent management activities over time. Furthermore, the conservative
design encourages ongoing commitment to habitat management, and encourages
restoration and management on a broader landscape level. As a result, the
framework provides for increased potential stability for the Ft Benning RCW
population.
16
4. Basis for Conservation Values
The recovery of the RCW is dependent upon suitable forested RCW habitat for
dispersal, foraging, and nesting. To aid land managers in reaching RCW recovery
goals, the USFWS developed management standards as guidance in analyzing
foraging and nesting habitat. These standards aim to provide not only foraging and
nesting habitat but also all desired future conditions for RCW, including mature
stands of pine with an open canopy, low densities of small pines, minimal or no
hardwood or pine midstory, few or no overstory hardwoods, with abundant
groundcovers consisting of native bunchgrasses and forbs.
The actualization of these standards is dependent on space, time, and management
success. Some of the habitat standards are primarily dependent upon management
success (e.g.., frequent fire, tree species and size, midstory requirements, ground
cover, etc.). Implementation of approved management plans makes it reasonably
certain that these RCW habitat criteria will be achieved over time, as has been
consistently demonstrated on numerous landscapes within the RCW range,
including on Fort Benning.
With land management continuing to meet the standardized guidelines, the
realization of future foraging suitability and ultimately occupation of suitable
habitat by RCW is time dependent; thus, it will be possible to predict when areas
that are unsuitable or marginal for foraging will become suitable. The distribution
of future potential and suitable nesting habitat across the landscape will then
predict what specific areas are and will be capable of supporting future RCW
clusters at any particular point in time. The recognition that achieving suitable
habitat for nesting is also primarily a matter of time (tree age and diameter)
provides another time-step on the way to the development of occupied habitat.
Thus, with continued appropriate management on qualifying ACUB lands, areas
can be classified as: 1) Future potential habitat: including currently unsuitable and
marginal habitat (currently unsuitable for RCW except possibly for dispersal),
typically 0-29 years of age; 2) Foraging habitat: including currently suitable
foraging habitat, as defined by metrics within the USFWS Foraging Habitat
Analysis (FHA) management standards and the acreage recommendations they
provide (USFWS 2003), typically 30-59 years of age; 3) Nesting habitat: including
unoccupied but suitable nesting habitat, which must also include suitable foraging
habitat, defined by FHA standards with the addition of cavity tree requirements
(i.e., candidate trees available for either artificial cavity installation or natural
cavity excavation) (USFWS 2003), typically 60+ years of age; and 4) Occupied
fully restored habitat: restored and managed suitable habitat supporting active
PBGs (thus, both nesting and foraging habitat).
The value to RCW of each of these habitat categories increases as habitat
transitions from future potential habitat, to foraging habitat, to nesting habitat, to
occupied fully restored habitat. Similarly, the conservation investment increases
as the habitat transitions due to land acquisition costs, land management costs, and
lost opportunity costs aggregating over time. Financial investments and
17
management costs yield conservation values to RCW in terms of (1) acquisition of
potentially suitable RCW habitat, (2) institution and perpetual funding of
management regimes appropriate to development of RCW habitat values, and (3)
the protection of acquired lands in perpetuity, all of which provide clear mitigation
values to RCW. Further, the precept that RCW habitat values increase based on
continued forest growth and development is supported by the recognition that as
forest lands are managed for RCW instead of for economic returns from timber
value, the increasing value the timber represents and can be quantified as lost
opportunity costs (Drier 2005).
Based on the foregoing, this framework utilizes the conservation benchmarks of
future potential, foraging, nesting, and occupied fully restored habitat types to
quantify the current mitigation value to RCW of qualifying ACUB properties at
any particular point in time.
5. Methodology for Calculating “Net Present Conservation Value” (NPCV) Credits
When considering the three categories of suitable habitat (foraging, nesting and
occupied fully restored habitat), the current RCW conservation value of qualifying
ACUB properties can be described based on the aggregate acreage of each of those
habitat categories. Thus, considering each category in the context of conservation
milestones and valuing each in such a manner is reasonable. There are four
supporting factors that were considered to assign percentage values to each
milestone to ensure consistency with commensurate surrogates. The first factor
considered is that habitat conditions in the RCW Recovery Plan are generally
described at in 1/3’s over the time span of 100 years. Essentially 30 years to grow
suitable foraging habitat, 30 years as suitable foraging habitat, and then 30 years
plus as suitable nesting habitat. The second factor is consistency with other
mitigation valuations whereas approximately 50% of the value is realized at the
establishment of a conservation area and the remaining 50% is realized when the
area meets the desired future condition. Values identified in this action are overall
less and can thus be considered more conservative. The third factor is the concept
of lost opportunity cost which recognizes that the further along a given acreage
(type/age) is in the restoration process, the more valuable the associated suitable
RCW habitat would be in the context of supporting RCW foraging and realizing
future PBGs. As such, this factor accounts for, the increasing opportunity costs
would be lost in foregoing other potential forest management scenarios (Drier et al.
2004; Glenn et al. 2012) that could otherwise generate increased timber revenues.
The fourth factor relates to evaluating the actual and estimated cost of the Fort
Benning ACUB program area as a whole. Based on the existing Fort Benning
ACUB Priority Area 1 Goal of 40K acres, it is estimated that a total $100M
investment would secure protection of 40K acres. Through a collaborative effort
with partners, Fort Benning has determined that the Army’s interest in perpetual
management of those ACUB acres would cost approximately $500K annually
which would be funded from the interest generated from a long-term management
fund. As a sum total, 100 years of management in Army’s interest would expend
$50M. In sum, the total investment would be $150M with 2/3 for protection and
18
1/3 for management. The ratios established in this PBA establish a conservative
approach when considering the nature of financial investments, with a maximum
of only 50% of the credit value afforded at the point in which a 65% investment
has been made.
Determining a precise fractional value for developing RCW habitat is challenging,
although the different concepts of mitigation values identified above (habitat
values increase with age class, conservation investments in acquisition and
management increase over time, and timber management values foregone increase
with time) all support the concept. Recognizing acquisition of lands with future
potential, habitat protection, and a commitment to restoration is the key and
essential step for the entire process, without the available lands dedicated to
conservation the other milestone/metrics could never be reached or considered.
Therefore, acquisition and commitment of unforested or non-pine dominated lands
toward future potential habitat generates 35% the total available credit for a tract.
An additional 15% of the total available credit for a tract is awarded if the lands
conserved are existing pine dominated forest lands. To determine “pine dominated
forest lands”, stands will be evaluated in a manner similar to that currently utilized
on Fort Benning, the criteria of which is further described in Appendix B. The
value of the earliest category that can serve as habitat for RCW foraging is
assigned a value of 15% and then another 15% value is assigned when restoration
to nesting habitat standards is achieved. Finally the remaining 20%
conservation/credit value is generated and realized when habitat is fully restored
and occupied by RCW. This system generates an incentivized program whereby
continued achievement of milestones generates releases of additional conservation
value. In applying these concepts, a value for mitigation purposes can then be
calculated using the following proportional values per unit area:
Unforested or Non-pine Dominated ACUB Lands = 0.35
Pine Dominated ACUB Lands = 0.15
Foraging Habitat Standard Achieved = 0.15
Nesting Habitat Standard Achieved = 0.15
Fully Restored/Occupied Habitat = 0.20
To determine the mitigation value of the qualifying ACUB landscape, the acreage
of each of the first four habitat types (as described above) will be assessed and
summed for all qualifying properties. The current acreage of each of the first four
habitat types will then be multiplied by the corresponding proportional value
(above), and then divided by 200, the approximate acreage required to support a
PBG (USFWS 2003) unless further refined based on quantified site specific
conditions. This yields the maximum available mitigation value for unoccupied
habitat for consideration related to any actions requiring mitigation and subsequent
consultation of qualifying ACUB lands in terms of PBGs at any given time. For
Occupied habitat, the PBG present will be considered as a full offset independent
of the acreage attributed to the active PBG. These processes will allow Fort
Benning and the USFWS to periodically reassess available conservation value
19
through this framework through continued evaluation of tracts as necessary to
determine when milestones are achieved and conservation value released.
A sample calculation for these type actions, accounting for 10,000 acres of future potential
or suitable habitat, could be as follows:
5,000 acres unforested or non-pine dominated: 5,000 X 0.35 = 1750 / 200 = 8.75 PBG
2,600 acres pine dominated: 2,600 X 0.50 = 1,300 / 200 = 6.5 PBG
The RCW is a small woodpecker, measuring about 7 inches in length, with a
wingspan of about 15 inches, and weighing about 1.7 ounces (47 grams; USFWS
2016). Its back is barred with black and white horizontal stripes, and is
distinguished from other woodpeckers by a black cap and nape that encircle large
white cheek patches. Adult males possess a tiny red streak or tuft of feathers, the
cockade, in the black cap near each ear and white cheek patch. The small
cockade usually is covered by the black crown, except when protruded during
excitement, and is not readily visible except upon close examination or capture.
Adult males and females are not readily distinguishable in the field. Juvenile
males have a red crown patch until the first molt, which can be distinguished from
the black crown of juvenile females (USFWS 2016).
The RCW occurs primarily in pine and pine-hardwood forests of the piedmont
and coastal plain of 11 southern/southeastern states, including Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia (Barron et al. 2015).
b. Habitat Requirements
The RCW occurs in pine or mixed pine-hardwood forests primarily in the
Piedmont and Coastal Plain of the southeastern United States (Barron et al. 2015).
Forests inhabited by the RCW are fire dependent and have been shaped by
intentional burns set by humans and naturally occurring wildfires. Without fire,
dense understory and midstory vegetation negatively affects establishment of
young pine trees (Stoddard 1962).
The RCW is habitat-specific, needing pine forests for both breeding and foraging.
For nesting and roosting, it requires living mature pine trees. Usually, the trees
chosen for cavity excavation are infected with a heartwood decaying fungus
(Phellinus pini) (Jackson 1977; Conner and Locke 1982). The heartwood
associated with this fungus and typically required for natural cavity excavation is
not generally present in longleaf pine and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) until 90 to
100 and 75 to 90 years of age, respectively (Clark 1992a; Clark 1992b). Large
trees also are commonly required because RCW construct and place the cavity
entirely within heartwood where pine resin will not flow. Cavity trees are
typically found in groups of 2-10 trees. The RCW prefers areas with an open
understory and may abandon a cavity tree if the midstory approaches cavity
height (Hopkins and Lynn 1971; Van Balen and Doerr 1978; USFS 1979; Locke
et al. 1983; Conner and Rudolph 1989). On Fort Benning, RCWs are found
27
predominantly in loblolly pines. Approximately 63% of natural cavity trees are
loblolly, 32% are longleaf and 5% are shortleaf (P. echinata).
Table 2: Fort Benning RCW Cavity Trees with > 1 Suitable Cavity - 2017
For foraging, RCW require large old pines, low densities of small and medium
pines, sparse or no hardwood midstory, and a bunchgrass and forb groundcover.
A study conducted in the Apalachicola National Forest suggested that understory
characteristics or fire history might be more important than the number or size of
pine trees as a measure of RCW foraging habitat quality (James et al. 1997). This
study found that group size (number of adults), number of eggs laid, and the
number of RCW groups within a 1-mile radius of sample groups all increased
significantly (p = 0.05) with respect to increasing percentage of wiregrass in the
groundcover. The number of adults also increased significantly (p = 0.05) with
respect to increasing occurrence of pine regeneration in the stand, and decreased
significantly (p = 0.05) with respect to the percent gallberry in the groundcover.
Number of adults, eggs, fledglings, and groups all decreased as tree density
increased, but correlations were not significant. They hypothesized that frequent
burning, which increases wiregrass and longleaf regeneration and reduces
gallberry density, may play a role in the cycling of nutrients such as calcium.
Calcium limitation has been shown to limit clutch size in songbirds (Graveland
and Van Gijzen 1994).
Both habitat selection and group fitness are influenced by the structure of the
foraging habitat. Important structural characteristics include (1) a substantial
presence of mature and old pines, (2) minimal hardwood midstory, (3) minimal
pine midstory, (4) minimal or absent hardwood overstory, (5) a low to
intermediate density of small and medium sized pines, and (6) healthy
groundcovers of bunchgrasses and forbs. Thus, the quality of foraging habitat is
defined by habitat structure. Although geographic variation in habitat types exist,
these structural characteristics of good quality habitat remain true for all
geographic regions and habitat types. Previous guidelines stressed quantity of
foraging habitat, as defined by number of medium and large trees (USFWS 2003;
Barron et al. 2015).
28
c. Life History/Ecology
The RCW is a territorial, non-migratory, cooperative breeding species (Lennartz
et al. 1987; Walters et al. 1988), and the only North American woodpecker that
exclusively excavates its cavities for roosting and nesting in living pines. Each
group member has its own cavity, although there may be multiple cavities in a
cavity tree. RCW chip bark and maintain resin wells on the bole around the
cavity where the fresh flow of sticky resin is a deterrent against predatory snakes
(Rudolph et al. 1990) and indicates an active cavity tree. The aggregate of cavity
trees, surrounded by a 200-foot, forested buffer, is called a cluster (Walters 1990).
Cavities within a cluster may be complete or under construction (starts) and either
active, inactive or abandoned. Clusters with one or more active cavity tree are
considered as active RCW clusters.
The RCW live in social units called groups. This cooperative unit consists of a
single male or a monogamous breeding pair, offspring of the current year, and 0–
4 adult helpers (Walters 1990). Helpers typically are male offspring from
previous breeding seasons that assist the breeding pair by incubating eggs, feeding
the young, excavating cavities, and defending the territory (Ligon 1970, Lennartz
et al. 1987, Walters et al. 1988). Some large populations have instances, although
very infrequent, of female helpers (Walters 1990; DeLotelle and Epting 1992;
Bowman et al. 1998). Clusters only occupied by a single adult male are classified
as single bird groups, while an adult male and female with or without helpers
occupying the same cluster is classified as a potential breeding group (PBG).
The RCW is territorial and each group defends its home range from adjacent
groups (Hooper et al. 1982; Lignon 1970). The defended territory includes
habitat used for cavity trees and foraging. RCW feed mostly on variety of
arthropods, particularly ants and wood roaches, by foraging predominately on and
under the bark of larger and older living pines (Hooper 1996; Hanula and
Franzreb 1998). Males tend to forage in crowns and branches, while females
commonly forage on the trunk. Dead and dying pines are important temporary
sources of prey, and hardwoods are used occasionally. Group members forage
together each day in parts of their territory.
RCW have large home ranges relative to their body size. RCW tend to forage
within 0.5 miles of their cluster. RCW groups forage within a home range that is
highly variable, from as little as 86 acres to as much as 556 acres (Conner et al.
2001; USFWS 2003). Home range size is variable within and between
populations, but tends to reflect foraging habitat quantity and quality, boundaries
of adjacent RCW territories, and possibly cavity tree resource availability (Conner
et al. 2001; USFWS 2003).
Because of the foraging behavior of RCW, a 0.5-mile radius is used to establish
survey areas to identify any unknown RCW clusters that may be affected prior to
clearing or removing any potential RCW habitat. The 0.5-mile survey area
provides a high probability that any unknown clusters will be identified that
potentially use habitat within the area to be affected. This is based on RCW
29
foraging ecology and behavior, the limitations of natural cavities to population
growth at Fort Benning, the ecology of RCW population growth via the formation
of new clusters/groups, and relationship of habitat used for foraging within 0.5
miles of a cluster center.
A 0.5-mile radius circle around a cluster center encompassed an average of 91%
of the actual home ranges of RCW groups in a North Carolina study (Convery and
Walters 2003). Thus, unknown Fort Benning clusters identified by surveys within
0.5 miles of the edge of clearing or construction likely will have the vast majority
of their foraging habitat somewhere within this 0.5 mile area.
d. Population Dynamics
The RCW is long-lived, with individuals frequently living up to 10 years or
longer. For a bird of its size residing in temperate regions, the RCW exhibits
exceptionally high survival rates. Survival rates of adult male helpers and
breeders generally are about 5 percent higher than that of breeding females.
There is distinct geographic variation in survival; survival rates are about 75
percent for males and 70 percent for females in the northern, inland population in
the North Carolina Sandhills, about 80 percent and 75 percent respectively in
coastal populations in North Carolina, and 86 percent and 80 percent respectively
in central Florida. Such an association between increased survival and reduced
fecundity is common in animal life histories. Annual variation in adult survival
within populations is sufficiently small that it can largely be attributed to random
chance rather than changes in environmental conditions (Walters et al. 1988).
This level of variation can have large effects in small populations, however, and it
appears that there are occasional poor years in which survival is substantially
reduced. Also, some populations are vulnerable to periodic catastrophic mortality
due to hurricanes. With survival rates as high as these, it comes as no surprise
that some individuals live to old ages. A captive female lived to 17 years (J.
Jackson, pers. comm.), and a male in the North Carolina Sandhills lived to 16
years of age in the wild (J. Carter III, pers. comm.).
Survival during the first year is more prone to underestimation than survival at
subsequent ages, due to the greater possibility of dispersal out of the sampling
area. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that survival rates are much lower during the
first year than thereafter. Overall the mortality pattern is fairly typical of
cooperatively breeding avian species. It is characterized by relatively low
survival during the first year, especially of dispersers; relatively high survival of
breeders and helpers; and senescence at the end of the life span. Compared to
non-cooperative species, survival of both juveniles and adults is high, and the life
span is long.
Pairs are highly monogamous, and about 90 percent of PBGs nest each year
during the April to July nesting season. Females usually lay 3 or 4 eggs in the
cavity of the adult male. The short incubation period lasts approximately 10 days,
and eggs hatch asynchronously. Normally, one brood is produced as a result of
30
one or perhaps two nesting attempts involving only two parents. Most groups that
attempt nesting fledge young, as nest failure rates are low for a species in the
temperate zone, although fairly typical for a primary cavity nester (Martin and Li
1992, Martin 1995). Nestlings fledge after 24 to 29 days, although all nestlings
rarely survive to fledglings. Partial brood loss of nestlings is common in RCW,
although number of hatchlings successfully fledged tends to increase with group
size. Also, older and more experienced breeders have greater reproductive
success (number of fledglings), which is maximized at about 7 years of age, after
which it declines sharply at 9 or greater years of age (Reed and Walters 1996).
About 20 percent of nests will fail completely, without producing a single
fledgling. Groups with helpers experience whole brood loss less frequently than
breeding groups without helpers. Renesting rates are geographically and annually
variable. In good years, up to 30 percent of breeding groups will renest.
Productivity of the second nesting is lower. Nest predation, nest desertion, and
loss of nest cavities to cavity kleptoparasites appear to be the primary causes of
nest failure. Failure rate is higher during the egg stage than during the nestling
stage, which suggests that nest desertion, rather than nest predation or loss of
cavities to kleptoparasites, is the major cause of failure (Ricklefs 1969). The
relative frequencies of these three causes of nest loss have never been measured
directly, however. Nest predation rates may be lower than in other cavity nesters
because of the protection provided by the resin barrier around the cavity, which
clearly interferes with climbing by snakes (Rudolph et al. 1990).
Subadult/juvenile females from the current year breeding season normally
disperse prior to the next breeding season, or are driven from the group's territory
by the group (see Walters et al. 1988, for additional sociobiological/cooperative
breeding information). Juvenile females remain at their natal territory to assume
the breeding vacancy of the female only when the breeding male dies and the
breeding female disperses or dies. Breeding females will disperse, creating a
breeding vacancy, when her male offspring inherit the male breeding position
(incest avoidance). Dispersing juvenile females move to nearby RCW territories
in search of a breeding vacancy. These females either become breeders in a
territory, or floaters among more than one territory where they are not associated
with a single group.
Juvenile males remain in their natal territory or disperse. Those that remain
become helpers or, if the breeding male dies before the next breeding season,
breeders. Dispersing juvenile males search for positions as breeders in nearby
territories where they either become breeders, helpers, or floaters. Most adult
male helpers remain on their natal territory as helpers, where about 15 percent
will inherit the territory as a breeding male in any given year. Some adult helpers
disperse to other territories becoming breeders, solitary males, helpers, or floaters.
However, breeding males are highly territorial and most will remain even without
a breeding female. In contrast, about 10 percent of breeding females will break
the pair-bond between breeding seasons and disperse to another territory as a
breeder with a different male (Walters 1988; Daniels and Walters 2000).
31
New groups on new territories arise by two processes, pioneering and budding
(Hooper 1983). Pioneering is the occupation of vacant habitat by construction of
a new cavity tree cluster, which is expected to be rare. Budding is the splitting of
a territory, and the cavity tree cluster within it, into two. Budding is common in
many other cooperative breeders, and might be expected to be more common than
pioneering in RCW, since the new territory contains cavities from the outset. The
available data indicate that budding indeed is more common than pioneering, and
that pioneering is quite rare.
2) Status of the Fort Benning Population
Fort Benning Natural Resources Management Branch personnel have surveyed all
accessible areas of the Installation, including the A20 dudded impact area. As of 2016,
there were 389 active RCW clusters on Fort Benning and 373 Potential Breeding Groups
(PBGs). Sixty-six of the active clusters are located in the A20 dudded impact area,
although only 50 can be counted (USFWS 2009). Three of the clusters on the edge of the
A20 impact area were added to the managed clusters to offset impacts from live fire
ranges elsewhere on the Installation. An additional 11 clusters in A20 were managed as a
result of the DMPRC BO (USFWS 2004) and 36 clusters in A20 were managed as a
result of the MCoE BO (USFWS 2009).
Incidental take authorizations were issued for 101 clusters located outside of the dudded
impact areas due to the DMPRC, BRAC, MCoE, ET, and M06 BOs. Five of those
clusters, which were no longer active, were permanently deleted from management
through informal consultation with USFWS, resulting in 96 clusters with incidental take
coverage (101-5= 96). The Enhanced Training BO resulted in revising take status on a
number of clusters on Fort Benning and reduced take authorizations to a total of 65
clusters (Pending ESMC update and USFWS approval in 2017), although all of those
clusters still persist on the landscape and are being actively managed.
When considering A20 PBGs > 50 and the 65 taken clusters, which cannot be counted
towards recovery even though they still persist, at present there are 303 PBGs (373-65-5)
on Fort Benning that currently count towards recovery (Pending ESMC update and
USFWS approval in 2017).
The Fort Benning RCW population has demonstrated significant growth over the past 20
years (Figure 3). However, there are currently no active clusters known to exist on
private lands in close proximity to Fort Benning. For years now, Fort Benning and
USFWS have been concerned about a potential bottleneck in available RCW foraging
habitat related to forest health that could occur if loblolly pine mortality exceeds
replacement rates by either loblolly or longleaf pine (Benning, 2015)
3) Critical habitat has not been and is not expected to be designated for the RCW. The RCW
Recovery Plan clearly identifies the populations and geographic locations needed to
support and recover the RCW therefore critical habitat designation would appear
redundant. Therefore currently and throughout the life of this programmatic consultation
adverse modification of critical habitat is not anticipated to occur.
32
Figure 3: Fort Benning RCW Active Clusters and PBG’s 1997-2016
5 Environmental Baseline
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
Regulations implementing the ESA (50 CFR 402.02) define the environmental baseline as the
past and present impacts of all federal, state, or private actions and other human activities in the
action area. Also included in the environmental baseline are the anticipated impacts of all
proposed federal projects in the action area that have undergone Section 7 Consultation, and the
impacts of state and private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in
progress. The status of the species section and the consultations referenced in the consultation
history section above, contain very detailed descriptions of the environmental baseline for RCW.
These are hereby incorporated by reference to reduce document volume, as there have been no
material changes between then and the time of developing this Biological Assessment.
The management objective for the Fort Benning RCW Conservation and Crediting Program
requires that qualifying Fort Benning ACUB properties establish habitat suitable for RCW
occupancy and ultimately the establishment of PBGs. At this time, however, although the
ACUB landscape is being managed to restore suitable RCW habitat, additional time will be
required before some of those lands are capable of supporting PBGs. It is likely that Section 7
Consultations involving the use of this Programmatic Biological Assessment will occur prior to
the establishment of PBGs on ACUB properties. Accordingly, establishment of this ACUB
program will be recognized as a “beneficial action” (in the context of a net benefit to RCW
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Fort Benning Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Active Clusters & Potential Breeding Groups 1997 - 2016
All Manageable Active Clusters
All Manageable PBGs
PBGs (less Take and A20 >50)Counted Toward Recovery
33
recovery) taken by Fort Benning prior to consultation, and the habitat values occurring on ACUB
properties at the time of such consultations (including any functions and values actually provided
to and utilized by RCW at that time) will be included within the environmental baseline for such
consultations. Fort Benning, in conjunction with USFWS and the State, will identify the
anticipated future habitat values that are expected to support future PBGs (expressed as RCW
Conservation Values). These Conservation Values will be utilized as offsetting mitigation.
They will thus be assessed in the effects analysis as an associated effect of the proposed action
under consultation. As described above, any real-time conservation benefits provided by
qualifying ACUB properties to RCW will be identified and described in the environmental
baseline for the consultation.
6 Effects of the Action
EFFECTS
1) Factors Considered
The effects of the action refer to the direct and indirect effects on the species or critical
habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent
with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline (50 C.F.R. § 402.02).
Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place, while
indirect effects are caused by the proposed action at a later point in time and are
reasonably expected to occur. In analyzing the effects of the action, USFWS “will give
appropriate consideration to any beneficial actions taken by the Federal agency, including
any actions taken prior to the initiation of consultation” 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g) (8).
The RCW is currently the only federal listed species addressed in this consultation and is
the only species being evaluated for direct or indirect effects from the action under formal
consultation at this time. During implementation of actions pursuant to this action, if it
becomes evident that the action may affect other federally listed, proposed, or candidate
species; such effects will be site specific, and will be addressed through subsequent Tier
2 or independent conferences/consultations. Activities conducted on- or off-Post of Fort
Benning outside of acreages which could be considered RCW habitat will have no effect
on the RCW. Within acreage considered as habitat for the RCW, activities that occur in
unoccupied or unsuitable habitat will not adversely affect the RCW and therefore do not
require the implementation of any conservation measures. However, protection and
management of unoccupied and currently unsuitable habitat within those acreages which
could be considered habitat for the RCW is the main factor considered to provide
beneficial effects as an offset to adverse effects on Fort Benning.
2) Analyses for the Effects of the Action
To determine the effects of this action, Fort Benning must compare the predicted
difference in conditions relevant to the RCW between the future with and the future
without the action. The action is a programmatic compensatory mitigation framework
that contributes to the conservation of the RCW by encouraging the performance of
proactive conservation actions off-Post to help increase the species throughout the Ft
Benning recovery population range, while preserving Ft Benning mission capabilities and
providing Ft Benning regulatory certainty for their actions under the ESA. The mitigation
34
framework establishes a process for targeting conservation investments on non-military
lands to establish “conservation value/credits” that will provide for regulatory offsets for
impacts to the RCW for current or future installation activities - yet to be fully defined -
that may affect the species. Accordingly, site-specific activities are unable to be
addressed herein. Therefore, we cannot evaluate the effects of the action using site-
specific data. Instead, we evaluate the effects of the action for implementation of the
mitigation framework as a whole and programmatically. Because the mitigation
framework requires that transactions result in a conservation offset to the species, the
action is likely to expand suitable habitat conditions and populations of the RCW,
resulting in expanded benefits to the Fort Benning recovery population as a whole.
Effects to Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)(GT) in relation to conservation area
development and conservation offsets have already been evaluated in the Tier 1
Framework Programmatic Conference Opinion for the Department of Defense Gopher
Tortoise Conservation & Crediting Strategy, 07 November 2017. If presence of GT on
ACUB lands is identified and acquired under this RCW Conservation Program, Fort
Benning will follow the Tier 2 Conference process identified in the above Tier 1 GT
Conference Opinion for the establishment and management of is as a GT conservation
area as well.
Other federally listed species (Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, or Proposed) may
become known or may be come present on individual ACUB properties throughout time.
This assessment does not evaluate effects of off-Post management actions on those
species as there is no way to predict their presence until property specific information is
evaluated as part of the acquisition process. Therefore, effects to other federally listed
species will occur as part of the Tier 2 Formal Consultation process.
The previously discussed Fort Benning Section 7 Consultations contain a wealth of
information identifying and analyzing the effects for both military training and land
management activities that are hereby incorporated by reference. Given the extensive
discussion in these referenced consultations, the effects sections of this PBA are limited
to effects specific to this action that are not covered in the reference consultations.
1. Beneficial Effects
The mitigation framework will be accomplished through a variety of means,
including the acquisition and dedication of appropriate lands to RCW conservation
and management in perpetuity. This may also include the establishment of
conservation management regimes on lands that previously have been secured by Fort
Benning through conservation easements or other similar mechanisms, which have
not yet been accounted for or included in the conservation baseline of Fort Benning.
It could also include Fort Benning providing funding or other support for
conservation actions on lands owned by third parties, including private, state or
federal land managers. Through land acquisition and management, the action will
conserve and restore important RCW habitat and ultimately populations on lands not
currently under permanent conservation management for this species. Conservation
actions will be focused on places where the best opportunities exist to enhance the
35
Fort Benning RCW recovery population’s conservation through representation,
resiliency, and redundancy, based on the best available science, including an analysis
of existing populations, locations, and habitat conditions. Retaining representation,
resiliency, and redundancy for these species means multiple populations across the
species’ ecological niches and geographic ranges, with the Fort Benning population
being key. Self-sustaining populations distributed across large areas are generally less
vulnerable to extinction compared to small and/or isolated populations. Well-
distributed populations conserved across the available geographic and ecological
gradients make species more resilient in the face of catastrophes or environmental
change. Therefore, expanding the footprint available to establish conservation areas
will be beneficial to the RCW population as a whole. Conservation areas will
establish population strongholds for expansion and interactions of the species in the
areas of greatest conservation benefit to the species. These areas will create
conservation uplift for the RCW, and afford increased resiliency for potential impacts
from stochastic events and/or forest health issues which may occur on- or off-Post.
Active long-term management with frequent prescribed fire, silvicultural and other
measures is required to develop, maintain, and enhance RCW habitat. Otherwise, as
part of natural succession, the habitat degraded by understory overgrowth, loss of
foraging habitat, increased disease susceptibility leading to fragmentation and loss of
function of the Long Leaf Pine and native bunch grass ecosystems the RCW depends
on. Development of habitat management plans which include monitoring and
adaptive management for each conservation area ensures the increase and persistence
of suitable habitat conditions for the RCW.
2. Adverse Effects – Direct
Direct effects from implementing the mitigation framework include any effects that
occur from substituting RCW conservation value/credits for incidental take on Fort
Benning, and the management of these species on off-Post lands. There is potential
for disturbance and possible mortality occurring from natural resource management
actions both on Ft Benning, and off-Post on conservation areas. Although the
management activities seek to improve habitat conditions overall for the RCW, there
could be harm or other take during land clearing with heavy mechanized equipment,
burning, and other habitat management activities. These events are most likely to
occur when: (1) a wildfire or prescribed fire burns too fast and/or hot during a critical
season; or (2) a heavy equipment operator unintentionally and unknowingly gets too
close to or damages a cavity tree. Management of off-Post lands that may affect these
species will be avoided and/or minimized by the generation of property and/or
conservation area specific management plans approved during the Tier 2 project
review process. These plans are required to contain the elements prescribed in
previous sections. The conservation management actions required in these plans are
the same as on-Post management actions identified in the Fort Benning Integrated
Natural Resource management Plan (INRMP). Therefore, these adverse effects will
eventually transition to beneficial effects through improved habitat conditions,
increased foraging opportunities, and establishment of new populations that will be
managed in perpetuity.
36
3. Adverse Effects – Indirect
Activities performed on military installations contain a variety of actions with the
potential to negatively affect RCW, and the potential to result in the incidental take of
these species. Indirect effects from implementing the conservation program are any
effects to the species that may occur on Fort Benning. These effects at the
installation-level (to the species and/or their habitat) can be both beneficial and
adverse. For example, indirect beneficial effects can occur as a by-product from
training (such as when an accidental fire burns through habitat on a range and
maintains open canopies necessary for habitat diversity); additionally, continued
implementation of the INRMP provides for the conservation of RCW populations on
the Installation. Some adverse effects may be minimal, although temporary or long-
term effects could also occur.
Installation activities could include (but are not limited to) vehicle maneuvering
(tracked and wheeled), artillery firing, bivouacking, range construction, and facility
construction, causing indirect environmental impacts such as ground disturbance or
compaction, creation of impervious surfaces, vegetation removal, human disturbance,
noise, vibrations, and smoke/obscurants. These activities could result in injury,
mortality, disturbance, and habitat alteration. Alteration of unoccupied future
potential habitat which degrades or eliminates habitat may preclude the use of those
sites. These effects may result in fragmentation of RCW habitat and breeding groups.
Installation activities may indirectly affect mating, cavity construction, feeding,
natural movements, and gene flow within the population. Separation of group
members, alterations in daily movements or effects on group dynamics or individual
behavior may occur which could lead to decreased reproduction, decreased viability,
increased mortality, or mass dispersal of the group.
The effects of habitat fragmentation, reproductive isolation, and barriers to RCW
movement resulting from construction and operation of certain facilities may extend
effects further away from the affected area to include all RCW found within the group
directly affected by the proposed activities. For construction projects, adverse effects
to RCW may occur in association with both the construction and operation phases of
new facilities.
Operations and maintenance may adversely affect RCW, directly or indirectly.
Invasive species may increase along project corridors as a result of soil disturbance
and other related activities that modify RCW habitat.
Finally, there is also potential for RCW disturbance due to contact with smoke and
obscurants from military training or forest management activities. It is important to
note that some of the adverse effects of land management activities discussed above
will only occur for a short period of time (i.e. land clearing, prescribed burning,
invasive species removal, etc.). These adverse effects will eventually transition to
beneficial effects through improved habitat conditions, increased foraging
opportunities, etc… The establishment of RCW conservation areas and the
37
implementation of the mitigation framework is designed to offset any residual
adverse effects that occur to RCW on the Installation, so that the species population
benefits as a whole.
3) Species’ Response to the Action
Each project under the mitigation framework uses conservation value credits as an offset
to adverse effects; therefore, the action is expected to benefit the Fort Benning RCW
recovery population as a whole and systematically expand and enhance their population
status under the ESA.
4) Modification of Critical Habitat
Critical habitat has not been and is not expected to be designated for the RCW. The RCW
Recovery Plan clearly identifies the populations and geographic locations needed to
support and recover the RCW therefore critical habitat designation would appear
redundant. Therefore currently and throughout the life of this Programmatic Consultation
adverse modification of critical habitat will not occur.
5) Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects include the effects of future state, tribal, local, or private actions that
are reasonably certain to occur in the action area. Future federal actions that are unrelated
to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate
consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.
The USFWS is working closely with state and local governments and with non-
governmental organizations to plan and implement programs for more effective
protection and conservation of longleaf pine ecosystems and longleaf pine dependent
species. Research institutions, non-governmental organizations, and state and local
governments are all serving important planning, monitoring, and research functions.
These parties are both independently and cooperatively advancing the basic science and
practical knowledge necessary to achieve habitat enhancement and landscape-scale
conservation. These parties are also assisting with permitting functions, public outreach,
and education.
We expect that future state, tribal, local, and private actions will help to make significant
progress in accomplishing objectives that are important to the local and range-wide
conservation of the RCW. These efforts are critical components of the shared local, state,
and federal strategy, implemented primarily via the Fort Benning ACUB and newly
designated Sentinel Landscape program, to address existing and future threats, and
thereby achieve long-term persistence and recovery of the RCW.
The Fort Benning mitigation concept establishes the framework for evaluating and
determining conservation value/credit for Fort Benning’s conservation actions off-Post
for the RCW, furthering the programs described above. The mitigation framework does
not itself direct or authorize any particular conservation action, but rather establishes the
process within which the conservation value of such actions will be evaluated, and the
manner by which conservation value/credits will be generated for use by Fort Benning.
38
The mitigation framework is intended to significantly advance conservation of the RCW
at a scale that will address those conservation priorities necessary to provide regulatory
certainty to Fort Benning mission in regards to the RCW. In addition to the principal
objectives of the mitigation framework, this action promotes the viable expansion of the
Fort Benning Primary Core Recovery Population of RCW through increased habitat
connectivity and suitability off-Post, through strategically placed and managed areas of
sufficient habitat quality and size in perpetuity. Therefore, the existence of a proactive conservation program like this in the region, should encourage other non-federal entities to participate or engage in similar supporting activities within the area as well.
7 Conclusion & Determination of Effects
CONCLUSION AND DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS
This action is intended to achieve a conservation offset enhancing the status of the RCW, while
providing regulatory certainty to Fort Benning regarding RCW off-Post conservation actions.
This action falls within the definition and prohibition of harm, harassment, wounding, killing,
and habitat destruction under Section 9 of the ESA. The harmful activity considered in this
Biological Assessment shall be incidental take from military training and enhancement, offset by
in perpetuity preservation and management of the RCW and its habitat on public and private
lands. The framework will be accomplished through a variety of means, including the acquisition
and dedication of appropriate lands to RCW conservation and management. This may also
include the establishment of conservation management regimes on lands that will be secured by
Fort Benning through conservation easements or other similar mechanisms, which have not
heretofore been accounted for or included in the conservation baseline of the Fort Benning
Primary Core Recovery Population. Preservation and management on these lands will be
guaranteed in-perpetuity because they will contain conservation easements or fee-simple
purchase of real property interests containing deed restrictions (that will transfer to new owners
in the case of property sales) and sufficient funding or management assurance to ensure long-
term protection and management occur.
The mitigation framework enhances the capacity to implement conservation activities that
support viable populations of the RCW. The proposed action directly addresses impacts on Fort
Benning and conservation actions within the action area, which results in a conservation offset
supporting recovery for the RCW from its current status under the ESA compared to the future
without this action. The practices proposed to enhance and restore the RCW habitats and
populations may also result in harm, harassment, wounding, or killing of the species, but the
identified conservation measure of developing a mutually-approved land management plan for
each conservation area will limit the amount and extent of this effect to be localized and short-
term.
Critical Habitat is not currently and is not expected to be designated for the RCW throughout the
life of this consultation. However, by definition, all actions proposed in this assessment will not
adversely modify or destroy any critical habitat if designated in the future. Land management
activities on conservation areas only occur with the explicit intent of enhancing the habitat and
ecological function of the off-Post conservation areas.
39
In summary, the principal objective of this action is to promote the viable expansion of the Fort
Benning Primary Core Recovery Population of RCW through increased habitat connectivity and
suitability off-Post, through strategically placed and managed areas of sufficient habitat quality
and size in perpetuity. Any adverse effects of the action then become or are completely
substituted with beneficial effects as a keystone principle.
The Army determines that individual activities identified in this Programmatic Biological
Assessment “may adversely affect” the RCW both on Fort Benning and on RCW Conservation
Areas once RCW become present on them.
The Army also recognizes that the implementation of the proposed action as a whole results in
enhanced conservation for the RCW in direct support of the recovery of the species within the Ft
Benning Primary Core Recovery Population through off-Post conservation.
40
8 Literature Cited
Barron, M., T. Marston, J. Neufeldt, and R. Costa. 2015. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides
borealis) Endangered Species Management Component, Fort Benning, Georgia.Costa,
R.C., W. McDearman, and S. Lauerman. 2012. Final draft guidelines for establishment
of demographic conservation areas for red-cockaded woodpeckers on lands surrounding
army installations: a joint Army/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreement.
Bowman, R., D.L. Leonard Jr., L.K. Backus, P.M. Barber, A.R. Mains, L.M. Richman, and D.
Swan. 1998. Demography and habitat characteristics of the red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) at the Avon Park Air Force Range. Final Report 1994-1998.
Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid, Florida, USA.
Clark, A., III. 1992a. Heartwood formation and loblolly and longleaf pines for red-cockaded
woodpecker nesting cavities. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 46: 79-87.
Clark, A., III. 1992b. Influence of the tree factors and site formation heartwood in loblolly and
longleaf pine for the red-cockaded woodpecker colonization in the southeast. Final
Report U.S. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Athens, Georgia,
USA.
Conner, R.N. and B.A. Locke. 1982. Fungi and red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. Wilson
Bulletin 94:64-70.
Conner, R.N., and D.C. Rudolph. 1989. Red-cockaded woodpecker colony status and trends on
the Angelina, Davy Crockett and Sabine National Forests. U.S. For. Serv., Res. Pap.
SO-250, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Conner, R.N. and D.C. Rudolph. 1991. Forest habitat loss, fragmentation, and red-cockaded
woodpeckers. Wilson Bulletin 103:446-457.
Conner, R.N., D.C. Rudolph, and J.R. Walters. 2001. The red-cockaded woodpecker: surviving
in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, USA.
Convery, K.M. and J.R. Walters. 2003. Red-cockaded woodpecker home ranges and foraging
partitions. Pp. 526-535. in R, Costa and S. J. Daniels. Red-cockaded woodpecker: road
to recovery. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, WA.
Daniels, S.J. and J.R. Walters. 2000. Inbreeding depression and its effects on natal dispersal in
red-cockaded woodpeckers. The Condor 102:482-491.
DeLotelle, R.S. and R.J. Epting. 1992. Reproduction of the red-cockaded woodpecker in central
Florida. Wilson Bulletin 104:285-294.
41
Department of Defense. 2017. Department of Defense Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)
Conservation and Crediting Strategy.
Drier, R. O. 2005. Valuing habitat regime models for rare, threatened, and endangered species in
Mississippi. Thesis. Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA.
Drier, R.O., S. C. Grado, R. J. Barlow, and D. L. Grebner. 2009. Valuing habitat regime models
for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker in Mississippi. Publication No. FO 367 of the Forest
and Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi State University, Starkville, Mississippi, USA.
Ecological Services and Markets, Inc. 2013. Evaluation of Encroachment and Partnering Parcels
on the Fort Benning Landscape using Landscape Equivalency Analysis and Pattern
Oriented Modeling for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers.
Glenn, V., F. Cubbage, and R. Meyers. 2012. Using private lands to mitigate public endangered
species Act mandates for Red-cockaded Woodpecker in North Carolina. In Proceedings
of the 2012 Southern Forest Economies Workers (SOFEW) Conference. Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida, USA.
Graveland J., and T. Van Gijzen. 1994. Arthropods and seeds are not sufficient as sources for
shell formation and skeletal growth in passerines. Ardea 82:299-314.
Hanula, J.L., and K.E. Franzreb. 1998. Source, distribution, and abundance of macroarthropods
on the bark of longleaf pine: potential prey of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Forest
Ecology and Management 102:89-102.
Hooper, R. G. 1983. Colony formation by red-cockaded woodpeckers: hypotheses and
management implications. Pp. 72-77 in D. A. Wood, ed. Red-cockaded woodpecker
symposium II. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL.
Hooper, R.G. 1996. Arthropod biomass in winter and the age of longleaf pines. Forest Ecology
and Management. 52:392-398.
Hooper, R.G., L.J. Niles, R.F. Harlow, and G.W. Wood. 1982. Home ranges of red-cockaded
woodpeckers in coastal South Carolina. Auk 99:675-682.
Hooper, R. G., D. L. Krusac, and D. L. Carlson. 1991. An increase in a population of red-
cockaded woodpeckers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:277-286.
Hopkins, M.L., and T.E. Lynn. 1971. Some characteristics of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity
trees and management implications in South Carolina. Pages 140-169 in R.L.
Thompson, ed. The ecology and management of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Bureau
of Sport Fish. and Wildl. and Tall Timbers Res. Stn., Tallahassee, Fla.The Nature
Conservancy. 2018. Land Management Plan for Fort Benning ACUB Lands.
James, F.C., C.A. Hess, and D. Kufrin. 1997. Species-centered environmental analysis: indirect
effects of fire history on red-cockaded woodpeckers. Ecological Applications 7:118-129.
42
Lennartz, M. R., R. G. Hooper, and R. F. Harlow. 1987. Sociality and cooperative breeding of
red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology
20:77-88.
Ligon, J.D. 1970. Behavior and feeding biology of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Auk 87:255-
278.
Locke, B.A., R.N. Conner, and J.C. Kroll. 1983. Factors affecting colony site selection by red-
cockaded woodpeckers. Pages 46-50 in D.L. Wood, ed. Proc. red-cockaded woodpecker
symposium II. Fla. Game and Freshwater Fish Comm., Tallahassee.
Martin, T. E. 1995. Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food.
Ecological Monographs 65:101-127.
Martin, T. E., and P. Li. 1992. Life history traits of open vs. cavity-nesting birds. Ecology
73:579-592.
Reed, J.M. and J.R. Walters. 1996. Helper effects on variance components of fitness in the
cooperatively breeding red-cockaded woodpecker. Auk 113:608-616.
Ricklefs, R. E. 1969. An analysis of nesting mortality in birds. Smithsonian Contributions to
Zoology 9:1-48.
Rudolph, D.C., H. Kyle, and R.N. Conner. 1990. Red-cockaded woodpeckers vs. rat snakes: the
effectiveness of the resin barrier. Wilson Bulletin 102:14-22.
U.S. Army. 2007. Management Guidelines For the Red-cockaded Woodpecker On Army
Installations.
U.S. Army Fort Benning Maneuver Center of Excellence. 2001. Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan 2001-2005
U.S. Army Fort Benning Maneuver Center of Excellence. 2015. Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan, FY 2016-2020.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Biological Opinion on the affects of military training and
associated activities at Fort Benning on federally listed endangered and threatened
species.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Biological Opinion on implementation of Fort Benning’s
INRMP and appended Endangered Species Management Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.
43
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. All Section 10(a)(1)(A) management, monitoring and
research permits issued to all private, state and federal agencies and individuals involved
with management, conservation and recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker
throughout the range of the species.. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Clemson Field
Office and West Georgia Ecological Services Office.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Biological Opinion on the construction, operation, and
maintenance of the Digital Multi-purpose Range Complex at Fort Benning.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Biological Opinion on Transformation and Base
Realignment and Closure, Fort Benning, Georgia
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Biological Opinion on the U.S. Army Maneuver Center of
Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Biological Opinion on the Endangered Species
Management Component for Fort Benning Georgia. USFWS Log Number 2014-F-1128
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Expansion Proposal” (FWS
Log # 2014-CPA-0468)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Biological Opinion, Enhanced Training at Fort Benning.
FWS Log#: FF04EG1000-2015-F-0833
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Expansion for 8,884 Acres
(FWS Log # 2016-CPA-0676)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Framework Programmatic Conference Opinion on
Department of Defense Gopher Tortoise Conservation and Crediting Strategy.
Van Balen, J.B., and P.D. Doerr. 1978. The relationship of understory to red-cockaded
woodpecker activity. Proc. southeastern association fish and wildlife agencies 32:82-92.
Walters, J.R. 1990. Red-cockaded woodpeckers: a ‘primitive’ cooperation breeder. Pp. 69-101
in P.B. Stacey and W.D. Koenig, eds. Cooperative breeding in birds. Cambridge
University Press, London, UK.
Walters, J.R., P.D. Doerr, and J.H. Carter III. 1988. The cooperative breeding system of the red-
cockaded woodpecker. Ethology 78:275-305.
44
9 Appendices
APPENDIX A – Glossary of Terms
Perpetual Real Estate Protection: An affirmative interest in real property for the purpose of limiting or prohibiting a a certain action or actions.
Perpetual Conservation Management: Long term assurance of management implementation within a set of agreed upon guidelines and metrics in support of a defined conservation goal.
Funding Assurance: A financial assurance that provides sustainable funds to facilitate a desired activity. Examples are: endowments, bonds, state budging authority, etc…
Conservation Credit/Value: A unit of measure defined biologically as a number of individuals or habitat acres established and/or maintained within a defined conservation area for a specific species.
Ecological Lift: The additional overall ecological increase realized in species numbers or habitat acres above a defined current condition or baseline.
Tier 1 Consultation: A Programmatic Section 7 Biological Assessment and Associated Programmatic Biological Opinion covering a federal program which may affect a listed speices.
Tier 2 Consultation: The project and or individual action assessments and reviews conducted under a Tier 1 Programmatic Biological Opinion.
Annual Report: A consolidated report documenting the amount or extent of incidental take, changes in ecological/species condition, or actions taken pursuant to the defined action within a given timeframe.
Conservation Milestone: A biologically defined future condition that guides management actions in efforts to achieve them.
Credit Action: An action to realize and accrue the conservation value/credit earned by reaching a defined conservation milestone.
Qualifying ACUB Properties – Properties with perpetual protection, management and funding assurances in Fort Benning ACUB approved Priority Areas
Cooperator: In the context of this document is defined as the eligible entity to which Fort Benning has a Cooperative Agreement within under the ACUB Program.
Sparse Hardwood Midstory
45
Pine dominated: A woodland meeting the assessment and evaluation criteria identified in Appendix B of this document.
Net Present Conservation Value: The amount of conservation value/credit available for a given property by applying all of the metrics defined in the PBA and comparing them to the associated conservation milestones.
46
APPENDIX B – Pine Dominated Forest Land Evaluation Criteria
The following is a list of the forest types followed by their forest type codes.
FOREST TYPE FOREST TYPE CODE Yellow Pine-Cove Hardwood 09
Yellow Pine-Upland Hardwood 10
Yellow Pine-Upland Hardwood-Longleaf Pine Underplant 10U
Longleaf Pine-Hardwood 11
Longleaf Pine-Hardwood-Longleaf Pine Underplant 11U
Shortleaf Pine-Oak 12
Loblolly Pine-Hardwood 13
Loblolly Pine-Hardwood-Longleaf Pine Underplant 13U
Pitch Pine-Oak 15
Longleaf Pine 21
Longleaf Pine Plantation 21P
Longleaf Pine-Scrub Oak Understory 21S
Longleaf Pine-Longleaf Pine Underplant 21U
Slash Pine 22
Slash Pine Plantation 22P
Slash Pine-Longleaf Pine Underplant 22U
Mixed Pine 25
Mixed Pine-Underplant 25U
Mixed Pine-Longleaf 26
Mixed Pine-Longleaf-Longleaf Pine Underplant 26U
Loblolly Pine 31
Loblolly Pine Plantation 31P
Loblolly Pine-Longleaf Pine Underplant 31U
Shortleaf Pine 32
Shortleaf Pine-Longleaf Pine Underplant 32U
Hardwood-Pond Pine 40
Cove Hardwood-Yellow Pine 41
Upland Hardwood-Yellow Pine 42
Southern Red Oak-Yellow Pine 44
Bottomland Hardwood-Yellow Pine 46
Northern Red Oak-Hickory-Yellow Pine 48
Scrub Oak-Yellow Pine 49
Post Oak-Black Oak 51
Chestnut Oak 52
White Oak-Red Oak-Hickory 53
White Oak 54
Northern Red Oak 55
Yellow Poplar-White Oak-Laurel Water Oak 56
Scrub Oak 57
Sweetgum-Yellow Poplar 58
Scarlet Oak 59
Sweetgum 60
47
Sweetgum-Water Oak-Willow Oak 62
Sugarberry-American Elm-Green Ash 63
Laurel Oak-Willow Oak 64
Oak-Hickory 66
Sweetbay-Swamp Tupelo-Red Maple 68
Wildlife Opening 70
Black Ash-American Elm-Red Maple 71
River Birch-Sycamore 72
Blackgum 80
Military 90
Undrained Flatwoods 98
Brush species, Non-stocked with management species 99
Lake 110
River or Stream 140
Public Parks and Cemeteries 210
Transmission Lines 220
Road or Railroad R/W 230
Special Uses 240
Other Non-forest Land 250
No Description 260
Special Timber Management Required 610
Steep Slopes 710
Sensitive Soils 740
Inaccessible Physical Barrier 760
Developed Recreation Sites 801
Administrative Sites 803
These forest types and forest type codes are primarily from the United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Silvicultural Examination and
Prescription Field Book; however, additional ones were added, and existing codes were changed
where necessary.
*Ft. Benning Modified Forest Type Codes - “U” denotes longleaf pine underplanting and “S”
denotes scrub oak understory.
48
The Following are Detailed Descriptions of the Type Codes:
If any one type codes occurs 69.5% of the time, then it is the actual forest type
9--Yellow Pine/Cove Hardwood: This type code has longleaf, slash, mixed pine, mixed
pine/longleaf, loblolly, or shortleaf occurring 49.5-69.4% on the plot