wildlife habitat and wildlife utilization of phosphate

Publication No. 03-147-230

WILDLIFE HABITAT AND WILDLIFE UTILIZATION OF PHOSPHATE-MINED LANDS

FINAL REPORT

Prepared by

BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES / UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

under a grant sponsored by

December 2008

The Florida Institute of Phosphate Research was created in 1978 by the Florida Legislature (Chapter 378.101, Florida Statutes) and empowered to conduct research supportive to the responsible development of the state’s phosphate resources. The Institute has targeted areas of research responsibility. These are: reclamation alternatives in mining and processing, including wetlands reclamation, phosphogypsum storage areas and phosphatic clay containment areas; methods for more efficient, economical and environmentally balanced phosphate recovery and processing; disposal and utilization of phosphatic clay; and environmental effects involving the health and welfare of the people, including those effects related to radiation and water consumption. FIPR is located in Polk County, in the heart of the Central Florida phosphate district. The Institute seeks to serve as an information center on phosphate-related topics and welcomes information requests made in person, or by mail, email, or telephone.

Executive Director Paul R. Clifford

G. Michael Lloyd, Jr.

Director of Research Programs

Research Directors

G. Michael Lloyd, Jr. -Chemical Processing J. Patrick Zhang -Mining & Beneficiation Steven G. Richardson -Reclamation Brian K. Birky -Public & Environmental Health

Publications Editor

Karen J. Stewart

Florida Institute of Phosphate Research 1855 West Main Street Bartow, Florida 33830

(863) 534-7160 Fax: (863) 534-7165

http://www.fipr.state.fl.us

WILDLIFE HABITAT AND WILDLIFE UTILIZATION

OF PHOSPHATE-MINED LANDS

FINAL REPORT

Douglas J. Durbin, Ph.D.

Principal Investigator

with

Shannon Gonzalez, Henry Mushinsky, Ph.D., Earl McCoy, Ph.D., Robin Moore, Ph.D.,

Neal Halstead, and Kristan Robbins

BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES

3905 Crescent Park Drive

Riverview, Florida 33578

and

Department of Biology

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA

Tampa, Florida 33620

Prepared for

FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF PHOSPHATE RESEARCH

1855 West Main Street

Bartow, Florida 33830

Contract Manager: Dr. Steven G. Richardson

FIPR Project Number: 02-03-147

December 2008

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from the contractor. The

report may have been edited as to format in conformance with the FIPR Style Manual.

The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed herein are not necessarily those of the

Florida Institute of Phosphate Research, nor does mention of company names or products

constitute endorsement by the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research.

© 2008, Florida Institute of Phosphate Research.

iii

PERSPECTIVE

Man‘s influences, including urbanization, agriculture and mining, have had ma or

impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat in Florida. Surface mining for phosphate creates

a drastic disturbance to the landscape, but unlike urban development, mining impacts are

not necessarily irreversible. In fact, mining has created additional habitat for some

vertebrates, such as fish and wading or diving birds (Edelson and Collopy 1990, Streever

and Crisman 1993). Alligators and osprey seem to be thriving. Gopher tortoises

relocated to sandy, open sites on reclaimed lands seem to find the habitat suitable (Small

and Macdonald 2001, Macdonald 1996). But what about other species? Mushinsky and

McCoy (1996 and 2001) found that some species that were fairly common on relatively

undisturbed, unmined lands were less common or not observed on the reclaimed mined

sites they studied.

It was felt that additional research was needed to better determine: (1) what

wildlife species are found on a wide array of former mined lands; (2) in what kinds of

habitats they are found; and (3) what habitat characteristics should be included when

reclaiming mined lands to enhance their utilization by wildlife.

In this study, through various methods, including trapping and visual and auditory

survey methods, 299 vertebrate species (36 fish, 20 amphibians, 28 reptiles, 186 birds

and 29 mammals) were encountered on mined phosphate lands. It was noted that bird

sampling in this study was more intense than in previous studies, which may have led to

an increased number and diversity of bird species found on reclaimed sites.

Vegetation structure and habitat heterogeneity were noted as important factors in

wildlife utilization. Vegetation structure was related to the plant species, age,

development of various strata, and degree of maturity or disturbance (successional stage).

For example, many bird species were favored as the reclaimed uplands matured into

forests with multiple vegetation strata, while several mammals seemed to prefer the more

open and grassy settings.

Habitat heterogeneity is related to topography, soils, hydrology, vegetation (type,

distribution, size and age), disturbance (fire, etc.) and successional stage. The

juxtaposition of varied habitat patches is also important. Study sites located in areas that

provided a mixture of uplands and wetlands supported higher species richness than

wetlands or uplands alone. Three characteristics of the mixed study sites that were

positively associated with the total number of species detected at a site were: (1)

proximity to the nearest body of water; (2) proximity to a wildlife corridor; and (3)

proximity to natural (unmined) habitat. The greater the distance to water, wildlife

corridor or a patch of natural habitat, the fewer species detected. These findings suggest

that habitat heterogeneity and close proximity to natural habitats benefit wildlife.

Geographic isolation of reclaimed habitat likely hinders colonization and wildlife usage

of those sites.

Certain wildlife species may have specific habitat needs, such as the need of some

amphibians for isolated ephemeral wetlands, free of egg-eating fish, for breeding and

iv

reproduction. ther species may be widely adapted ―generalists.‖ For certain species,

specific habitat needs should be re-established (when we know what the specific needs

are), but a good general approach for a broad range of species appears to be to provide a

wide array of habitat patches, that is, habitat diversity. More detailed study of this report

and the listed references will give reclamationists guidance on how to better reclaim and

manage mined lands for wildlife habitat.

PERTINENT LITERATURE

Edelson NA, Collopy MW. 1990. Foraging ecology of wading birds using an altered

landscape in central Florida. Bartow (FL): Florida Institute of Phosphate Research.

FIPR Publication nr 04-039-087.

Kiefer JK. 2000. Vertebrate utilization of reclaimed habitat on phosphate mined lands in

Florida: research synopsis and habitat design recommendations. In: Daniels WL,

Richardson SG (eds.). Proceedings of the 17th

Annual Meeting of the American Society

for Surface Mining and Reclamation, Tampa Florida, June 11-15, 2000. Lexington (KY):

American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation. p 397-411.

Macdonald LA. 1996. Reintroduction of gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) to

reclaimed phosphate land. Bartow (FL): Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. FIPR

Publication nr 03-105-126.

Mushinsky HR, McCoy ED. 1996. Habitat factors influencing the distribution of small

vertebrates on unmined and phosphate-mined uplands in central Florida. Bartow (FL):

Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. FIPR Publication nr 03-100-129.


vertebrates on unmined and phosphate-mined flatlands in central Florida. Bartow (FL):

Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. FIPR Publication nr 03-115-180.

Small CR, Macdonald LA. 2001. Reproduction and growth in relocated and resident

gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) on reclaimed phosphate-mined lands. Bartow

(FL): Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. FIPR Publication nr 03-105-145.

Streever WJ, Crisman TL. 1997. A comparison of fish populations from natural and

constructed freshwater marshes in Central Florida. In: Crisman TL, Streever WJ, Kiefer

JH, Evans DL, editors. An evaluation of plant community structure, fish and benthic

meio- and macrofauna as success criteria for reclaimed wetlands. Bartow (FL): Florida

Institute of Phosphate Research. FIPR publication nr 03-086-135. p 33-46.

Dr. Steven G. Richardson

Reclamation Research Director

v

ABSTRACT

The Florida phosphate mining industry is among the state‘s largest and most

obvious land users. Through reclamation programs, mining companies strive to return

mined lands to beneficial uses, one of which has been repeatedly identified as wildlife

habitat. A three-year study initiated in 2004 was commissioned by the Florida Institute

of Phosphate Research (FIPR) and performed by Biological Research Associates and the

University of South Florida to conduct a wildlife habitat and wildlife utilization study of

lands mined for phosphate in the Bone Valley region of Florida. The 62 study sites were

comprised of 24 upland, 18 wetland and 20 mixed sites. The presence and relative

abundance of vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and freshwater fishes) at

each site were documented by using a variety of techniques including herp arrays,

frogloggers, aquatic traps, fish sampling, Sherman traps, ANABAT units, bird surveys,

and pedestrian transects. A total of 299 vertebrate species was recorded from the 62

sites. Mixed sites tended to have the highest number of species, followed by wetland

sites and upland sites, respectively. Species richness ranged from 22 to 127 species per

site. A series of recommendations was developed covering landscape-scale and site-

specific concerns, as well as maintenance and monitoring goals.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PERSPECTIVE.................................................................................................................. iii

ABSTRACT .........................................................................................................................v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................7

METHODS ..........................................................................................................................9

Site Selection ...........................................................................................................9

Vertebrate Surveys .................................................................................................12

Amphibian and Reptile Surveys—Trap Arrays .........................................14

Amphibian and Reptile Surveys—Frogloggers .........................................17

Amphibian, Reptile, and Freshwater Fish Surveys—Aquatic Traps .........18

Freshwater Fish Surveys ............................................................................21

Mammal Surveys .......................................................................................24

Bird Surveys...............................................................................................25

Habitat Structure and Vegetation ...........................................................................26

Upland Habitats .........................................................................................26

Wetland Habitats ........................................................................................27

Data Analysis .........................................................................................................27

General Habitat Relationships ...................................................................29

RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................31

Species Richness Data: All Sampling Methods ....................................................31

Relative Abundance Data: By Sampling Method .................................................41

Drift Fence/Pitfall Trap Arrays ..................................................................41

Sherman Live Traps ...................................................................................41

Point and Transect Surveys ........................................................................42

Aquatic Sampling: Electrofishing, Seining, Cast Netting, and

Baited Funnel Traps ................................................................................43

General Habitat Relationships ...............................................................................45

RESULTS INTERPRETATION .......................................................................................47

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................51

Landscape Level ....................................................................................................51

Site-Specific ...........................................................................................................52

Management and Monitoring .................................................................................53

CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................55

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................57

APPENDICES

A. Upland Habitat Data Collection Sheet .......................................................... A-1

B. Wetland Habitat Data Collection Sheet Examples .........................................B-1

C. Survey Method-Specific Species by Site Matrix, Separated by Class ...........C-1

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Selected Sites for Wildlife Utilization Study ......................................................10

2. Trap Array Diagram for Capturing Amphibians and Reptiles............................15

3. Digging a Trench to Install One Wing of a Trap Array to Capture Reptiles

and Amphibians ...............................................................................................15

4. Opening Bucket Traps to Capture Reptiles and Amphibians .............................16

5. Example of Bucket Trap Used to Capture Reptiles and Amphibians .................16

6. Setting Funnel Traps to Capture Reptiles and Amphibians ................................17

7. Froglogger Assembly with Hanging Microphone Cone (left) and Close-Up

(right) ...............................................................................................................18

8. Visual Inspection of Aquatic Trap for Vertebrates .............................................19

9. Aquatic Traps Are Partially Submerged .............................................................19

10. Example of Reptile Species (Nerodia floridana) Captured by Aquatic Trap

but Not by Trap Arrays ....................................................................................20

11. Example of Aquatic Trap When Set ...................................................................20

12. Fish Collection by Electrofishing .......................................................................23

13. Fish Collection by Seining ..................................................................................23

14. Sherman Live Trap .............................................................................................25

15. Timed Bird Observations ....................................................................................26

16. Cumulative Number of Species of Each Vertebrate Group Recorded on ..........31

17. NMS Plot Showing Relative Difference in Vertebrate Species Composition

Among Sites, Reflecting Differences Among Sites Reclaimed Before or

After 1975 ........................................................................................................40


Among Sites, Reflecting Differences in Habitat Type ....................................40

19. NMS Plot Showing Relative Difference in Bird Species Composition

Among Sites, Calculated from Relative Abundances of Bird Species

from Point/Transect Surveys............................................................................43


Among Sites, Calculated from Relative Abundances of Amphibian, Fish,

and Reptile Species from Aquatic Sampling Techniques ................................44

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Names, Locations, Estimated Times of Establishment, and Habitat

Types [Wetland (W), Upland (U), or Mixed (M)] of Selected Sites

for the Wildlife Utilization Study .............................................................. 11-12

2. Vertebrate Survey Methods Used on Selected Sites for the Wildlife

Utilizations Study....................................................................................... 13-14

3. Wetland Site Water Quality Data Collected in Conjunction with Fish

Sampling ..........................................................................................................22

4. Upland and Wetland Habitat Variables Used in Analysis ..................................30

5. Maximum, Minimum, and Mean Number of Species Observed per Site ...........32

6. Number of Species Observed by Class in Each Site ..................................... 32-33

7. Significant Spearman Rank Correlations (p < 0.10) of Total, Amphibian,

Bird, Mammal, Fish, and Reptile Species Richness by Taxonomic Class

with General Habitat Variables ........................................................................35

8. Significant Spearman Rank Correlations (p < 0.10) of Total Upland

Species Richness and Upland Species Richness by Taxonomic Class

with General and Upland Habitat Variables .............................................. 36-37

9. Significant Spearman Rank Correlations (p < 0.10) of Total Wetland

Species Richness and Wetland Species Richness by Taxonomic Class

with General and Wetland Habitat Variables ............................................ 38-39

10. Number of Amphibian, Reptile and Mammal Individuals and Species

Observed by Drift Fence/Pitfall Trap Arrays in Each Habitat .........................41

11. Number of Mammal Species and Individuals Captured by Sherman Live

Traps in Each Habitat.......................................................................................42

12. Number of Individuals and Species of Birds Observed in Each Habitat

from Point and Transect Surveys .....................................................................42

13. Number of Vertebrate Species and Individuals Observed by Aquatic

Sampling in Each Habitat ................................................................................44

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Florida phosphate mining industry is among the state‘s largest and most

obvious land users. The industry has the capacity to affect a variety of environmental

attributes, including wildlife abundance and diversity. Although phosphate mining

causes a dramatic temporary disturbance of the land, it may be possible, with proper

reclamation techniques, to restore the essential features of many habitats, allowing

recolonization of the wildlife populations they support. Through their reclamation

programs, mining companies strive to return mined lands to beneficial uses, and one of

those potential uses has been repeatedly identified as wildlife habitat. Several studies on

wildlife utilization of phosphate-mined lands have been conducted in previous years.

These studies vary in their methods and the targeted species.

The ability to preserve, enhance, restore, rehabilitate, or recreate habitat for native

vertebrate species has been shown to be a complex undertaking with multiple

interconnected issues, ranging from spatial distribution of habitats, to value-factors

associated with those habitats, to the population biology and behavioral ecology of the

individual species of interest. By considering the factors that comprise habitat quality for

the observed species, habitat reclamation efforts can then be focused toward those

factors, with the expectation that the larger assemblage of wildlife species will benefit.

To address these issues, a three-year study was commissioned by the Florida

Institute of Phosphate Research (FIPR) and performed by Biological Research Associates

and the University of South Florida to conduct a wildlife habitat and wildlife utilization

study of lands mined for phosphate in the Bone Valley Region of Florida. Initiated in

May 2004, the study encompasses upland, wetland, and mixed (wetland and upland)

habitat types. Sixty-two sites were selected for the study, representing mined and

reclaimed lands, and encompassing a range of reclamation procedures and successional

stages. The presence and relative abundance of vertebrates at each site was documented

by conducting intensive surveys across all seasons and using a variety of techniques. Our

efforts were focused towards compiling the most comprehensive species list possible.

Study site recommendations were solicited from the FIPR staff and its

Reclamation Technical Advisory Committee, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Mine

Reclamation, IMC-Agrico, Cargill Fertilizer (Cargill and IMC have merged to form the

Mosaic Company), CF Industries and the Central Florida Regional Planning Council.

Sites used in previous studies were also considered. The 62 study sites comprised 24

upland, 18 wetland and 20 mixed sites, which received varying degrees of reclamation

effort and varying reclamation techniques.

The presence and relative abundance of vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles,

amphibians, and freshwater fishes) at each site were documented by conducting surveys

across seasons and using a variety of techniques including herp arrays, frogloggers,

2

aquatic traps, fish sampling, Sherman traps, ANABAT units, bird surveys, and pedestrian

transects.

Information was collected on upland habitats through evaluation of standardized

transects and quadrants. Wetland habitats were characterized through a standardized data

form developed previously for use in evaluating unmined wetlands.

A total of 299 vertebrate species (36 fishes, 20 amphibians, 28 reptiles, 186 birds,

and 29 mammals) was recorded from the 62 sites. Mixed sites tended to have the highest

number of species, followed by wetland sites and upland sites, respectively. Species

richness ranged from 22 to 127 species per site. Mixed sites also tended to have the

highest number of species for most classes individually, and upland sites the lowest

number of species.

Birds were the most species rich class of vertebrates (186 species) and also tended

to be the most widely distributed. The most commonly observed species were the turkey

vulture (60 sites), the northern mockingbird and palm warbler (59 sites), the common

yellowthroat (58 sites), the yellow-rumped warbler, Carolina wren, and mourning dove

(57 sites), and the great egret, blue jay, and northern cardinal (56 sites). Fishes were the

second most species rich class, with 36 species recorded from 37 sampled sites. The

eastern mosquito fish and the least killifish were the most common fish species, with

observations at 35 and 30 sites respectively.

Of the 29 mammal species observed, the least shrew and the cotton rat were the

most widely-distributed (39 sites). White-tailed deer (27 sites), feral pigs (23 sites), and

raccoons (21 sites) were the most commonly observed large mammals. The Mexican

freetail bat was observed at 16 of 23 sites sampled for bats. Seven species of bats were

recorded on 23 sites. Of the 28 reptile species observed, the southern black racer was the

most widely-distributed snake (30 sites) and the six-lined racerunner was the most

widely-distributed lizard (25 sites). The gopher tortoise was observed at 20 sites, more

than any other turtle species. Twenty species of amphibians were observed, with the

eastern narrowmouth toad being the most widely distributed (61 sites)–in fact, it was

observed at more sites than any other vertebrate species–and the squirrel treefrog was the

second most widely-distributed (57 sites).

Overall species richness was positively associated with proximity to the nearest

body of water, wildlife corridor, and natural area. Species richness of both fishes and

amphibians also was positively associated with proximity to the nearest body of water,

wildlife corridor, and natural area. Species richness of birds was positively correlated

with proximity to the nearest wildlife corridor.

A number of earlier investigations and publications have yielded

recommendations for improving the ecological quality of reclaimed phosphate mining

lands. To a large extent, our recommendations build upon those of our predecessors,

with additional insight based upon our findings and analyses.

3

Our recommendations are approached from three levels: Landscape, Site-

Specific, and Management and Monitoring. There is overlap between these categories,

and optimal reclamation planning would incorporate consideration of all three

simultaneously. Our analyses and recommendations are formed around groups of taxa

rather than individual species, because reclamation and land management for the benefit

of a single species, or small number of taxa, is less desirable for optimizing.

When planning reclamation on a landscape-level, habitat heterogeneity is

essential to meet the needs of all species groups. Many groups of species have specific

habitat needs that might not be compatible with those of other species groups. For

example, the ability of many amphibian species to reproduce in wetlands is determined

by whether or not certain fish are present.

Landscape-level reclamation planning should include not only a variety of

habitats, but also a variety of habitat targets. Although the overall goal of reclamation

should be to attract and maintain as many wildlife species as possible, individual upland

and wetland habitat types should not be expected to contain each wildlife species. For

each of the reclaimed habitat types, vegetation and wildlife goals should be clearly

defined and based on pre-mining information such as land use categories, ecological

communities, or wildlife survey results.

The type of soil used in reclamation plays a role in attracting and sustaining

wildlife on previously mined sites in two ways. First, plant diversity and individual

survival depends on the presence of appropriate soil, which has a direct bearing on the

abundance and distribution of vertebrates within a given area. In addition, soil

compaction was directly related (inversely) to the presence and abundance of certain

animal groups in this study. Based on these two factors, and knowledge of the relative

compaction and clay content of overburden and sand tailings soils, we recommend that

topsoil be transferred directly from a site being cleared to a site being reclaimed

whenever possible, and topsoil should be stockpiled for later use when a direct transfer is

not feasible. A ―cap‖ of sand tailings over overburden is an acceptable alternative if

topsoil is not available, but a cap of overburden over sand tailings is not preferable in any

situation where native habitat is the target landcover.

In addition, we recommend monitoring soil material placement to minimize soil

compaction prior to planting in areas that are specifically designed as wildlife habitat.

Monitoring should include general oversight of material placement to determine proper

depth and alignment (layering soils to duplicate natural horizons) plus soil compaction

measurements at various depths, depending on the target community type and proposed

species composition.

Horizontal structure of soil strata is also important in determining the hydrology

of the site, which can in turn determine the success of target habitats and the abundance

of target wildlife species. The depth to overburden beneath sand tailings on reclaimed

land can affect soil moisture relations. The greater clay content of overburden results in

greater water-holding-capacity and can even create a perched water table. Habitats that

4

are targeted to be hydric or mesic may need the overburden layer to be within a very few

feet of the surface, while xeric habitats should have a deep layer of sand tailings above

the overburden layer.

Vegetation structure, in terms of plant species, ages, and strata, was an important

determinant of wildlife utilization of reclaimed habitats. Some species groups favored

sites with an abundance of mid- and high-level canopy, while others preferred sites with

mostly understory vegetation. Vegetation structure patterns that benefit some vertebrate

wildlife early in succession may be detrimental later in the successional process.

Therefore reclamation areas that include a variety of successional stages may support a

larger suite of vertebrate species than one successional stage alone.

Reclamation planners should develop an adaptive management plan that allows

for a variety of techniques depending on several factors, including target habitat type and

goals, success of initial reclamation, and features of the surrounding landscape. The plan

should incorporate elements of historical reclamation successes, recent advances in

reclamation/restoration science as found in scientific literature, a decision tree to outline

potential management choices, and clearly defined and measurable goals.

Management activities that may be included in an adaptive management plan are

controlled burns, selective thinning, supplemental planting, and physical and chemical

control of exotic or nuisance species. In addition to these commonly used management

activities, other less common efforts could have benefit for wildlife habitat utilization.

An initial stocking of less abundant species can be valuable as a means of jump-starting

their colonization. Such stocking could be performed directly after initial reclamation

planting or as the area matures, depending on the species being translocated or the target

habitat.

A monitoring program should be designed for all major reclamation programs to

assist in evaluating the achievement of goals set in the management plan. The decision

tree set forth in the management plan should be the guideline for designing the type and

amount of data collected during monitoring.

This investigation has yielded what we believe to be the most comprehensive

synoptic account of wildlife utilization of phosphate-mined lands in Florida. Almost 300

species were reported, comprising all native vertebrate classes occurring in the State. To

the extent possible with the data collected, we have pointed to relationships between

wildlife presence and habitat factors. Key among these are proximity to the nearest body

of water, proximity to a wildlife corridor, and proximity to natural (unmined) habitat.

Other factors such as vegetation composition and structure were important to some

groups of taxa, but often showed stronger relationships (or even inverse correlations)

with some groups than others.

As scientists, we would be remiss if we did not point to the need for continued

investigation and data collection. However, we believe the greatest value for additional

work may be in identifying one or more major habitat reclamation projects still in the

5

planning phase, and incorporating a long-term wildlife monitoring component into the

plans. Including wildlife biologists on the design team and making provisions for

experimental design and some degree of adaptive habitat management would optimize

such an effort. This approach would greatly reduce the between-site variability that has

complicated much of the foregoing work in this area of reclamation science.

7

INTRODUCTION

The United States is a major producer of phosphate rock, and Florida provides

about 75 percent of the nation‘s supply of this mineral resource and key nutrient. The

Florida phosphate mining industry is among the state‘s largest and most obvious land

users. The industry has the capacity to affect a variety of environmental factors, which

influence wildlife ecology. Although phosphate mining causes a dramatic temporary

disturbance of the land, it may be possible, with proper reclamation techniques, to restore

the essential features of many habitats allowing recolonization of the wildlife populations

they support. Since 1975, phosphate mine operators in Florida have been required by law

to reclaim mined lands. Reclamation is the process of recontouring and revegetating land

and water bodies disturbed or affected by mining activities. Through their reclamation

programs, mining companies strive to return mined lands to beneficial uses, and one of

those potential uses has been repeatedly identified as wildlife habitat.

It is important to realize that phosphate land reclamation is a young ―science.‖

Prior to 1975, reclamation of mined land was not required. Since 1975, reclamation

techniques have been constantly evolving as technology improves, regulations become

more strict, and the socio-political environment changes. Reclamation rules have never

required the creation of specific wildlife habitats but have focused more on general

habitat types based on vegetation cover. For example, upland reclamation was required

to provide a defined tree density only; no shrub density or specific shrub or tree species

were required. Similarly, the rule criteria for wetland reclamation do not dictate plant

assemblages or hydrologic conditions; such details are conveyed in permit conditions or

imposed by the reclamation designers at a given mine. The sites sampled in this study

span the period of regulatory history and mine ownership, each with a separate set of

permit requirements and management efforts.

The mining of phosphate in Florida has a well-documented history and is

typically conducted using strip mining techniques. The strip mining procedure involves

clearing the site of all vegetation, removal of overburden soil, and mining the underlying

phosphate matrix with draglines. Following the extraction process, the site is back-filled

with sand tailings separated from the phosphate ore and with overburden. In some

instances, desirable surface soils (e.g., wetland muck or flatwoods soils) that have been

set aside are distributed over the surface prior to revegetation. Because of the large-scale

clearing, mining and reclamation in central Florida, recent emphasis has been on

improvement of reclamation techniques for the purpose of maintaining a diverse flora and

fauna after mining.

Several studies on wildlife utilization of phosphate-mined lands have been

conducted in previous years. These studies vary in their methods and the targeted

species. Two studies by Mushinsky and McCoy (1996 and 2001) focused on a variety of

small vertebrate taxa on specific reclaimed habitat types, while others studied mammals

on phosphate-mined lands and natural areas (Frohlich and Marion 1984), avifauna on

reclaimed and unreclaimed land (Kale 1992), avifauna in various locations and habitats

8

(Maehr 1980, 1981, 1984; Maehr and Marion 1984), foraging ecology of wading birds

(Edelson and Collopy 1990), and several taxa of vertebrates on phosphate-mined lands

and natural areas (Layne and others 1977; Schnoes and Humphrey 1987).

The ability to preserve, enhance, restore, rehabilitate, or recreate habitat for native

vertebrate species has been shown to be a complex undertaking with multiple

interconnected issues, ranging from spatial distribution of habitats, to value-factors

associated with those habitats, to the population biology and behavioral ecology of the

individual species of interest. As a result of this complexity, it is extremely difficult to

develop a universal set of guidelines that will reliably maintain or regenerate fish and

wildlife habitat for the entire community of native vertebrates in an area (assuming that

the entire community can even be identified). A much more tractable goal is the

identification of a series of habitat factors and associated wildlife utilization. By

considering the factors that comprise habitat quality for the observed species, habitat

reclamation efforts can then be focused toward those factors, with the expectation that the

larger assemblage of wildlife species will benefit.

To address these issues, a three-year study was commissioned by the Florida

Institute of Phosphate Research (FIPR) and performed by Biological Research Associates

and the University of South Florida to conduct a study of wildlife habitat and wildlife

utilization lands mined for phosphate in the Bone Valley Region of Florida. Initiated in

May 2004, the study encompasses upland, wetland, and mixed (wetland and upland)

habitat types. Sixty-two sites representing mined and reclaimed lands and encompassing

a range of reclamation procedures and successional stages were selected for the study.

The presence and relative abundance of vertebrates at each site was documented by

conducting intensive surveys across all seasons and using a variety of techniques. Our

efforts were focused towards compiling the most comprehensive species list possible.

Our results can be used to support recommendations for improving the habitat quality of

reclaimed lands for fish and wildlife. Here we report our findings on the distribution and

abundance of vertebrates among sites and how they relate to habitat attribute data.

9

METHODS

SITE SELECTION

Study site recommendations were solicited from the FIPR staff and Reclamation

Technical Advisory Committee (RTAC), Tim King at the Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission (FWC), Orlando Rivera and Christine Keenan of the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Mine Reclamation (BMR), IMC-

Agrico, Cargill Fertilizer [Cargill and IMC have merged to form the Mosaic Company],

CF Industries and members and consultants for the Central Florida Regional Planning

Council (CFRPC). Sites used in previous studies were also considered. Site boundaries

were determined by several methods. In cases where mining companies provided GIS

information on specific polygons, the boundaries were used as received. In general, areas

provided by mining companies were distinct units reclaimed by similar techniques within

a similar timeframe. When GIS data were not available, latitude/longitude found in

previous studies or site recommendations made by others including general location

descriptions provided the best available information. In these cases the most current

aerial imagery available (dates varied over study area) was used in an aerial interpretation

to delineate the specific study site. Interpretation consisted of delineating an aerial

―signature‖ of the similar habitat surrounding the point of latitude/longitude or within the

area described. In many cases this aerial signature was indicative of current habitat;

however in some cases (presumably because of outdated imagery, changing site

conditions, etc.) the site boundary did not represent a current habitat demarcation. We

obtained permission from the property owners to use selected sites in the study and

delineated the boundaries of each site onto digital orthophotography using ArcGIS 9.x.

Each potential site was visited to evaluate current conditions and eliminate sites that had

been significantly altered for development, agricultural or other mining (sand, etc.)

purposes.

In all, we selected 62 previously-mined sites representing 24 upland, 18 wetland

and 20 mixed sites (Figure 1, Table 1). Two categories of previously-mined lands were

recognized: those mined prior to the mandatory reclamation laws of 1975 and those

mined since 1975. The sites had received varying degrees of reclamation effort and

varying reclamation techniques. Selected sites included those reclaimed two or more

decades ago as well as those reclaimed within the past six to eight years.

10

Figure 1. Selected Sites for Wildlife Utilization Study.

11

Table 1. Names, Locations, Estimated Times of Establishment, and Habitat Types

[Wetland (W), Upland (U), or Mixed (M)] of Selected Sites for the Wildlife

Utilization Study.

Map

Number Site Name Longitude Latitude

Time of

Establishment

Habitat

Type

0 1-FB -82.058241 27.740793 Unknown W

1 BB Scrub Preserve / Big Valley / Pine Ridge -82.210257 27.780818 Mid-1970s M

2 BB Scrub Preserve / Great Horned Owl -82.216842 27.780933 Mid-1970s W

3 BF-ASP(2A) - Lake Branch X-ing -82.091287 27.736473 1996 M

4 Bald Mountain / KC-LB-2 -82.045764 27.784098 1994-1995 U

5 Best of the West Complex/ Rainbow Soil -81.905666 27.855957 1989-1991 M

7 Bird Branch Headwaters -81.983511 27.843557 Pre-1975 W

8 Bonny Lake North -81.896900 27.924421 1984 U

9 Bonny Lake West -81.925979 27.901724 Late 1980s U

10 CF DB-2 -81.925042 27.578450 1999 M

11 CF DB-3 -81.928232 27.578537 2000 M

12 CF DB-6 -81.925891 27.590381 1999 M

13 CF R-10 East Upland -81.919990 27.634988 1990 M

14 CF R-10 Upland Island -81.925370 27.634950 1990 M

15 Cargill SP-11 -81.824879 27.660404 1985 U

16 Cargill Wildlife Corridor -81.835856 27.666571 1990-1992 U

17 Euk Em -81.997384 27.747388 Unknown U

18 FCL MU-7(A) - Alderman Creek-A -82.094042 27.652197 1998-1999 W

19 FCL MU-7(T) - Alderman Creek-T -82.101924 27.659387 1998-1999 W

20 FG-1 -82.026605 27.686834 1988 U

21 FG-83(1) - 8.4-Acre Wetland -82.038229 27.691823 1988 W

22 FG-GSB(3A) - Big Marsh -81.993335 27.624128 1993 W

23 FG-HC(9) - P-20 -82.023974 27.599897 1999-2000 W

24 FG-PC-5 -81.994933 27.648825 1996 U

25 FG-SP(9C) CSA Complex -82.011412 27.706587 1987 M

26 File #33-Central -82.048767 27.648541 1996 W

27 File #33-NW -82.047227 27.653981 1996 W

29 Fort Green Hardee Lakes Pine Flatwoods -81.963153 27.619983 1992 M

30 GT Recipient Sites (Ft. Green Xeric) -82.045017 27.611895 2000 M

31 HP-3 Phase 7 Mined in 1914 -81.915398 27.800256 1914 W

32 HP-4 -81.954323 27.796867 1993 W

33 Hal Scott -81.961740 27.793624 1992-1993 M

34 Hickey Branch -81.927546 27.641010 1987 M

35 Horse Creek Xeric project -82.034707 27.568282 2000 W

36 Key Blues -82.144256 27.780254 1986 U

37 L-SP(12A) - Dog Leg -82.129851 27.764778 1986 W

38 LP-2 -81.958067 27.721228 1981-1982 M

39 Leek's Marsh -81.844495 28.090545 1975-1982 M

40 Medard Central -82.159841 27.923925 Pre-1975 W

41 Medard East -82.154557 27.924921 Pre-1975 U

42 Medard West -82.167754 27.924801 Pre-1975 U

43 Morrow Swamp Complex -81.998992 27.660540 1982 M

46 Noralyn Falls -81.898795 27.850787 1989-1991 U

47 Osprey Nest -81.894662 27.910881 1984 U

48 PC-LPC-1 -81.885911 27.651711 1995 M

49 PC-SP(1C)-AG East -81.986623 27.671496 1986 U

50 PC-SP-14 -81.977229 27.675934 1992 M

51 Panther Point -81.825581 27.933215 1992 U

54 Picnic Lake -81.867480 28.110917 1980 M

55 Polyphemus Paradise -81.880820 28.094972 Unknown U

58 Rocky Top -81.881589 28.109189 Unknown U

59 Saddle Creek Park -81.881165 28.054974 Late 1960s W

60 Sand Valley / Scrub Mulch -81.916038 27.865345 1990-1993 U

61 Sandy Top -81.926958 27.916280 1984 U

62 Scout -81.870437 28.099167 1983 U

63 Tim's Gift Np-N3,N4,N5,N6 -81.837045 27.837395 1983 U

12

Table 1 (Cont.). Names, Locations, Estimated Times of Establishment, and Habitat

Types [Wetland (W), Upland (U), or Mixed (M)] of Selected Sites

for the Wildlife Utilization Study.

Map

Number Site Name Longitude Latitude

Time of

Establishment

Habitat

Type

65 Trio Marsh Center -82.043047 27.643787 1991 W

66 Trio Marsh East -82.034740 27.642806 1991 W

67 Trio Marsh West -82.053236 27.643877 1991 W

68 WC1 36-acre Xeric Site -81.916855 27.729698 2000 U

69 WC4/Whidden Branch -81.899887 27.710852 1998 M

70 West End -81.933889 27.903179 Unknown U

71 Wheeling -81.910291 27.859324 1989-1999 U

VERTEBRATE SURVEYS

The presence and relative abundance of vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles,

amphibians, and freshwater fishes) at each site were documented by conducting surveys

across seasons and using a variety of techniques (Table 2). Prior to conducting the

surveys, we compiled a preliminary list of potential vertebrate species in the study region

by reviewing all existing information on species‘ distributions, including the findings of

previous studies on phosphate-mined and unmined sites in central Florida (Mushinsky

and McCoy 1996, 2001). The list included the full complement of species potentially

found in the area. There were no expectations of finding all species because some of the

potential species are migratory, very rare, or restricted to uncommon habitat types not

necessarily represented in our study sites. To the extent possible, the list has been

annotated with general information on historical and current status in the region. Where

such information is not published, the team used its own experience and professional

judgment, to offer opinions on the status of various species.

Although trap arrays and the other methods described below capture many species

of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and fish, they do not capture moderate-sized or large

mammals. These methods also have variable success in capturing tree frogs, large

snakes, and arboreal lizards. While conducting wildlife and habitat sampling, incidental

sightings (observations, calls, scat, tracks, or burrows) of other vertebrates were

documented. We noted all observations of the presence of vertebrate organisms

including actual sightings, burrows (e.g., gopher tortoises), carcasses, scat, footprints,

scrapemarks, and remnants of foraging activities that might help identify an organism.

Random transects were walked to search for evidence of the presence of vertebrates

within each study polygon.

13

Table 2. Vertebrate Survey Methods Used on Selected Sites for the Wildlife

Utilization Study.

Site Name Herp Array

Frog-logger

Aqua-

tic

traps

Fish Survey

Sherman traps

ANA-BAT

Bird Survey

1-FB X X X X X X X

BB Scrub Preserve / Big Valley / Pine Ridge X X X X X

BB Scrub Preserve / Great Horned Owl X X X X X

BF-ASP(2A) - Lake Branch X-ing X X X X X X

Bald Mountain / KC-LB-2 X X X X X X

Best of the West Complex/ Rainbow Soil X X X

Bird Branch Headwaters X X X X X X

Bonny Lake North X X X

Bonny Lake West X X X

CF DB-2 X X X X X X

CF DB-3 X X X X X X X

CF DB-6 X X X X X X X

CF R-10 East Upland X X X

CF R-10 Upland Island X X X

Cargill SP-11 X X X X X X X

Cargill Wildlife Corridor X X X X X X X

Euk Em X X

FCL MU-7(A) - Alderman Creek-A X X X X X X

FCL MU-7(T) - Alderman Creek-T X X X X

FG-1 X X X

FG-83(1) - 8.4-Acre Wetland X X X X X X X

FG-GSB(3A) - Big Marsh X X X X X

FG-HC(9) - P-20 X X X X X X X

FG-PC-5 X X X

FG-SP(9C) CSA Complex X X X X X X X

File #33-Central X X X X X

File #33-NW X X X X X

Fort Green Hardee Lakes Pine Flatwoods X X X X X X X

GT Recipient Sites (Ft. Green Xeric) X X X X X X

HP-3 Phase 7 Mined in 1914 X X X X X X

HP-4 X X X X X X

Hal Scott X X X X X X

Hickey Branch X X X X X X X

Horse Creek Xeric project X X X X

Key Blues X X X

L-SP(12A) - Dog Leg X X X X

LP-2 X X X X X X X

Leek's Marsh X X X X X

Medard Central X X

Medard East X X

Medard West X X

Morrow Swamp Complex X X X X X X

Noralyn Falls X X X

Osprey Nest X X X

PC-LPC-1 X X X

PC-SP(1C)-AG East X X X X X X X

PC-SP-14 X X

Panther Point X X X X X

Picnic Lake X X X X X X X

Polyphemus Paradise X X X

Rocky Top X X X

Saddle Creek Park X X X X X

Sand Valley / Scrub Mulch X X X

Sandy Top X X X

Scout X X X

Tim's Gift Np-N3,N4,N5,N6 X X X

Trio Marsh Center X X X X X X

14

Table 2 (Cont.). Vertebrate Survey Methods Used on Selected Sites for the Wildlife

Utilization Study.

Site Name Herp Array

Frog-logger

Aqua-

tic

traps

Fish Survey

Sherman traps

ANA-BAT

Bird Survey

Trio Marsh East X X X X

Trio Marsh West X X X

WC1 36-acre Xeric Site X X X

WC4/Whidden Branch X X X X X

West End X X X

Wheeling X X X

TOTAL 62 26 31 34 53 23 62

Amphibian and Reptile Surveys–Trap Arrays

Trap arrays (Campbell and Christman 1982) were installed within the polygon

boundaries that delineated the limits of each study site to capture amphibians, reptiles and

small mammals. Each trap array was placed in a location considered to be representative

of the habitat contained within the polygon being sampled. A trap array consisted of four

7.5 meter long drift fences (an individual drift fence is a ―wing‖) arranged in the shape of

a cross and fitted with eight 20 liter buckets buried in the ground at each end of the fence

(Figures 2 through 5). In instances where a cross-shape was not practical, the wings were

positioned in the most appropriate formation given the nature of the habitat and terrain.

For each array, eight funnel traps were constructed and placed near the middle on both

sides of each wing (Figure 6).

Trapping was conducted in July-August 2004, November-December 2004 and

May-August 2005. Because traps were checked daily and were dispersed over a broad

area, it was not possible to open and check all traps simultaneously. Each site was

trapped for four consecutive days on a bi-weekly basis during the three trapping periods.

All sites were trapped for approximately the same number of days to ensure consistency

in trapping effort.

In addition, two 2.5 cm diameter PVC poles were placed in a shaded location at

each site to sample for treefrogs. Because of their ability to avoid most traps used to

capture other terrestrial vertebrates, treefrogs are often under-sampled. They are active at

night and most active on rainy evenings during the warm summer months. Treefrogs are

well adapted to arboreal life because of long digits with adhesive discs at the tip.

Treefrogs have little difficulty climbing through trees and branches and often seek refuge

in relatively moist holes or depressions in any available plant life.

15

Figure 2. Trap Array Diagram for Capturing Amphibians and Reptiles.

Figure 3. Digging a Trench to Install One Wing of a Trap Array to Capture

Reptiles and Amphibians.

16

Figure 4. Opening Bucket Traps to Capture Reptiles and Amphibians.

Figure 5. Example of Bucket Trap Used to Capture Reptiles and Amphibians.

17

Figure 6. Setting Funnel Traps to Capture Reptiles and Amphibians.

Amphibian and Reptile Surveys–Frogloggers

A remote froglogger (Barichivich 2003) was installed at each of the wetland and

mixed sites (Figure 7). Frogloggers were programmed to record calling activity one

minute each hour between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. for six nights within the 2005 summer

breeding season. Not all sites were sampled on the same nights. Summer breeding

season is defined as the rainy season, which typically occurs from early to mid June

through September (Chen and Gerber 1990). Special attention was given to the time

period between late June and mid-July, which is considered the ―peak‖ of the summer

breeding season in central Florida.

Each week, tapes (Maxell XLII High Bias 90 min) were collected from the

frogloggers and batteries were replaced (12-volt 7-amp sealed lead-acid battery). Calls

were interpreted by biologists trained in Central Florida frog vocalizations and

experienced with biology of amphibians. Calling male anurans were identified and their

choruses were placed into one of four size categories according to the North American

Amphibian Monitoring Program (NAAMP) on its website http://www.pm2-

pwrc.usgs.gov/NAAMP/protocol/index.html. A calling index of zero indicated that no

individuals were heard. An index of one indicated that individuals could be counted but

there was space between calls. A calling index of two indicated that calls of individuals

could be counted, but there was some overlap. A calling index of three indicated that

there was a full chorus of constant and overlapping calls. Data were entered into a

18

Microsoft Access database developed to maintain vocalization data from the monitored

wetlands.

To ensure that monitored wetlands provided a representative characterization of

the amphibian breeding assemblage, the wetlands were visited late in the evening of 03

August 2005 each for five minutes. The size of the chorus recorded was the maximum

number of individuals of each species heard during the five minutes according to the

NAAMP. Fort Green Xeric was not visited because of weather conditions and

accessibility issues. Data collected during the visit were then compared to the data

collected on the froglogger cassette tapes to confirm that the loggers provided an accurate

record of frog calls.

Figure 7. Froglogger Assembly with Hanging Microphone Cone (Left) and Close Up

(Right).

Amphibian, Reptile, and Freshwater Fish Surveys–Aquatic Traps

Aquatic funnel traps were used to catch aquatic amphibians and reptiles, as well

as freshwater fish (Figures 8 through 11). These traps are designed to capture reptile and

amphibian species that were not well-represented in trapping arrays and froglogger

surveys, such as the Florida chorus frog, siren and amphiuma species, and water snakes

(Figure 10). Aquatic trapping also served to supplement other methods to capture

freshwater fish, described below. Aquatic funnel trapping began 31 July 2006. Three

traps were placed at each site and opened for six trap nights at each site. Each trap was

baited with five nuggets of commercially available catfish bait. Vertebrates were

identified and released on-site.

19

Figure 8. Visual Inspection of Aquatic Trap for Vertebrates.

Figure 9. Aquatic Traps Are Partially Submerged.

20

Figure 10. Example of Reptile Species (Florida Green Water Snake, Nerodia

floridana) Captured by Aquatic Trap But Not by Trap Arrays.

Figure 11. Example of Aquatic Trap When Set.

21

Freshwater Fish Surveys

Fish sampling, other than the aquatic trapping described above, occurred between

8 June 2004 and 5 May 2005 within delineated boundaries of sites with aquatic habitats.

Sampling locations were selected in representative habitats with consideration for

optimizing capture success. Three sampling strategies were employed: electrofishing,

seining, and cast netting.

Electrofishing was accomplished with a Smith-Root model LR-24

electroshocking backpack unit (Figure 12). This method is particularly useful in areas

with limited mobility as well as in open water because the hand-held electrode and

capture net can be maneuvered in small areas where larger sampling tools cannot be used.

Seining was employed in open areas. Seines were 6 to 10 feet in length, 4 feet wide, and

constructed of 1/4-inch nylon square mesh (Figure 13). Cast netting was used in open

water where water depths were unsuitable for wading, thereby eliminating seining or

electrofishing. The cast net had a radius of 6 feet and was constructed of 3/8-inch

(stretched) monofilament webbing. The specific sampling methodology was recorded at

each site.

Efficiency of sampling methodologies varied. Seining and cast-netting were

effective when site conditions permitted; however, electrofishing was the only

methodology that could be employed at all locations. Factors that affected the utilization

and efficiency of sampling techniques included the presence of emergent and submergent

vegetation cover, water depth, and the presence of a thick organic detritus layer

suspended above the substrate. Captured individuals were identified as to species,

recorded, and released. In the event field identification was not possible, voucher

specimens were preserved in the field and returned to the laboratory for identification.

In addition to recording fish species encountered and numbers captured, dissolved

oxygen, water temperature, pH, and conductivity were recorded. Field water quality

measurements made at the time of fish sampling events are provided in Table 3.

Observed values for temperature, pH, conductivity and dissolved oxygen were well

within the expected range for natural wetlands of the same general character.

22

Table 3. Wetland Site Water Quality Data Collected in Conjunction with Fish

Sampling.

Site ID Conductivity Dissolved

Oxygen pH Temperature

1-FB 0.05 6.3 5.5 37.7

Bald Mountain/KC-LB-2 0.25 3.9 7.2 30.6

BB Scrub Preserve/Big Valley/Pine

Ridge 0.09 1.6 6.4 24.6

BB Scrub Preserve/Great Horned Owl 0.10 4.5 6.6 24.3

Bird Branch Headwaters 0.35 4.6 8.6 29.6

Cargill SP-11 0.17 6.6 7.8 28.9

Cargill Wildlife Corridor 0.21 7.9 9.1 30.0

CF DB-2 0.20 2.0 6.6 25.6

CF DB-3 0.23 1.6 6.3 27.2

CF DB-6 0.24 5.2 6.7 28.9

FCL MU-7(A) - Alderman Creek - A 0.70 0.4 6.9 28.0

FCL MU-7(T) - Alderman Creek - T 0.38 6.3 7.6 34.6

FG-83(1)-8.4-Acre Wetland 0.23 2.9 6.7 33.3

FG-GSB(3A)-Big Marsh 0.11 2.8 5.9 31.3

FG-HC(9)-P-20 0.49 1.6 7.4 29.8

FG-SP(9C) CSA Complex 0.51 0.5 7.0 28.0

File #33-Central 0.21 0.9 7.0 24.7

File #33-NW 0.11 0.7 6.5 25.0

Fort Green Hardee Lakes Pine

Flatwoods 0.07 5.6 8.4 32.3

GT Recipient Sites (Ft. Green Xeric) 0.55 0.6 7.0 26.8

Hal Scott 0.30 1.4 6.8 23.1

Hickey Branch 0.42 3.1 7.6 26.8

Horse Creek Xeric Project 0.34 7.1 6.9 28.7

HP-3 Phase 7 Mined in 1914 0.45 5.6 7.5 30.5

HP-4 0.34 4.6 6.5 26.4

Leek's Marsh 0.19 4.6 6.6 29.9

LP-2 0.23 2.1 6.3 27.8

Morrow Swamp Complex 0.22 0.7 7.1 29.5

PC-SP(1C)-AG East 0.13 0.9 6.1 25.7

Picnic Lake 0.10 6.2 7.3 31.1

Saddle Creek Park 0.22 5.8 8.9 32.6

Trio Marsh Center 0.49 0.5 6.3 25.4

Trio Marsh East 0.16 0.7 6.3 26.0

WC4-Whidden Branch 0.40 2.9 7.5 28.1

23

Figure 12. Fish Collection by Electrofishing.

Figure 13. Fish Collection by Seining.

24

Mammal Surveys

Trap stations consisting of two Sherman live traps (3 cm x 3.5 cm x 9 cm) (Figure

14) were positioned along one or two straight-line transects at each site. The number of

trap stations used was determined by looking at the size and habitat complexity of a given

site. Fewer trap stations were used on relatively small, homogenous sites. The number

of trap stations used on all sites ranged from five to twenty-one. For mixed sites, one

transect was positioned along the wetland edge and another transect in the uplands. Each

site was trapped for a period of two nights. Trap stations were placed in the same area as

reptile and amphibian trap arrays, when suitable.

In order to increase attractiveness of the trap stations to small mammals, ground

debris was scraped away from the area under the traps. Efforts were made to position

traps under natural shade whenever possible. Traps were set and baited with sunflower

seeds on the morning or afternoon of the first day and were checked the following

morning. Captures were identified to species and were ear-marked with a felt-tipped

marker, after which they were released. Traps were then re-baited with seeds and reset.

Captures were documented (both the species captured and whether the individual was a

recapture) and the traps were collected. Traps were rinsed at the end of each sampling

event.

Reclaimed study areas with wetland components were monitored for bat activity

using sonic/ultrasonic recording devices (ANABAT II Bat Detectors, H:-Mic transducers,

ANABAT CF Storage ZCAIM). ANABAT units were housed in plastic waterproof

containers that were either mounted on tripods or secured to tree limbs with elastic cords.

Camouflaged netting was draped over the container to minimize human detection.

ANABAT units were generally positioned on the edge of wetlands/presumed bat flyways,

with microphones oriented towards the wetlands/presumed bat flyways. Leaves and

other vegetation were cleared from the area immediately in front of the microphone to

prevent muffled calls. Devices were kept in place for a minimum of two nights.

Infrared motion-detection cameras were used early in the study to detect the

presence of larger mammal species that present trapping difficulties. The use of such

cameras was discontinued early because of several instances of vandalism, theft, and

ineffectiveness.

25

Figure 14. Sherman Live Trap.

Bird Surveys

Bird point/transect survey locations were established within the polygon

boundaries of each sample site. Surveys were conducted quarterly at each sample site on

clear, calm mornings beginning at or near sunrise. The sampling protocol was to survey

for five minutes without the aid of any auditory device (Figure 15). All observations

(visual and auditory) were noted, and species, microhabitat, and activity were recorded.

Microhabitat classifications included open water, emergent aquatic vegetation,

submergent vegetation, forest, canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, and bare ground. Activities

included foraging, fly over, breeding, nesting, loafing, or other. Subsequent to the

completion of the timed survey, a screech owl tape was used for ten minutes to draw in

song birds within the vicinity. Additional observations, including species and

microhabitat, were recorded.

26

Figure 15. Timed Bird Observations.

HABITAT STRUCTURE AND VEGETATION

Information was collected on upland habitat structure through evaluation of

standardized quadrants. Wetland habitats were characterized through a standardized data

form developed previously by BMR for use in evaluating unmined wetlands.

Upland Habitats

Upland vegetation and habitat data were typically collected in a 0.5-hectare plot

that was representative of the habitat being sampled by the trap array at each upland site.

A 70 m × 70 m grid was laid over each upland habitat polygon in ArcGIS 9.x, with the

center of the drift fence/pitfall trap arrays serving as the central point of the grid. The

grid was divided into four, 70-meter, evenly spaced transects, each with four evenly

spaced quadrat points. To make field implementation less difficult, transects were

positioned running east-west or north-south.

Quadrat locations were determined by positioning four evenly spaced points along

each transect. Latitude and longitude coordinates were then obtained for the end points

of each transect and for each of sixteen quadrats. Using a GPS receiver, these positions

were located in the field. The length and orientation of transects were occasionally

modified in the field according to the nature of the habitat and spatial arrangement of the

trap arrays. At sites for which trap arrays were not placed in a cross-shaped formation,

vegetation transects were oriented parallel to and overlapping the trap arrays, with

27

quadrats evenly spaced along the transect(s). Our primary aim was to obtain a

representative sample of the habitat surrounding the trap arrays.

Transects were walked by three observers; one walking the center line and two

walking the outer limits of the transect. Within each transect, all trees and shrubs were

identified and measured (height and diameter at widest point); the total number of oak

trees, coniferous trees, ‗other‘ trees, and palmettos and shrubs within each transect were

recorded to provide an estimate of the density of each. Exotic species were noted and

their approximate percent coverage within each transect was estimated.

Vegetation was sampled within four 1 × 1 meter quadrats spaced evenly along

each transect. Within each quadrat the following characteristics were recorded: presence

or absence of upper canopy (>1 m), estimated percent grass cover, percent forb cover,

percent woody vegetation, leaf litter depth (estimated as a mean for the entire quadrat)

and soil compaction at 10 cm, 20 cm and 30 cm (measured using a soil penetrometer). A

sample datasheet is attached (Appendix A).

Wetland Habitats

Because of constraints in navigating and maneuvering within wetlands, habitat

structure and vegetation were assessed differently for the wetland polygons than for

upland polygons. Instead of using a transect method, a habitat datasheet was completed

for each site (examples of completed field sheets are attached; see Appendix B). The

wetland polygon was visited at several different points to ensure that the information

recorded was representative of the entire polygon. In instances where several different

wetland habitats existed within a single wetland polygon, a separate habitat assessment

sheet was completed for each habitat. For example, if Site A consisted of an herbaceous

marsh contiguous with a swamp, a sheet would be filled out for ―Site A Herbaceous

Marsh‖ and a sheet for ―Site A Swamp.‖ The presence of different habitats was assessed

through both review of aerial photographs and site visits. Site visits took place from 21

July 2005 to 5 August 2005.

Data collected in wetland habitats included a list of plant species present in each

stratum and approximate cover, age, muck depth and other soil characteristics,

disturbance (grazing, ditching, dumping, etc.), observed wildlife, soil saturation, and

stream channel characteristics (if applicable). Photographs were taken at each site at the

time of visit.

DATA ANALYSIS

An overall species distribution list was developed by generating a sampling-

method-specific matrix of the detected presence of each wildlife species at each site

(Appendix C). Each sampling method was evaluated separately, including trap arrays,

frogloggers, aquatic traps, fish survey methods, small mammal traps, bird surveys,

28

meandering transects, and incidental observations. The specific methods used at each site

are also indicated in Appendix C.

Because different sampling techniques have different probabilities of detecting

species (e.g., timed bird point/transect surveys vs. incidental observations), the use of

relative abundance data from all sampling techniques combined is inappropriate for

comparing sites. Therefore, the overall pattern of vertebrate species composition among

sites was calculated by converting the number of individuals seen in all survey methods

to simple presence data by species at each site. In order to address relative abundance of

species in the analyses, patterns of vertebrate species composition using relative

abundance data across sites were analyzed separately for each of the sampling methods

employed.

For individual sampling methods, we analyzed distributional models that

characterized the relative distributions of rare and common species at each site. Diversity

indices describe the number of species and the relative abundances of those species, with

some indices being biased by rare species (species richness) and some biased by

dominant species (N∞). We used four diversity indices described by Hill (1973) that

capture this range of bias: N0, N1, N2, and N∞. Hill‘s indices can be easily interpreted as

the total number of species sampled (N0 = species richness), the number of abundant

species (N1), the number of very abundant species (N2), and the number of dominant

species (N∞) at each site. Evenness of relative abundance distributions was calculated

using the modified Hill‘s ratio (F2,1: Alatalo 1981). Confidence intervals were

determined around each index to identify sites that were significantly different in

diversity. For the overall pattern of species composition (presence/absence), only the N0

(species richness) was calculated.

Although sites may be similar in the number of species and their relative

abundances, they may still be quite different in the composition of species. To examine

similarity in species composition among sites, we used the Bray-Curtis similarity

coefficient (Ludwig and Reynolds 1988). Bray-Curtis similarity pays attention to the

identity as well as the relative abundances of all species in the sample. If two sites have

identical numbers and relative abundances of species, they would have a Bray-Curtis

similarity value of 100 (100% similar species composition). However, if two sites share

no species in common, the Bray-Curtis similarity value would be zero.

Similarities were calculated between all pairs of sites. Because of the large

number of sites examined in this study, and therefore the very large number of pairwise

similarity values between sites, it was necessary to summarize that information using

ordination techniques to aid interpretation. Ordination arranges sample sites on one or

more coordinate axes so that their relative position indicates the maximum information

about each sampling unit. The primary ordination technique employed in this study was

nonmetric multi-dimensional scaling (NMS). Visually, this technique results in a 2- or 3-

dimensional plot that attempts to depict all the pairwise similarities among sites. Sites

that are more similar in species composition will appear closer together on an NMS plot

than sites that are very dissimilar (Ludwig and Reynolds 1988).

29

One important statistic related to NMS plots is stress. Stress is a measure of how

well the NMS plot represents the similarities between all pairs of sites. As the number of

sites increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to visually represent all the pairwise

similarities among sites in two or three dimensions. Generally speaking, stress values

below 0.1 indicate an excellent representation of the similarities among sites, while

values between 0.1 and 0.2 are considered good. Interpretation of NMS plots with stress

values greater than 0.2 should be done with caution (Clarke and Warwick 2001).

NMS is a useful technique for visualizing patterns of variation in species

composition. It cannot be used, however, to formally test for differences in species

composition among sites in different treatments. A formal test for differences in species

composition is available through a procedure called analysis of similarities (ANOSIM).

An ANOSIM test is roughly analogous to an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The test

statistic used in ANOSIM is the Global R statistic, which represents the degree of

separation among sites in different treatments. The R statistic can take values ranging

from -1 to 1. A value of 1 indicates that all sites within each treatment are more similar

to each other than to sites in other treatments (treatments are different). R statistic values

approach 0 when treatments are not different; sites within each treatment are no more

similar to each other than to sites in other treatments. A value of -1 (an unlikely

scenario), would indicate that sites within each treatment are more similar to sites in other

treatments than to sites in the same treatment. For the purposes of this study, we were

interested in determining if any differences existed in vertebrate species composition

among reclaimed sites established before or after the 1975 law requiring mined lands to

be reclaimed. Because we expected differences in vertebrate composition among habitat

types (upland, wetland, and mixed sites), we used a crossed design for the ANOSIM test

to account for differences in habitat, as well as sites reclaimed before or after 1975

(Clarke and Gorley 2006).

If groups of sites differed in species composition using ANOSIM, we then

identified which species were typical of each group, as well as which species contributed

the most to the differences between groups. This was done using a ―similarity

percentages‖ (SIMPER) procedure which calculates the contribution each species makes

to the Bray-Curtis similarity within groups of sites, and the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity (the

inverse of Bray-Curtis similarity) between groups of sites (Clarke and Gorley 2006).

General Habitat Relationships

To examine how habitat may be affecting species composition at the sites, we first

summarized habitat data into a number of variables describing the physical structure of

each site, as well as the composition of plant species (Table 4). We calculated Euclidean

distances among all pairs of sites based on several combinations of these variables, and

then calculated the Spearman rank correlation of the Euclidean distance between all pairs

of sites with the Bray-Curtis similarity calculated from species abundances among all

pairs of sites. Combinations of habitat variables that produced high Spearman rank

correlations with the Bray-Curtis similarity matrix were identified as important habitat

30

variables that are driving changes in species composition among sites. Study site

polygon size was not included as a habitat variable because the polygons used in this

study were not necessarily representative of the available area of the same habitat type at

the time of sampling.

Table 4. Upland and Wetland Habitat Variables Used in Analysis.

Upland habitat variables were correlated with species richness, diversity,

evenness, and composition for all data collected from herp trap arrays and Sherman traps.

Wetland variables were correlated with data from aquatic trapping. Frogloggers and

ANABAT recorders were placed in or near wetland areas; therefore, correlations were

analyzed using wetland habitat variables. Because bird point/transect surveys did not

indicate whether species were observed in upland or wetland habitats, we defined each

bird species as primarily an upland or wetland bird and calculated species richness,

diversity, evenness, and composition for each group separately before correlating those

data with habitat variables. This approach was also used for correlating overall vertebrate

species composition from presence/absence data with habitat variables.

Upland Habitats Wetland Habitats

Year reclaimed Year reclaimed

Distance to paved road (km) Distance to paved road (km)

Distance to water (km) Distance to water (km)

Distance to wildlife corridor (km) Distance to wildlife corridor (km)

Distance to natural area (km) Distance to natural area (km)

Percent canopy cover* Percent canopy cover

Percent grass cover* Number of canopy species

Percent herbaceous cover* Percent shrub cover

Percent woody cover* Number of shrub species

Depth of litter (cm)* Percent ground cover

Mean compaction within upper 10 cm of soil (psi)* Number of ground cover species

Mean compaction within upper 25 cm of soil (psi)* Percent exotic/nuisance species cover

Maximum height of vegetation** Percent upland species cover

Vegetation height-density profile** Degree of dumping

Number of woody stems within 1m above soil surface** Degree of ditching

Number of individual plants (N)** Degree of eutrophication

Number of upland plant species (N0)** Degree of hog rooting

Number of abundant plant species (N1)** Degree of grazing

Number of very abundant plant species (N2)** Degree of road cuts

Evenness of plant species abundances (F2,1)** Degree of spoil piles

Total degree of disturbance

Mean degree of disturbance

* - data from quadrats

** - data from transects

31

RESULTS

SPECIES RICHNESS DATA: ALL SAMPLING METHODS

A total of 299 vertebrate species (36 fishes, 20 amphibians, 28 reptiles, 186 birds,

and 29 mammals) was recorded at the 62 sites surveyed (Figure 16). The total included

incidental observations of species not recorded by the standard sampling techniques,

unless otherwise noted. The total also included ―exotic‖ or non-native species; for

example, the Cuban tree frog, the greenhouse frog and a number of bird species. Mixed

sites tended to have the highest number of species, followed by wetland sites and upland

sites, respectively. Species richness ranged from 22 to 127 species per site (Table 5).

Mixed sites also tended to have the highest number of species for most classes

individually, and upland sites the lowest number of species (Tables 6a-c). The intrinsic

value of uplands to wildlife should not be discounted, however, as uplands can have high

value as wildlife habitat. For example, the gopher tortoise has recently been uplisted by

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to the status of a Threatened

species. Reclaimed sites, especially those reclaimed fairly recently with relatively deep

sands, provide adequate habitat to support the gopher tortoise. The federally protected

eastern indigo snake also uses upland habitats and was observed at one wetland and two

upland sites. Reptiles had their highest species richness at wetland sites, followed by

mixed and upland sites, respectively (Tables 5, 6a-c). An overall species-by-site

distribution matrix, with the specific survey method indicated, is presented in Appendix

C.

Figure 16. Cumulative Number of Species of Each Vertebrate Group Recorded on

Phosphate-Mined Sites of Each Habitat Type.

32

Table 5. Maximum, Minimum, and Mean Number of Species Observed per Site.

Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of species observed when fishes were excluded.

The highest overall species richness (127 species) for a given site was observed at

FG-SP(9C) CSA Complex, a mixed habitat site that also had the highest bird species

richness (97 species observed) (Table 6c). The highest amphibian species richness (14

species) also was observed at a mixed habitat site: GT Recipient Site (Ft. Green Xeric)

(Table 6c). The highest mammal species richness (12 species) and highest fish species

richness (18 species) were both observed at wetland sites: FG-HC(9)P-20 and Saddle

Creek Park, respectively (Table 6b). The highest reptile species richness (9 species) was

observed at HP-4, a wetland site (Table 6b), and Morrow Swamp Complex, a mixed

habitat site (Table 6c). ―Up‖ and ―Wet‖ are species designated as upland species and

wetland species, respectively (Appendix C).

Table 6a. Number of Species Observed by Class in Each Upland Site.

Number of Species Observed/Site

Upland (n=24) Wetland (n=18) Mixed (n=20) Total (n=62)

Maximum 86 121 (103) 127 (119) 127 (119)

Minimum 22 30 (29) 56 (54) 22 (22)

Mean 56.8 74.4 (67.6) 91.5 (82.9) 73.1 (68.3)

Site Name


Amphibians Birds Mammals

Fish Reptiles Total

Up Wet Up Wet Up Wet Up Wet

Best of the West Complex 6 51 14 10 0 N/A 4 1 65 21

PC-LPC-1 3 43 25 6 0 N/A 3 0 52 28

FG-1 3 42 25 0 0 N/A 1 1 43 29

FG-PC-5 2 38 28 2 0 N/A 2 0 42 30

Medard East 2 37 25 0 0 N/A 3 2 40 29

Key Blues 5 38 21 1 0 N/A 3 0 42 26

Tim's Gift NP-N3,N4,N5,N6 6 37 13 4 0 N/A 5 0 46 19

CF R-10 Upland Island 7 33 15 3 0 N/A 4 0 40 22

Rocky Top 2 44 10 1 0 N/A 3 1 48 13

Scout 1 35 18 3 0 N/A 4 0 42 19

PC-SP-14 2 29 22 2 0 N/A 2 2 33 26

Polyphemus Paradise 5 27 17 6 0 N/A 4 0 37 22

CF R-10 East Upland 5 25 19 4 0 N/A 4 0 33 24

Noralyn Falls 4 30 19 2 0 N/A 2 0 34 23

Sand Valley/Scrub Mulch 6 25 19 4 0 N/A 3 0 32 25

Euk Em 4 27 10 6 1 N/A 5 0 38 15

Medard West 10 35 4 1 0 N/A 2 1 38 15

WC1 36-acre Xeric Site 2 24 19 6 0 N/A 1 1 31 22

Bonny Lake North 6 28 10 1 0 N/A 1 1 30 17

Wheeling 6 17 14 2 0 N/A 1 0 20 20

Bonny Lake West 5 24 5 3 0 N/A 0 0 27 10

West End 4 21 0 8 1 N/A 3 0 32 5

Osprey Nest 2 24 7 1 0 N/A 1 0 26 9

Sandy Top 2 15 2 2 0 N/A 1 0 18 4

33

Table 6b. The Number of Species Observed by Class in Each Wetland Site.

Site Name



Fish Reptiles Total


Saddle Creek Park 6 56 30 4 0 18 4 3 64 57

Hal Scott 8 39 31 9 0 4 4 3 52 46

FG-GSB(3A)-Big Marsh 5 51 27 4 0 8 1 1 56 41

FG-HC(9)-P-20 7 29 36 12 0 9 1 2 42 54

FG-83(1)-8.4-Acre Wetland 10 53 18 3 0 8 1 1 57 37

HP-4 7 37 30 4 0 5 4 5 45 47

Bird Branch Headwaters 9 35 21 6 0 12 1 1 42 43

Trio Marsh Center 7 35 24 9 0 3 5 2 49 36

Hickey Branch 9 35 16 7 1 10 3 2 45 38

FCL MU-7(A)-Alderman Creek-A 9 34 27 5 0 3 3 0 42 39

Leek's Marsh 7 25 14 8 0 8 2 2 35 31

1-FB 6 19 23 6 0 7 0 2 25 38

BB Scrub/Pine Ridge 5 28 9 3 0 9 4 4 35 27

File #33-Central 7 22 21 3 0 2 2 0 27 30

File #33-NW 7 25 12 1 0 4 2 2 28 25

Trio Marsh East 5 11 10 4 1 5 1 3 16 24

FCL MU-7(T)-Alderman Creek-T 4 6 14 2 0 7 1 2 9 27

Trio Marsh West 6 14 9 0 1 0 0 0 14 16

Table 6c. The Number of Species Observed by Class in Each Mixed Site.

Site Name



Fish Reptiles Total


FG-SP(9C) CSA Complex 10 59 38 9 0 8 2 1 70 57

GT Recipient Sites (FG Xeric) 14 49 42 8 0 6 4 3 61 65

Fort Green Hardee Lakes 8 42 28 10 0 15 1 5 53 56

Morrow Swamp Complex 6 36 29 10 1 16 5 4 51 56

Cargill SP-11 9 44 24 9 1 11 4 1 57 46

WC4-Whidden Branch 9 37 33 4 0 16 1 2 42 60

Bald Mountain/KC-LB-2 12 43 19 8 1 11 3 4 54 47

HP-3 Phase 7 Mined in 1914 7 49 19 8 1 8 3 1 60 36

PC-SP(1C)-AG East 11 50 21 5 0 5 3 1 58 38

Panther Point 8 57 26 2 0 0 1 0 60 34

CF DB-6 9 33 29 7 1 9 3 1 43 49

Horse Creek Xeric Project 5 29 45 6 0 6 0 0 35 56

LP-2 10 28 33 4 0 14 1 1 33 58

Cargill Wildlife Corridor 9 32 21 8 0 10 3 3 43 43

Picnic Lake 7 36 21 5 0 17 1 0 42 45

CF DB-2 8 26 16 10 1 4 2 0 38 29

L-SP(12A)-Dog Leg 8 44 6 5 1 0 3 0 52 15

BB Scrub/Great Horned Owl 8 31 12 3 0 7 2 3 36 30

CF DB-3 9 25 16 8 0 6 1 0 34 31

BF-ASP(2A) - Lake Branch X-ing 5 24 16 8 0 2 1 0 33 23

34

Birds were the most species-rich class of vertebrates (186 species) and also tended

to be the most widely distributed. Twenty-one bird species were observed at 50 or more

sites. The most commonly observed species were the turkey vulture (60 sites), the

northern mockingbird and palm warbler (59 sites), the common yellowthroat (58 sites),

the yellow-rumped warbler, Carolina wren, and mourning dove (57 sites), and the great

egret, blue jay, and northern cardinal (56 sites).

Fishes were the second most species-rich class, with 36 species recorded from 37

sampled sites. The eastern mosquito fish and the least killifish were observed at 35 and

30 sites, respectively.

Of the 29 mammal species observed, the least shrew and the cotton rat were the

most widely distributed (39 sites). White-tailed deer (27 sites), feral pigs (23 sites), and

raccoons (21 sites) were the most commonly observed large mammals. The Mexican

freetail bat was observed at 16 of 23 sites sampled for bats. Seven species of bats were

recorded on 23 sites. ANABAT surveys were only conducted on mixed and wetland

sites, and all species were recorded from at least one wetland and one mixed site. Species

richness ranged from zero to six species at each site. No bats were recorded on three of

the 23 sites surveyed.

Of the 28 reptile species observed, the southern black racer was the most widely

distributed snake (30 sites) and the six-lined racerunner was the most widely-distributed

lizard (25 sites). The gopher tortoise was observed at 20 sites, more than any other turtle

species.

Twenty species of amphibians were observed, with the eastern narrowmouth toad

being the most widely distributed (61 sites)–in fact, it was observed at more sites than

any other vertebrate species–and the squirrel treefrog was the second most widely

distributed (57 sites). Fifteen species of amphibians (all frogs) were recorded from the 27

sites at which frogloggers were deployed. More species (15) were recorded from the 16

mixed sites than from the 10 wetland sites (13). The number of species recorded per site

ranged from 1 to 13. Frogloggers detected two species (barking treefrog and little grass

frog) that were not detected by any other sampling method, and four species that were not

detected using drift fence/pitfall trap arrays (including PVC poles that are used as refuge

sites by tree frogs). One frog species (the eastern spadefoot toad), was not detected using

frogloggers, but was detected with drift fence/pitfall traps.

Species richness was positively associated with proximity to the nearest body of

water, wildlife corridor, and natural area (Table 6); this relationship is primarily driven

by three vertebrate classes (amphibians, birds, and fish) at wetland or combined sites

(Tables 7 and 8). Species richness of both fishes and amphibians also was positively

associated with proximity to the nearest body of water, wildlife corridor, and natural area.

Species richness of birds was positively correlated with proximity to the nearest wildlife

corridor (Table 6).

35

Table 7. Significant Spearman Rank Correlations (p < 0.10) of Total, Amphibian,

Bird, Mammal, Fish, and Reptile Species Richness by Taxonomic Class

with General Habitat Variables.

Habitat

Variables

Total Amphibians Birds Mammals Fishes Reptiles

rS p rS p rS p rS p rS p rS p

Years since

reclamation ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Distance to

paved road

(km)

ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Distance to

water (km) -0.28 0.03 -0.25 0.06 ns ns ns ns -0.36 0.01 ns ns

Distance to

wildlife

corridor (km)

-0.25 0.06 -0.26 0.04 -0.24 0.07 ns ns -0.25 0.06 ns ns

Distance to

natural area

(km)

-0.22 0.09 -0.24 0.07 ns ns ns ns -0.24 0.07 ns ns

Total upland species richness was negatively correlated with the depth of litter

(Table 8a). Upland bird species richness was positively correlated with the number of

years since reclamation (Table 8a). Upland mammal species richness exhibited a strong

trend of decreasing with increasing number of years since reclamation (Table 8b).

Upland reptile species richness was positively correlated with the number of years since

reclamation and maximum height of vegetation at each site, and negatively associated

with percent grass cover and soil compaction (Table 8b). Reclaimed sites established

prior to 1975 tended to exhibit higher plant species richness (rS = -0.513, p < 0.001),

higher plant diversity (N1: rS = -0.305, p = 0.025), taller vegetation (rS = -0.348, p =

0.010), greater canopy cover (rS = -0.312, p = 0.021), and less herbaceous plant cover (rS

= 0.308, p = 0.024). Plant diversity and evenness were negatively correlated with soil

compaction (N2: rS= -0.273, p = 0.040; F2,1: rS = -0.388, p = 0.004).

We correlated frog species richness with upland habitat variables because many

frogs have a biphasic life history in which they depend upon both upland as well as

aquatic conditions. The three salamander species observed in this study, on the other

hand, are wetland-obligate species and were only included in analysis with wetland

habitat variables. Frog species richness was positively correlated with proximity to the

nearest wildlife corridor (Table 8a).

36

Table 8a. Significant Spearman Rank Correlations (p < 0.10) of Total Upland

Species Richness and Upland Amphibian and Bird Species Richness with

General and Upland Habitat Variables.

Habitat Variables

Total Frogs Birds

rS p rS P rS p

Gen

eral

Years since reclamation ns ns ns ns 0.23 0.09

Distance to paved road (km) ns ns ns ns ns ns

Distance to water (km) ns ns ns ns ns ns

Distance to wildlife corridor (km) ns ns -0.24 0.07 ns ns

Distance to natural area (km) ns ns ns ns ns ns

Up

lan

d

Percent canopy cover ns ns ns ns ns ns

Percent grass cover ns ns ns ns ns ns

Percent herbaceous cover ns ns ns ns ns ns

Percent woody cover ns ns ns ns ns ns

Depth of litter (cm) -0.23 0.08 ns ns ns ns

Mean compaction within upper 10 cm of soil

(psi) ns ns ns ns ns ns

Mean compaction within upper 25 cm of soil

(psi) ns ns ns ns ns ns

Maximum height of vegetation ns ns ns ns ns ns

Vegetation height-density profile ns ns ns ns ns ns

Number of woody stems within 1m above soil

surface ns ns ns ns ns ns

Number of individual plants (N) ns ns ns ns ns ns

Number of upland plant species (N0) ns ns ns ns ns ns

Number of abundant plant species (N1) ns ns ns ns ns ns

Number of very abundant plant species (N2) ns ns ns ns ns ns

Evenness of plant species abundances (F2,1) ns ns ns ns ns ns

Percent cogon grass cover ns ns ns ns ns ns

Percent exotic/nuisance plant species cover ns ns ns ns ns ns

37

Table 8b. Significant Spearman Rank Correlations (p < 0.10) of Mammal and

Reptile Species Richness with General and Upland Habitat Variables.

Habitat Variables

Mammals Reptiles

rS P rS p

Gen

eral

Years since reclamation -0.22 0.10 0.23 0.09

Distance to paved road (km) ns ns ns ns

Distance to water (km) ns ns ns ns

Distance to wildlife corridor (km) ns ns ns ns

Distance to natural area (km) ns ns ns ns

Up

lan

d

Percent canopy cover ns ns ns ns

Percent grass cover ns ns -0.23 0.08

Percent herbaceous cover ns ns ns ns

Percent woody cover ns ns ns ns

Depth of litter (cm) ns ns ns ns

Mean compaction within upper 10 cm of soil (psi) ns ns -0.28 0.03

Mean compaction within upper 25 cm of soil (psi) ns ns -0.27 0.04

Maximum height of vegetation ns ns 0.27 0.04

Vegetation height-density profile ns ns ns ns

Number of woody stems within 1m above soil surface ns ns ns ns

Number of individual plants (N) ns ns ns ns

Number of upland plant species (N0) ns ns ns ns

Number of abundant plant species (N1) ns ns ns ns

Number of very abundant plant species (N2) ns ns ns ns

Evenness of plant species abundances (F2,1) ns ns ns ns

Percent cogon grass cover ns ns ns ns

Percent exotic/nuisance plant species cover ns ns ns ns

Total wetland species richness was positively correlated with the percent cover of

exotic/nuisance species, the degree of road cuts in the wetland, the degree of spoil piles in

the wetland, ground cover and the number of ground cover plant species (Table 9a).

Amphibian species richness was positively associated with percent canopy and shrub

cover in wetlands, and the degree of wetland disturbance, and was negatively associated

with the distance to the natural landscape features (Table 9a). The strongest observed

association was between amphibian species richness and percent wetland shrub cover (rs

= 0.46), and it only explained 21 percent of the variability in species richness. Wetland

bird species richness was positively correlated with the number of wetland ground cover

species, the degree of ditching in the wetland, the degree of road cuts in the wetland, and

the overall degree of disturbance to the wetland (Table 9a). The strongest observed

association was between wetland bird species richness and degree of wetland disturbance

(rs = 0.46), but it only explained 21 percent of the variability in species richness.

Wetland mammal species richness was positively associated with the percent

cover of canopy in wetlands (Table 9b). Fish species richness was positively associated

with percent upland species cover in the wetland, and the degree of road cuts in the

wetland; and negatively associated with percent wetland ground cover, number of ground

cover species, and degree of grazing (Table 9b). Wetland reptile species richness was

negatively associated with the number of ground cover species and the percent cover of

upland plant species (Table 9b).

38

Table 9a. Significant Spearman Rank Correlations (p < 0.10) of Total Wetland

Species Richness and Amphibian and Wetland Bird Species Richness by

Taxonomic Class with General and Wetland Habitat Variables.

Habitat Variables Total Amphibians Birds

rS P rS p rS p

Gen

eral

Years since reclamation ns ns ns ns -0.288 0.030


Distance to water (km) -0.345 0.008 -0.252 0.054 -0.253 0.053

Distance to wildlife corridor (km) -0.298 0.022 -0.264 0.044 ns ns

Distance to natural area (km) -0.318 0.014 -0.239 0.068 -0.252 0.054

Wet

lan

d

Percent canopy cover ns ns 0.301 0.094 ns ns

Number of canopy species ns ns ns ns ns ns

Percent shrub cover ns ns 0.461 0.008 ns ns

Number of shrub species ns ns ns ns ns ns

Percent ground cover -0.507 0.003 ns ns ns ns

Number of ground cover species -0.338 0.058 ns ns 0.335 0.061

Percent exotic/nuisance species cover 0.374 0.035 ns ns ns ns

Percent upland species cover ns ns ns ns ns ns

Degree of dumping ns ns ns ns ns ns

Degree of ditching ns ns ns ns 0.414 0.019

Degree of eutrophication ns ns ns ns ns ns

Degree of hog rooting ns ns ns ns ns ns

Degree of grazing ns ns 0.374 0.035 ns ns

Degree of road cuts 0.410 0.020 ns ns 0.299 0.097

Degree of spoil piles 0.313 0.081 0.307 0.087 ns ns

Total degree of disturbance 0.472 0.006 0.395 0.025 0.456 0.009

39

Table 9b. Significant Spearman Rank Correlations (p < 0.10) of Wetland Mammal,

Fish, and Wetland Reptile Species Richness by Taxonomic Class with

General and Wetland Habitat Variables.

Habitat Variables

Mammals Fishes Reptiles

rS p rS p rS p

Gen

eral

Years since reclamation ns ns ns ns ns ns


Distance to water (km) ns ns -0.355 0.006 ns ns

Distance to wildlife corridor (km) ns ns -0.246 0.060 ns ns

Distance to natural area (km) ns ns -0.243 0.064 ns ns

Wet

lan

d

Percent canopy cover 0.354 0.047 ns ns ns ns

Number of canopy species ns ns ns ns ns ns

Percent shrub cover ns ns ns ns ns ns

Number of shrub species ns ns ns ns ns ns

Percent ground cover ns ns -0.607 0.000 ns ns

Number of ground cover species ns ns -0.466 0.007 -0.299 0.096

Percent exotic/nuisance species cover ns ns ns ns ns ns

Percent upland species cover ns ns 0.331 0.065 -0.404 0.022

Degree of dumping ns ns ns ns ns ns

Degree of ditching ns ns ns ns ns ns

Degree of eutrophication ns ns ns ns ns ns

Degree of hog rooting ns ns ns ns ns ns

Degree of grazing ns ns -0.303 0.092 ns ns

Degree of road cuts ns ns 0.443 0.011 ns ns

Degree of spoil piles ns ns ns ns ns ns

Total degree of disturbance ns ns ns ns ns ns

Species composition differed among sites depending on whether the site was

reclaimed before or after 1975 (ANOSIM Global R = 0.4, p = 0.011; Figure 17) and

habitat type (ANOSIM Global R = 0.267, p = 0.001; Figure 18). This pattern remained

when each vertebrate class was analyzed separately. The pattern of species composition

for each habitat type was compared to individual habitat variables. The differences in

upland vertebrate species composition were significantly correlated with a combination

of the time of establishment, the number of plant species present, the percent canopy

cover, and the distance to the nearest wildlife corridor (rS = 0.348, p = 0.02). The pattern

of differences in wetland vertebrate species composition was not correlated with any

wetland habitat variables.

40

Year ReclaimedPost-1975

Pre-1975

2D Stress: 0.19

Figure 17. NMS Plot Showing Relative Difference in Vertebrate Species

Composition Among Sites, Reflecting Differences Among Sites

Reclaimed Before or After 1975.1

HabitatWetland

Mixed

Upland

2D Stress: 0.19

Figure 18. NMS Plot Showing Relative Difference in Vertebrate Species

Composition Among Sites, Reflecting Differences in Habitat Type.1

1 Note that the level of stress (0.19) in Figures 17 and 18 suggests that the two-dimensional configuration

may not completely represent the pattern of similarity between all pairs of sites.

41

RELATIVE ABUNDANCE DATA: BY SAMPLING METHOD

Drift Fence/Pitfall Trap Arrays

Drift fence/pitfall trap arrays captured a total of 3,055 individuals of 43 species

(12 amphibian, 22 reptile, and 9 mammal species) at 62 sites (Table 10). Drift

fence/pitfall trap arrays at wetland sites captured the highest number of species, followed

by mixed and upland sites, respectively (Figure 16). Most individuals captured (82%)

were amphibians.

Table 10. Number of Amphibian, Reptile and Mammal Individuals and Species

Observed by Drift Fence/Pitfall Trap Arrays in Each Habitat.

Number of Species Observed Number of Individuals Observed

Upland

(n=24)

Wetland

(n=18)

Mixed

(n=20)

Total

(n=62)

Upland

(n=24)

Wetland

(n=18)

Mixed

(n=20)

Total

(n=62)

Amphibians 12 10 12 12 787 934 777 2498

Mammals 5 6 6 9 64 62 83 209

Reptiles 12 17 12 22 161 72 115 348

Total 29 33 30 43 1012 1068 975 3055

The number of individuals captured in drift fence/pitfall trap arrays was

negatively correlated with litter depth (rS = -0.411, p = 0.001). Diversity of species (N2)

captured in drift fence/pitfall trap arrays was positively correlated with the percent cover

of grasses (rS = 0.257, p = 0.049); and negatively correlated with percent canopy cover

(rS = -0.341, p = 0.008), soil compaction in the first 10cm of soil (rS = -0.302, p = 0.020),

and distance to the nearest natural area (rS = -0.301, p = 0.021).

Species that were relatively more common on sites reclaimed prior to 1975

included the southern toad, Cuban tree frog, ground skink, southeastern five-lined skink,

and the banded water snake. One common species, the six-lined racerunner, was

recorded only from sites reclaimed after 1975. No combination of environmental

variables was significantly correlated with community composition of vertebrates

captured by drift fence/pitfall trap arrays. The ANOSIM procedure was inconclusive in

detecting differences in community composition of vertebrate species sampled with drift

fence/pitfall trap arrays among sites reclaimed before and after 1975 and among habitats.

Sherman Live Traps

Sherman live traps for small mammals captured 195 individuals of seven species

at the 53 sites that were sampled (Table 11). One reptile individual was incidentally

captured at one of the upland sites. Twelve of the 53 sampled sites did not record the

presence of any species (8 upland, 2 wetland, and 2 mixed sites). Traps at upland sites

captured the most species and individuals, followed by mixed and wetland sites,

respectively (Table 11). Small mammal species richness, diversity, and evenness were

42

positively correlated with plant species richness (S: rS = 0.325, p = 0.038; N2: rS = 0.417,

p = 0.007; F2,1: rS = 0.657, p = 0.004). No differences in small mammal species

composition could be detected among sites reclaimed before and after 1975 or among

habitats.

Table 112. Number of Mammal Species and Individuals Captured by Sherman Live

Traps in Each Habitat.


Upland

(n=20)

Wetland

(n=14)

Mixed

(n=19)

Total

(n=53)

Upland

(n=20)

Wetland

(n=14)

Mixed

(n=19)

Total

(n=53)

Mammals 5 3 5 7 84 50 61 195

Point and Transect Surveys

Point and transect surveys recorded 14,315 individuals of 150 bird species on 62

sites (Table 12). Mixed habitats had the most species and individuals, followed by

wetland and upland sites, respectively (Table 11).

Table 12. Number of Individuals and Species of Birds Observed in Each Habitat

from Point and Transect Surveys.


Upland

(n=24)

Wetland

(n=18)

Mixed

(n=20)

Total

(n=62) Upland

(n=24)

Wetland

(n=18)

Mixed

(n=20)

Total

(n=62)

Birds 95 111 132 150 150 4,149 7,057 14,315

Diversity of upland bird species was negatively correlated with number of years

since reclamation (N2: rS = -0.347, p = 0.007), and positively correlated with the percent

cover of woody vegetation (N∞: rS = 0.265, p = 0.042). Soil compaction in the first ten

cm of soil was negatively correlated with upland bird evenness (F2,1: rS = -0.315, p =

0.015), and positively correlated with the number of upland birds (rS = 0.280, p = 0.032).

No difference in bird species composition could be detected between sites

established before or after 1975 (ANOSIM Global R = 0.102, p = 0.195), but species

composition changed among habitat types (ANOSIM Global R = 0.115, p = 0.003, Figure

19). Pairwise tests revealed that upland sites were different from both mixed and wetland

sites (mixed: R = 0.165, p = 0.002; wetland: R = 0.116, p = 0.029), but wetland and

mixed sites could not be distinguished (R = 0.049, p = 0.139). The pattern of similarity

in wetland bird species composition among sites was correlated with a combination of

percent ground cover, percent upland species cover, the distance to the nearest paved

road, and the distance to water (rS = 0.438, p = 0.05).

43

HabitatWetland

Mixed

Upland

2D Stress: 0.2

Figure 19. NMS Plot Showing Relative Difference in Bird Species Composition

Among Sites, Calculated from Relative Abundances of Bird Species from

Point/Transect Surveys.2

Aquatic Sampling: Electrofishing, Seining, Cast Netting, and Baited Funnel Traps

Aquatic sampling captured 11,351 individuals of 45 species (5 amphibian, 36 fish,

and 4 reptile species) at the 37 sites sampled (Table 13). Number of aquatic species

captured was positively correlated with number of canopy species (rS = 0.365, p = 0.037)

and distance to the nearest road (rS = 0.392, p = 0.024); and negatively correlated with

number of years since reclamation (rS = -0.362, p = 0.030), total ground cover (rS = -

0.574, p < 0.001) and number of ground cover (i.e., emergent) plant species (rS = -0.440,

p = 0.010). Aquatic species diversity was negatively correlated with number of years

since reclamation (N1: rS = -0.385, p = 0.020), number of ground cover plant species (N1:

rS = -0.376, p = 0.031), and degree of dumping (N∞: rS = -0.343, p = 0.051); and was

positively correlated with number of shrub species (N2: rS = 0.390, p = 0.025).

2Note that the level of stress (0.20) in Figure 19 suggests that the two-dimensional configuration may not

completely represent the pattern of similarity between all pairs of sites.

44

Table 13. Number of Vertebrate Species and Individuals Observed by Aquatic

Sampling in Each Habitat.


Wetland

(n=18)

Mixed

(n=19)

Total

(n=37)

Wetland

(n=18)

Mixed

(n=19)

Total

(n=37)

Amphibians 3 4 5 7 11 18

Fishes 25 34 36 4821 6495 11316

Reptiles 3 3 4 7 10 17

Total 31 41 45 4835 6516 11351

Aquatic species composition was different among sites established before and

after 1975 (ANOSIM Global R = 0.307, p = 0.021; Figure 20) and among habitat types

(ANOSIM Global R = 0.064, p = 0.074). This pattern was primarily determined by fish

species composition. Wetland sites (including wetland portions of mixed habitat sites)

established before 1975 existed as fairly large bodies of permanent, open water; while

sites established after 1975 often included wetlands reclaimed as marshes with shallower

water dominated by emergent vegetation. Larger species of fish (e.g., most species of

sunfish, blue tilapia, largemouth bass, and American gizzard shad) were more abundant

on sites established before 1975. The flagfish, a common marsh species precinctive to

Florida, was captured only at sites established after 1975.

Year ReclaimedPost-1975

Pre-1975

2D Stress: 0.13

Figure 20. NMS Plot Showing Relative Difference in Vertebrate Species Composition

Among Sites, Calculated from Relative Abundances of Amphibian, Fish,

and Reptile Species from Aquatic Sampling Techniques.

45

GENERAL HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS

Older reclaimed sites tended to exhibit higher plant species richness (rS = -0.513,

p < 0.001), higher plant diversity (N1: rS = -0.305, p = 0.025), taller vegetation (rS = -

0.348, p = 0.010), greater canopy cover (rS = -0.312, p = 0.021), and less herbaceous plant

cover (rS = 0.308, p = 0.024). Plant diversity and evenness were negatively correlated

with soil compaction (N2: rS= -0.273, p = 0.040; F2,1: rS = -0.388, p = 0.004).

47

RESULTS INTERPRETATION

We begin the interpretation of findings with a word of caution; we searched the

data for correlations and patterns that may provide insights into how wildlife and

associated plant communities have responded to habitat reclamation efforts on mined

lands in central Florida during the past several decades. An appreciation of ecological

variability suggests that even though some measured variables in this analysis are

correlated with one another to the point of being statistically significant, they may not be

true or accurate correlations and may not indicate a strong ecological connection.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and lack of correlation within a given

dataset does not rule out the presence of an underlying relationship.

A general trend was evident when the physical and botanical data were analyzed.

Numbers of plant species increased with time since reclamation. Older reclaimed sites

tended to support a more diverse flora, with taller vegetation and greater canopy cover

than sites reclaimed later. As canopy cover increases, it provides shade that causes a

decrease in the abundance of the herbaceous ground cover; therefore, ground cover

decreased with time since reclamation. Regardless of when reclamation occurred, plant

diversity was lowest at sites with high soil compaction.

Study sites located in areas that provided a mixture of uplands and wetlands

supported higher species richness than wetlands or uplands alone, reflecting an increase

in habitat heterogeneity. Three characteristics of the mixed study sites: proximity to the

nearest body of water, proximity to a wildlife corridor, and proximity to natural

(unmined) habitat were positively associated with the total number of species detected at

a site. The greater the distance to water, wildlife corridor or a patch of natural habitat, the

fewer species detected. On a finer scale, numbers of species of fishes and amphibians

exhibited the same three relationships as did total species. The number of bird species

was less at sites that were distant from a wildlife corridor, relative to sites nearer a

wildlife corridor. These findings suggest that habitat heterogeneity and close proximity

to natural habitats benefit wildlife. Geographic isolation of reclaimed habitat hinders

colonization and wildlife usage of those sites.

Analysis of the responses of wildlife to time since reclamation produced mixed

results. For uplands, the number of vertebrate species present at reclaimed sites was not

related to time since reclamation. The number of mammal species was higher on recently

reclaimed sites. The difference of mammalian species between recently reclaimed and

aged sites might reflect a general decrease in ground cover as reclaimed areas mature and

support an increased canopy cover. Many small rodents are seed eaters, and as the

grasses and herbaceous plants decline, so does their food source. Birds exhibited an

opposite trend; as reclaimed lands develop a tree canopy, the number of bird species

increases. Previous research (Mushinsky and McCoy 1996, 2001) on reclaimed lands

found that birds respond positively to mid-canopy structure. As reclaimed sites mature,

their structural complexity increases and more bird species use the reclaimed lands. The

number of reptile species also increased with time since reclamation, likely reflecting the

48

increase of vegetation height that also increased with time since reclamation. Numbers of

reptile species were relatively low at sites with high grass cover or high soil compaction.

Many reptiles prefer relatively open habitats at ground level and require a soft substrate

for burrowing. Amphibian (frogs and salamanders) species richness was not related to

any of the upland characteristics measured; however, if we focus on frogs alone, it was

higher nearer wildlife corridors.

Because of the difference in habitat requirements among vertebrate classes, no

single reclamation approach, vegetation plan, or management scheme will be favorable to

all groups of upland species. The greatest contrast exists between birds and mammals;

birds do well as the reclaimed uplands mature and become forested while mammals seem

to do best in the more open and grassy settings.

For wetlands, the overall number of vertebrate species present at reclaimed sites

also was not related to time since reclamation. However, birds exhibited an opposite

relationship with time since reclamation in wetlands compared with the pattern in

uplands. Recently reclaimed sites had more bird species than older reclaimed areas. This

may reflect the effect of changes in the type of wetlands created as regulations and

reclamation techniques have evolved. Reclaimed shallow marshes generally support a

wider variety of bird species and have become more prevalent in recent years.

When all wetland species were pooled, we found the highest species richness at

sites that supported high percentages of exotic/nuisance species and at sites with a high

degree of disturbance. In many cases, plant species that are considered to be exotic or a

nuisance (e.g., Typha sp.) can provide important structural complexity or other ecological

benefits that would attract wetland wildlife species. Although disturbance is not a

recommended habitat management technique, the presence of road cuts, spoil piles, and

atypical features can result in habitat heterogeneity, and ecological ―edge effects‖ which

may attract a different suite of species than undisturbed areas of wetlands.

Relationships between wetland species and other habitat structure variables

measured were all relatively weak, if evident at all. In contrast to upland mammals that

decreased in abundance as tree canopy increased, mammals that primarily occupy

wetlands were most abundant at sites with a high percentage of tree cover. In wetlands,

amphibians (mostly frogs) were most abundant at sites with shrub cover, possibly

reflecting their use of trees and shrubs as calling sites for breeding. Predominantly

wetland reptile species (mostly snakes) were most common at sites that provided ground

cover, suggesting they are most abundant where they can maintain their cryptic habits.

The trapping method that produced the highest number of species was the

combination of drift fences and pitfall traps. This method was particularly effective at

wetland sites where large numbers of amphibians were captured. Amphibians tend to

move most on warm rainy nights in search of food or to and from the wetlands as they

seek mates for reproduction. Sites with a high grass cover produced the highest number

of captures in pitfall traps. Sites that had canopy cover, compact soils or were far

removed from natural areas supported the fewest numbers of species captured by this

49

method. The combination of drift fences and pitfall traps proved to be the most effective

trapping method for terrestrial (non-avian) vertebrates.

Earlier studies of vertebrate utilization of reclaimed phosphate mines identified a

number of ―focal species‖ regularly found on unmined areas, but not well represented on

either xeric (Mushinsky and McCoy 1996) or mesic (Mushinsky and McCoy 2001)

reclaimed uplands. These previous studies identified a total of 31 focal species (5

amphibians, 8 reptiles, 1 mammal, and 17 birds). For comparative purposes with our

data, we used this list of focal species to examine species-specific responses to

environmental variables among the sites. Because of differences in sampling design and

effort, however, interpretation of these species‘ abundances in the current study must be

made with caution.

Of the 31 focal species identified by Mushinsky and McCoy (1996, 2001), we

observed 28 of these species on reclaimed lands in the current study (5 amphibians, 5

reptiles, 1 mammal, and 17 birds). Hyla squirella was the most widespread focal species

in this study and was found at over 90 percent of the study areas. Additional sampling

methods, however, were used in this study (PVC pipes) that were not used in the earlier

study that identified H. squirella as a focal species. Four reptile and amphibian focal

species, including Gopherus polyphemus and Scincella lateralis, were found at one-third

to one-half of the sites; other focal reptiles, amphibians, and mammals were found at

fewer. Three focal species were not observed at any study sites: Cemophora coccinea,

Sceloporus undulatus, and Tantilla relicta. Eight of the 17 observed focal bird species

were widely distributed; four species had moderate observed distributions, and five others

were observed at relatively few sites. Bird sampling in this study was more intense than

in previous studies, which may have led to an increased number and diversity of bird

species found on reclaimed sites. Focal bird, amphibian, and reptile species were more

likely to be found on older reclaimed sites with mature canopy and a higher maximum

height of vegetation. Mammal, amphibian, and reptile focal species also favored sites

with low soil compaction.

51

RECOMMENDATIONS

A number of earlier investigations and publications have yielded

recommendations for improving the ecological quality of reclaimed phosphate mining

lands. Edelson and Collopy (1990) and Kale (1992) each discussed the value of mined

lands for avifauna and suggested steps for enhancing bird use of such lands. Kiefer and

Crisman (1997) addressed design criteria to improve water quality and habitat value for

reclaimed aquatic systems, and Crisman and others (1997) focused on the benthic

invertebrate community in their recommendations. Members of our research team

provided recommendations for enhancing wildlife utilization of reclaimed upland habitats

following two separate investigations (Mushinsky and McCoy 1996, 2001). Numerous

additional studies–most of them sponsored by the Florida Institute of Phosphate

Research–provide an abundance of guidance toward improving native vegetation

communities in the reclaimed landscape, which obviously goes toward improved wildlife

habitat value.

Many of these earlier recommendations have been incorporated to some degree

into recent reclamation efforts, while others are under consideration for such

incorporation, where feasible. We point to them here to underscore both their lasting

value and the continuing evolution of reclamation technology. To a large extent, our

recommendations below simply build upon those of our predecessors, hopefully with

added insight based upon our findings and analyses.

Our recommendations are approached from three levels: Landscape, Site-

Specific, and Management and Monitoring. There is obviously substantial overlap

between these categories, and optimal reclamation planning should incorporate

consideration of all three simultaneously. Our analyses and recommendations are formed

around groups of taxa rather than individual species. This is because reclamation or land

management for the benefit of a single species or small number of taxa is generally not in

the best interest of overall native biodiversity.

LANDSCAPE LEVEL

Maintain connectivity between natural areas and wildlife corridors

Provide habitat heterogeneity

Establish habitat targets with measurable goals

In their previous studies, Mushinsky and McCoy (1996, 2001) recommended that

upland and wetland reclamation should be done in concert, not in isolation from one

another. In addition, reclaimed lands should be used to increase the size of existing

preserves and to connect currently isolated patches of habitat. This study supports these

recommendations based on the increased abundance and diversity of vertebrates on sites

that have high habitat heterogeneity and are near natural areas and/or wildlife corridors.

52

When planning reclamation on a landscape level, habitat heterogeneity is essential

to meet the needs of all species groups. Many groups of species have specific habitat

needs that might not be compatible with those of other species groups. For example, the

ability of many amphibian species to reproduce in wetlands is determined by whether or

not certain fish are present. While species such as least killifish and mosquitofish are

generally not obstacles to successful frog reproduction, many other native fishes can

easily decimate egg and tadpole stocks in a wetland. Therefore, on a landscape level, it is

necessary to evaluate the need for wetlands that should accommodate fish and wetlands

that generally exclude fish. Given ample area and an appropriate mosaic of other

habitats, both types of wetlands could be provided to maximize the overall biodiversity of

a habitat reclamation unit.

Landscape-level reclamation planning should include not only a variety of

habitats, but also a variety of habitat targets. Although the overall goal of reclamation

should be to attract and maintain as many wildlife species as possible, individual upland

and wetland habitat types should not be expected to contain each wildlife species. For

each of the reclaimed habitat types, vegetation and wildlife goals should be clearly

defined and based on pre-mining information such as land use categories, ecological

communities, or wildlife survey results.

SITE-SPECIFIC

Use appropriate soils for target habitat

Design and monitor for suitable hydrology and topography

Plant and maintain diverse vegetation

The type of soil used in reclamation plays a role in attracting and sustaining

wildlife on previously mined sites in two ways. First, plant species diversity and

individual survival depend on the presence of appropriate soil, which has a direct bearing

on the abundance and distribution of vertebrates within a given area. In addition, soil

compaction was directly related (inversely) to the presence and abundance of certain

animal groups in this study. Based on these two factors, and knowledge of the relative

compaction and clay content of overburden and sand tailings soils, we recommend the

following:

Topsoil should be transferred directly from a site being cleared to a site being

reclaimed whenever possible.

Topsoil should be stockpiled for later use when a direct transfer is not

feasible.

A ―cap‖ of sand tailings over overburden is an acceptable alternative if topsoil

is not available.

A cap of overburden over sand tailings is not preferable in any situation.

In addition to these general guidelines, we recommend monitoring soil material

placement for effects on soil compaction prior to planting in areas that are specifically

53

designed as wildlife habitat. Monitoring should include general oversight of material

placement to determine proper depth and configuration of soil strata, plus soil

compaction measurements at various depths, depending on the target community type

and proposed species composition. For example, a target community of longleaf pine

may require sandy (non-compacted), well-drained soil to a greater depth than a

community proposed for oaks, given the deeper root system of pines.

Stratification of the soil profile is also important in determining the hydrology of

the site, which can in turn determine the success of target habitats and the abundance of

target wildlife species. The depth to overburden beneath sand tailings on reclaimed land

can affect soil moisture relations. The greater clay content of overburden results in

greater water-holding-capacity and can even create a perched water table. Habitats that

are targeted to be hydric or mesic may need the overburden layer to be within a very few

feet of the surface, while xeric targets should have a deep layer of sand tailings above the

overburden layer.

In this study, vegetation structure, in terms of plant species, ages, and strata, was

an important determinant of wildlife utilization of reclaimed habitats. Some species

groups favored sites with an abundance of mid- and high-level canopy, while others

preferred sites with mostly understory vegetation. In addition, some elements of the

vegetation structure that benefit vertebrate wildlife early in succession may be

detrimental later in the successional process. Therefore reclamation blocks that include a

variety of successional stages may support a larger suite of vertebrate species than one

successional stage alone.

MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING

Develop adaptive management plan

Implement management plan

Monitor to determine necessary management activities

Reclamation planners should develop an adaptive management plan that allows

for a variety of techniques depending on several factors, including target habitat type and

goals, success of initial reclamation, and features of the surrounding landscape. An

effective management plan will incorporate the following:

Elements of historical reclamation successes

Recent advances in reclamation/restoration science as found in scientific

literature

Decision tree to outline potential management choices

Clearly defined and measurable goals

In addition to the essential elements listed above, we recommend requesting input from

peers, qualified consultants, and/or agency personnel regarding proposed management

plans of particular size or importance.

54

Management techniques will vary depending on the target habitats. Some

common management activities that may be included in an adaptive management plan are

controlled burns, selective thinning, supplemental planting, and physical and chemical

control of exotic or nuisance species. Mushinsky and McCoy recommended in previous

studies (1996, 2001) that, for example, densely planted pine trees should be selectively

thinned, or overgrown areas could be both selectively harvested and burned to attract and

retain wildlife. In addition to these commonly used management activities, some other

less common methods could benefit wildlife habitat utilization.

For instance, the industry has participated in pilot projects in which species found

to be underrepresented at specific reclamation wetlands were translocated from areas

during pre-clearing surveys. An initial stocking of less abundant species can be valuable

as a means of jump-starting their colonization. Such stocking could be performed

directly after initial reclamation planting or as the area matures, depending on the species

being translocated or the target habitat.

The monitoring program should be designed to assist in evaluating the

achievement of goals set in the management plan. The decision tree set forth in the

management plan should be the guideline for designing the type and amount of data

collected during monitoring. For example, if the decision to conduct a controlled burn is

based on high shrub density, then shrub density as a percent cover must be monitored.

Monitoring should be conducted at regular intervals considering seasonal and climate

patterns that could affect wildlife utilization and habitat appearance.

55

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation has yielded what we believe to be the most comprehensive

synoptic account of wildlife utilization of phosphate-mined lands in Florida. Almost 300

species were reported, comprising all native vertebrate classes occurring in the state. To

the extent possible with the data collected, we have pointed to relationships between

wildlife presence and various habitat factors. Key among these are proximity to the

nearest body of water, proximity to a wildlife corridor, and proximity to natural

(unmined) habitat. Other factors such as vegetation composition and structure were

important to some groups of taxa, but often showed stronger relationships (or even

inverse correlations) with some groups than others.

As scientists, we would be remiss if we did not point to the need for continued

investigation and data collection. However, we believe the greatest value for additional

work may be in identifying one or more habitat reclamation projects still in the planning

phase, and incorporating a long-term wildlife monitoring component into the plans.

Including wildlife biologists on the design team and making provisions for experimental

design and some degree of adaptive habitat management would optimize such an effort.

This approach would greatly reduce the between-site variability that has complicated

much of the foregoing work in this area.

57

REFERENCES

Alatalo RV. 1981. Problems in the measurement of evenness in ecology. Oikos 37:

199-204.

Barichivich WJ. 2003. Guidelines for building and operating remote field recorders

(automated frog call data loggers), Appendix IV. In: Dodd CK Jr. Monitoring

amphibians in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Tallahassee (FL): U.S.

Geological Survey. USGS Circular 1258.

Campbell HW, Christman SP. 1982. Field herpetological community analysis. In:

Scott NJ, editor. Herpetological communities. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Wildlife Research Report nr 18. p 193-200.

Chen E, Gerber JF. 1990. Climate. In: Myers RL, Ewel JJ, editors. Ecosystems of

Florida. Orlando: University of Central Florida Press. p 11-34.

Clarke KR, Gorley RN. 2006. PRIMER v6: User manual/tutorial. Plymouth (UK):

PRIMER-E.

Clarke KR, Warwick RM. 2001. Change in marine communities: an approach to

statistical analysis and interpretation, 2nd ed. Plymouth (UK): PRIMER-E.

Crisman TL, Bitter G, Jessamy V. 1997. Section 4 – Water quality. In: Erwin KL,

Doherty SJ, Brown MT, Best GR, eds. Evaluation of constructed wetlands on phosphate

mined lands in Florida, Volume II. Bartow (FL): Florida Institute of Phosphate

Research. FIPR publication nr 03-103-139.

Crisman TL, Bitter G, Jessamy V. 1997. Section 5 – Aquatic fauna. In: Erwin KL,

Doherty SJ, Brown MT, Best GR, editors. Evaluation of constructed wetlands on

phosphate mined lands in Florida, Volume II. Bartow (FL): Florida Institute of

Phosphate Research. FIPR publication nr 03-103-139.

Edelson NA, Collopy MW. 1990. Foraging ecology of wading birds using an altered

landscape in central Florida. FIPR publication nr 04-039-087.

Hill MO. 1973. Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences.

Ecology 54: 427-32.

Kale HW. 1992. A two year study of the avifauna of reclaimed and unclaimed mined

lands of IMC Fertilizer, Inc., Polk County, Florida. Casselberry (FL): Florida Audubon

Society.

Kiefer JH, Crisman TL. 1997. Design considerations influencing water quality and plant

community structure in reclaimed freshwater marshes. In: Crisman TL, Streever WJ,

58

Kiefer JH, Evans DL, editors. An evaluation of plant community structure, fish and

benthic meio- and macrofauna as success criteria for reclaimed wetlands. Bartow (FL):

Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. FIPR publication nr 03-086-135.

Layne JN, Stallcup JA, Woolfenden GE, McCauley MN, Worley DJ. 1977. Fish and

wildlife inventory of the seven-county region included in the Central Florida phosphate

areawide environmental impact study. Washington (DC): U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

Ludwig JA, Reynolds JF. 1988. Statistical ecology: a primer on methods and

computing. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Maehr DS. 1980. Avian abundance and habitat preferences on new habitats created by

phosphate mining [MS thesis]. Gainesville (FL): University of Florida. 122 p.

Maehr DS. 1981. Bird use of a north-central Florida phosphate mine. Florida Field

Naturalist 9: 28-32.

Maehr DS. 1984. Status of birds using phosphate-mined lands in Florida. American

Birds 38: 28-31.

Maehr DS, Marion WR. 1984. Bird abundance and distribution in a north Florida

phosphate mine. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; 1984 Nov 18-21; New Orleans, LA.

Tallahassee (FL): Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Vol. 38, p

111-20.


vertebrates on unmined and phosphate-mined lands in central Florida. Bartow (FL):



vertebrates on unmined and phosphate-mined flatlands in central Florida. Bartow (FL):


Schnoes RS, Humphrey SR. 1987. Terrestrial plant and wildlife communities on

phosphate-mined land in central Florida. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum,

Biological Sciences 30: 52-116.

A-1

Appendix A

UPLAND HABITAT DATA COLLECTION SHEET

A-2

UPLAND HABITAT DATA COLLECTION SHEET

FIPR HABITAT FIELD DATA COLLECTION Upland (U) or Wetland (W)

Polygon Name: _____________________ Date: ___________________

Transect Name: ______________________ Photos Taken: _________________ Begin Lat: ______________________ Begin Long: ________________________ End Lat: ______________________ End Long: ________________________

Exotic Species Oaks (U) or Deciduous (W)

Number: _____

Pines (U) or Coniferous (W) Number: _____

Other trees (U) or Bays (W)

Number: ______

Palmettos (U) or Shrubs (W)

Number: ______

Name %

Cover Height HD

Dist. to

n.n

Dist. to n.n in

transect Height DBH Height HD Height HD

Quadrats:

Quadrat Number

Lat Long % Upper Canopy

% Grass

% Forb

% Woody

Litter Depth (U) or Muck Depth (W)

Soil Compaction (U) (N/A for W)

10 cm

20 cm

30 cm

Researcher(s): ________________________________________________________

B-1

Appendix B

WETLAND HABITAT DATA COLLECTION SHEET EXAMPLES

C-1

Appendix C

SURVEY METHOD-SPECIFIC SPECIES BY SITE MATRIX,

SEPARATED BY CLASS

C-2

SURVEY METHOD-SPECIFIC SPECIES BY SITE MATRIX, SEPARATED BY CLASS Key: F = Froglogger, H = Herp Array, S = Small mammal trap, T= Aquatic funnel traps, S = Seine net, E = Electrofishing,

C = Cast net, A = Anabat, B = Timed bird obs (no fly overs), M = Meandering Wildlife Transects, and I = Incidental

Table C-1. Amphibian Species Encountered at Each Site, by Survey Method: Part I.

Scientific Name Common Name

1-F

B

BM

BB

BV

/PR

BB

GH

O

BO

W

Lak

e B

ranch

Bir

d B

ranch

Bonn

y N

Bonn

y W

SP

-11

CW

C

DB

-2

DB

-3

DB

-6

R-1

0 E

R-1

0 I

slan

d

Euk

Em

Ald

erm

an A

Ald

erm

an T

FG

-1

FG

-83

Big

Mar

sh

P-2

0

PC

-5

CS

A

Co

mp

lex

33 C

33 N

W

Har

dee

Lak

es

Ft

Gre

en

Xer

ic

Hal

Sco

tt

Hic

key

Bra

nch

Ho

rse

Cre

ek

Acris gryllus dorsalis Florida cricket frog F H F F FI F F

Amphiuma means Two-toed amphiuma T

Bufo quercicus Oak toad FH F H F F F FH F FI

Bufo terrestris Southern toad FH H FHI H I F H I H H FH F F FHI H H

Eleutherodactylus planirostris

planirostris Greenhouse frog F F F H F F F F F F

Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern narrowmouth toad FH FH H H FHI H H HI H FH FH H FH FH H H HI FH H H HI H HI H H H F H FH H FH H

Hyla cinerea Green treefrog FHI FI H I FI FH HI I I HI FHI F F H I F I FH I FHI FH F FHI FH FI H FHI I

Hyla femoralis Pine woods tree frog F I F F

Hyla gratiosa Barking treefrog F F F

Hyla sp. Unidentified tree frog H

Hyla squirella Squirrel treefrog FHI FHI HI I FI HI FHI HI HI H HI HI FHE I HI HI HI I HI HI FHI HI HI HI FHI FH F FI FHI H FHI HI

Osteopilus septentrionalis Cuban treefrog F H F FH H H F

Pseudacris nigrita verrucosa Florida chorus frog F T

Pseudacris ocularis Little grass frog F F F F F

Rana capito aesopus Florida gopher frog

Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog H F FHI H H HI H HI FHI HI FHI HI F FH FHI H HI

Rana grylio Pig frog I FI I I FI I FHI HI F H FHI HI I FI I FI HI FHI FI FHI FI FI FI HI HI HI

Rana sp. Unidentified bullfrog H I

Rana utricularia Southern leopard frog HI F I H FI H H FHI HI HI HI HI H H H HI H HI HI FH H HI FH H HI

Siren intermedia intermedia Eastern lesser siren T T

Siren lacertina Greater siren T T

Siren sp. Unidentified siren T

Spea holbrookii holbrookii Eastern spadefoot toad HI

Unidentified Anura Unidentified frog H H H H H H H H I H H

Unidentified Anuran tadpole Unidentified tadpoles H

C-3

Table C-2. Amphibian Species Encountered at Each Site, by Survey Method: Part II.


HP

-3

HP

-4

Key

Blu

es

Lee

k's

Mar

sh

LP

-2

Do

g L

eg

Med

ard

C

Med

ard

E

Med

ard

W

Mo

rro

w

Sw

amp

No

raly

n

Osp

rey N

est

Pan

ther

Poin

t

LP

C-1

AG

Eas

t

SP

-14

Pic

nic

Lak

e

Po

lyph

emu

s

Par

adis

e

Rock

y T

op

Sad

dle

Cre

ek

San

d V

alle

y

San

dy T

op

Sco

ut

Tim

's G

ift

Tri

o M

arsh

C

Tri

o M

arsh

E

Tri

o M

arsh

W

WC

1

WC

4

Wes

t E

nd

Wh

eeli

ng

Acris gryllus dorsalis Florida cricket frog H F F F

Amphiuma means Two-toed amphiuma

Bufo quercicus Oak toad HI F I F

Bufo terrestris Southern toad H HI H F HI HI I HI H HI HI H F H HI

Eleutherodactylus planirostris Greenhouse frog H F F H F FH H

Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern narrowmouth toad H H H H FH H H H HI HI FH H H H H H H H H H H H H H F H FH HI H

Hyla cinerea Green treefrog HI H I F F I H F F F I H H F F H

Hyla femoralis Pine woods tree frog I

Hyla gratiosa Barking treefrog

Hyla sp. Unidentified tree frog

Hyla squirella Squirrel treefrog HI HI I I FHI HI I HI I HI I HI HI FHI HI HI HI H HI HI FHI H F HI HI

Osteopilus septentrionalis Cuban treefrog HI HI F H H

Pseudacris nigrita verrucosa Florida chorus frog T F

Pseudacris ocularis Little grass frog F F F

Rana capito aesopus Florida gopher frog I

Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog H HI FHI HI I I I H I

Rana grylio Pig frog HI I FHI H I I H F FI I I FHI I F FHI

Rana sp. Unidentified bullfrog H T H

Rana utricularia Southern leopard frog H H H HI HI H HI HI HI H I H H H H H H H H H H

Siren intermedia intermedia Eastern lesser siren

Siren lacertina Greater siren

Siren sp. Unidentified siren T T T T

Spea holbrookii holbrookii Eastern spadefoot toad H H H H H

Unidentified Anura Unidentified frog H

Unidentified Anuran tadpole Unidentified tadpoles

C-4

Table C-3. Mammalian Species Encountered at Each Site, by Survey Method: Part I.


1-F

B

BM

BB

BV

/PR

BB

GH

O

BO

W

Lak

e B

ranch

Bir

d B

ranch

Bonn

y N

Bonn

y W

SP

-11

CW

C

DB

-2

DB

-3

DB

-6

R-1

0 E

R-1

0 I

slan

d

Euk

Em

Ald

erm

an A

Ald

erm

an T

FG

-1

FG

-83

Big

Mar

sh

P-2

0

PC

-5

CS

A

Co

mp

lex

33 C

33 N

W

Har

dee

Lak

es

Ft

Gre

en

Xer

ic

Hal

Sco

tt

Hic

key

Bra

nch

Ho

rse

Cre

ek

Blarina carolinensis Shorttail shrew* H I

Canis latrans Coyote* I I I

Cryptotis parva Least shrew* H H H H H H H HI HI H H H H H H H H H H H

Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo* I I I I I I I I I I I

Didelphis virginiana Opossum* I I

Eptesicus fuscus fuscus Big brown bat* A A A A A A

Lasiurus intermedius Eastern yellow bat* A A A A A

Lasiurus seminolis Seminole bat* A

Lasiurus sp. Lasiurus species* A A A A A A

Lutra canadensis River otter I

Lynx rufus Bobcat* I I I I I I

Myotis austroriparius Mississippi myotis* A

Neofiber alleni Round-tailed muskrat

Neotoma floridana Eastern woodrat* S S H

Nycticeius humeralis Evening bat* A A A A A A A A

Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden mouse* S

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer* I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Oryzomys palustris Rice rat

Peromyscus gossypinus Cotton mouse* SI S S HS H HS HS S S S HS S S S S

Peromyscus polionotus Oldfield mouse* HI H

Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern pipistrel* A A A A A A A A

Podomys floridanus Florida mouse* S HS S

Procyon lotor Raccoon* I I I I I I I I I I I

Sciurus carolinensis Gray squirrel* I I

Sciurus niger shermani Sherman's fox squirrel* I

Sigmodon hispidus Cotton rat* HS S HS HS HS H S HI HS HSI HSI HS HS H HI HS HS HS HS HS HS HS S S

Sus scrofa Feral pig* I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail* I I I I I I I I

Sylvilagus palustris Marsh rabbit I I I I I

Tadarida brasiliensis Mexican freetail bat* A A A A A A A A A

Unidentified Chiroptera Unidentified bat* A A A A

* - Upland species

C-5

Table C-4. Mammalian Species Encountered at Each Site, by Survey Method: Part II.


HP

-3

HP

-4

Key

Blu

es

Lee

k's

Mar

sh

LP

-2

Do

g L

eg

Med

ard

C

Med

ard

E

Med

ard

W

Mo

rro

w

Sw

amp

No

raly

n

Osp

rey N

est

Pan

ther

Poin

t

LP

C-1

AG

Eas

t

SP

-14

Pic

nic

Lak

e

Po

lyph

emu

s

Par

adis

e

Rock

y T

op

Sad

dle

Cre

ek

San

d V

alle

y

San

dy T

op

Sco

ut

Tim

's G

ift

Tri

o M

arsh

C

Tri

o M

arsh

E

Tri

o M

arsh

W

WC

1

WC

4

Wes

t E

nd

Wh

eeli

ng

Blarina carolinensis Shorttail shrew*

Canis latrans Coyote* I I I

Cryptotis parva Least shrew* H H H H H H H H H H H I H H H H H H H

Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo* I I I I I I I I

Didelphis virginiana Opossum* I

Eptesicus fuscus fuscus Big brown bat* A A

Lasiurus intermedius Eastern yellow bat* A A A A A

Lasiurus seminolis Seminole bat*

Lasiurus sp. Lasiurus species* A A A A

Lutra canadensis River otter I I I

Lynx rufus Bobcat* I I

Myotis austroriparius Mississippi myotis* A A

Neofiber alleni Round-tailed muskrat H

Neotoma floridana Eastern woodrat*

Nycticeius humeralis Evening bat* A A

Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden mouse*

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer* I I I I I I I I I I I

Oryzomys palustris Rice rat H H

Peromyscus gossypinus Cotton mouse* S H S S HS S S H S S

Peromyscus polionotus Oldfield mouse* S HS S HS

Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern pipistrel* A A

Podomys floridanus Florida mouse* H S H H

Procyon lotor Raccoon* I I I I I I I I I S

Sciurus carolinensis Gray squirrel* I I I

Sciurus niger shermani Sherman's fox squirrel*

Sigmodon hispidus Cotton rat* H H H H HS HS HS HSI S S H SI H H H

Sus scrofa Feral pig* I I I I I I I

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail* I I I I

Sylvilagus palustris Marsh rabbit

Tadarida brasiliensis Mexican freetail bat* A A A A A A A

Unidentified Chiroptera Unidentified bat*

* - Upland species

C-6

Table C-5. Fish Species Encountered at Each Site, by Survey Method: Part I.


1-F

B

BM

BB

BV

/PR

BB

GH

O

BO

W

Lak

e B

ranch

Bir

d B

ranch

Bonn

y N

Bonn

y W

SP

-11

CW

C

DB

-2

DB

-3

DB

-6

R-1

0 E

R-1

0 I

slan

d

Euk

Em

Ald

erm

an A

Ald

erm

an T

FG

-1

FG

-83

Big

Mar

sh

P-2

0

PC

-5

CS

A

Co

mp

lex

33 C

33 N

W

Har

dee

Lak

es

Ft

Gre

en

Xer

ic

Hal

Sco

tt

Hic

key

Bra

nch

Ho

rse

Cre

ek

Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead

Ameiurus nebulosus Brown bullhead C T S E T

Ameiurus punctatus Channel catfish

Clarias batrachus Walking catfish E E

Cyprinidae sp. Unidentified shiner

Dorosoma cepedianum American gizzard shad C S

Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad C

Elassoma evergladei Everglades pygmy sunfish E TE

Erimyzon sucetta Lake chubsucker

Etheostoma fusiforme Swamp darter TE E S SE SE SE

Fundulus chrysotus Golden topminnow S T T E TS E T C

Fundulus rubrifrons Redface topminnow T

Fundulus seminolis Seminole killifish TS

Gambusia holbrooki Eastern mosquitofish TSIE TSE T TE T SE TSE TSE SE TE TSE TE TE TSE TE TSE TSE E E SE TE TE TSE SE

Hemichromis letourneauxi African Jewelfish T T

Heterandria formosa Least killifish SE TSE SE E SE E SE E E TSE TE TSE E E E TE TE SE SE

Hoplosternum littorale Brown hoplo TSE T T T T T T T T T T

Hypostomus plecostomus Plecostomus

Jordanella floridae Flagfish SE T TE SE E E

Lepisosteus platyrhincus Florida gar T

Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish T

Lepomis gulosus Warmouth TE T S TSE T T SE T T E

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill TC C EC S SEC SEC SEC C C T T

Lepomis marginatus Dollar sunfish E T

Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish S C SC SC

Lepomis punctatus Spotted sunfish

Lepomis sp. Unidentified sunfish SE S TE

Lucania goodei Bluefin killifish T TE E E SE E SE TSE TSE

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass E SC SE TSEC SEC S

Misgurnus anguillicaudata Oriental weatherfish T

Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner C S SEC S C EC

Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor shiner

Notropis maculatus Taillight shiner S T

Notropis petersoni Coastal shiner SE

Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose minnow

Oreochromis aurea Blue tilapia C T SE SC SC TC C EC S S

Poecilia latipinna Sailfin molly SE T SE E SE SE E E TSE E T E S TE T SE

Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie I C E S SEC TSC C

C-7

Table C-6. Fish Species Encountered at Each Site, by Survey Method: Part II.


HP

-3

HP

-4

Key

Blu

es

Lee

k's

Mar

sh

LP

-2

Do

g L

eg

Med

ard

C

Med

ard

E

Med

ard

W

Mo

rro

w

Sw

amp

No

raly

n

Osp

rey N

est

Pan

ther

Poin

t

LP

C-1

AG

Eas

t

SP

-14

Pic

nic

Lak

e

Po

lyph

emu

s

Par

adis

e

Rock

y T

op

Sad

dle

Cre

ek

San

d V

alle

y

San

dy T

op

Sco

ut

Tim

's G

ift

Tri

o M

arsh

C

Tri

o M

arsh

E

Tri

o M

arsh

W

WC

1

WC

4

Wes

t E

nd

Wh

eeli

ng

Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead E

Ameiurus nebulosus Brown bullhead C E

Ameiurus punctatus Channel catfish C S

Clarias batrachus Walking Catfish

Cyprinidae sp. Unidentified shiner T

Dorosoma cepedianum American gizzard shad C C C

Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad C C C

Elassoma evergladei Everglades pygmy sunfish E E SE

Erimyzon sucetta Lake chubsucker C

Etheostoma fusiforme Swamp darter E T E SE SE

Fundulus chrysotus Golden topminnow T E E SE E

Fundulus rubrifrons Redface topminnow

Fundulus seminolis Seminole killifish S

Gambusia holbrooki Eastern mosquitofish S TE TS TSE T TSEC TE TSEI TSE E E TEC

Hemichromis letourneauxi African Jewelfish

Heterandria formosa Least killifish TE S E TE E SE TE E E TE

Hoplosternum littorale Brown hoplo S T T T

Hypostomus plecostomus Plecostomus E

Jordanella floridae Flagfish E T E

Lepisosteus platyrhincus Florida gar C

Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish

Lepomis gulosus Warmouth TS TS E T TS SC SE

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill S SC SC T C SEC SC SEC

Lepomis marginatus Dollar sunfish T S S

Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish S SC E SC C C

Lepomis punctatus Spotted sunfish SC

Lepomis sp. Unidentified sunfish S S

Lucania goodei Bluefin killifish T T TSE TE S SE E

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass S SEC SC SEC SEC

Misgurnus anguillicaudata Oriental weatherfish

Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner S C SC C E

Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor shiner T

Notropis maculatus Taillight shiner S SE

Notropis petersoni Coastal shiner SE E

Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose minnow SE

Oreochromis aurea Blue tilapia C SCI SEC EC

Poecilia latipinna Sailfin molly TE S T SE E E TE

Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie S C C C

C-8

Table C-7. Reptile Species Encountered at Each Site, by Survey Method: Part I.


1-F

B

BM

BB

BV

/PR

BB

GH

O

BO

W

Lak

e B

ranch

Bir

d B

ranch

Bonn

y N

Bonn

y W

SP

-11

CW

C

DB

-2

DB

-3

DB

-6

R-1

0 E

R-1

0 I

slan

d

Euk

Em

Ald

erm

an A

Ald

erm

an T

FG

-1

FG

-83

Big

Mar

sh

P-2

0

PC

-5

CS

A

Co

mp

lex

33 C

33 N

W

Har

dee

Lak

es

Ft

Gre

en

Xer

ic

Hal

Sco

tt

Hic

key

Bra

nch

Ho

rse

Cre

ek

Agkistrodon piscivorus conanti Florida cottonmouth

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator I I I I I I I I

Anolis carolinensis Green anole* H H H I I HI I I

Anolis sagrei Brown anole* I I I

Anolis sp. Unidentified Anole* I

Aspidoscedis sexlineata Six-lined racerunner* HI HI HI I HI HI H H H I HI H

Chelonian Unidentified turtle eggs I

Coluber constrictor priapus Southern black racer* H HI H H I I H H H HI I H HI

Deirochelys reticularia chrysea Florida chicken turtle S

Diadophis punctatus punctatus Southern ringneck snake* HI H H

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake* I

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise* I I I I I I I I I I

Kinosternon baurii Striped Mud Turtle I H H

Kinosternon subrubrum steindachneri Florida mud turtle I

Micrurus fulvius fulvius Eastern coral snake* I

Nerodia fasciata pictiventris Florida water snake HI T H I T HT HT HT HI

Nerodia floridana Florida green water snake H T T E T

Nerodia sp. Unidentified water snake T

Nerodia taxispilota Brown water snake T H

Ophisaurus ventralis Eastern glass lizard* H

Pantherophis guttata guttata Corn snake* H

Pantherophis obsoleta quadrivittata Yellow rat snake*

Plestiodon inexpectatus Southeastern five-lined skink* I H I I

Pseudemys floridana peninsularis Peninsula cooter I I I I H

Pseudemys sp. Unidentified cooter H

Scincella lateralis Ground skink* H H H H I H H H H

Seminatrix pygaea Black swamp snake H

Sternotherus odoratus Stinkpot

Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Eastern garter snake* H H H H

Thamnophis sp. Unidentified ribbon snake* I

Trionyx ferox Florida softshell I I I H I I I

Unidentified Squamata - lizard Unidentified lizard H

Unidentified Squamata - snake Unidentified snake H H

- Upland species

C-9

Table C-8. Reptile Species Encountered at Each Site, by Survey Method: Part II.


HP

-3

HP

-4

Key

Blu

es

Lee

k's

Mar

sh

LP

-2

Do

g L

eg

Med

ard

C

Med

ard

E

Med

ard

W

Mo

rro

w

Sw

amp

No

raly

n

Osp

rey N

est

Pan

ther

Poin

t

LP

C-1

AG

Eas

t

SP

-14

Pic

nic

Lak

e

Po

lyph

emu

s

Par

adis

e

Rock

y T

op

Sad

dle

Cre

ek

San

d V

alle

y

San

dy T

op

Sco

ut

Tim

's G

ift

Tri

o M

arsh

C

Tri

o M

arsh

E

Tri

o M

arsh

W

WC

1

WC

4

Wes

t E

nd

Wh

eeli

ng

Agkistrodon piscivorus conanti Florida cottonmouth H H

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator I I I I I I I I I

Anolis carolinensis Green anole* I HI I H H

Anolis sagrei Brown anole* I I H H I

Anolis sp. Unidentified Anole* I

Aspidoscedis sexlineata Six-lined racerunner* H HI HI H HI HI HI H HI HI HI HI H

Chelonian Unidentified turtle eggs I

Coluber constrictor priapus Southern black racer* I H H H I H I H H I H H HI H HI H I

Deirochelys reticularia chrysea Florida chicken turtle

Diadophis punctatus punctatus Southern ringneck snake* H H

Drymarchon corais couperi Eastern indigo snake* I I

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise* HI I I I I I I I I I

Kinosternon baurii Striped Mud Turtle H H

Kinosternon subrubrum steindachneri Florida mud turtle I

Micrurus fulvius fulvius Eastern coral snake*

Nerodia fasciata pictiventris Florida water snake HI H H

Nerodia floridana Florida green water snake H TI T

Nerodia sp. Unidentified water snake

Nerodia taxispilota Brown water snake H

Ophisaurus ventralis Eastern glass lizard*

Pantherophis guttata guttata Corn snake*

Pantherophis obsoleta quadrivittata Yellow rat snake* H

Plestiodon inexpectatus Southeastern five-lined skink* I H HI HI H HI H I

Pseudemys floridana peninsularis Peninsula cooter I I I

Pseudemys sp. Unidentified cooter

Scincella lateralis Ground skink* H H I H H H H H HI

Seminatrix pygaea Black swamp snake H H

Sternotherus odoratus Stinkpot H

Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Eastern garter snake* H H H

Thamnophis sp. Unidentified ribbon snake* H H

Trionyx ferox Florida softshell H I E I

Unidentified Squamata - lizard Unidentified lizard I

Unidentified Squamata - snake Unidentified snake H

* - Upland species

C-10

Table C-9. Avian Species Encountered at Each Site, by Survey Method: Part I. * - Upland species


1-F

B

BM

BB

BV

/PR

BB

GH

O

BO

W

Lak

e B

ranch

Bir

d B

ranch

Bonn

y N

Bonn

y W

SP

-11

CW

C

DB

-2

DB

-3

DB

-6

R-1

0 E

R-1

0 I

slan

d

Euk

Em

Ald

erm

an A

Ald

erm

an T

FG

-1

FG

-83

Big

Mar

sh

P-2

0

PC

-5

CS

A

Co

mp

lex

33 C

33 N

W

Har

dee

Lak

es

Ft

Gre

en

Xer

ic

Hal

Sco

tt

Hic

key

Bra

nch

Ho

rse

Cre

ek

Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk* I I I I I I B I

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk* I I

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird BI I BI BI BI B B BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI

Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow* B BI

Aix sponsa Wood duck I I I I I BI

Ajaia ajaja Roseate spoonbill I I I

Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow* I

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow* B I

Anas acuta Northern pintail

Anas clypeata Northern shoveler

Anas discors Blue-winged teal B BI I BI BI I B B

Anas fulvigula Mottled duck I I I I I BI BI B

Anhinga anhinga Anhinga I I BI BI I I I BI B I BI BI BI I I I I I BI I BI I BI I BI I BI

Anthus rubescens American pipit* I I

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub-jay* I

Aramus guarauna Limpkin I I

Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated hummingbird*

Ardea alba Great egret I I I I I I I BI I I I BI BI BI I I I I BI BI I BI I I BI BI BI I BI

Ardea herodia Great blue heron I I B I I I I BI I I BI BI I I I I I BI I BI I I BI BI I I BI

Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl*

Aythya affinis Lesser scaup

Aythya collaris Ring-necked duck B

Baeolophus bicolor Tufted titmouse* BI B B I I B B B I I BI

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar waxwing* I I I I I

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern I

Bubo virginianus Great horned owl* I

Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret I I I I I BI I I BI I I I I I BI BI BI I I BI I I BI BI BI I

Bucephala albeola Bufflehead I

Bucephala clangula Common goldeneye

Buteo brachyurus Short-tailed hawk* I

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk* I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BI I I I I BI I I

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk* I I BI I I BI B I I BI BI I BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I I BI I B BI

Butorides virescens Green heron B B BI BI I B I BI BI BI BI I BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI

Cairina moschata Muscovy duck BI

Calidris minutilla Least sandpiper I BI B

Caprimulgus carolinensis Chuck-will's-widow* I I B I I I

Caprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-will*

Cardinalis cardinalis Northern cardinal* BI BI BI BI BI BI BI B BI BI BI I I BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI

C-11


1-F

B

BM

BB

BV

/PR

BB

GH

O

BO

W

Lak

e B

ranch

Bir

d B

ranch

Bonn

y N

Bonn

y W

SP

-11

CW

C

DB

-2

DB

-3

DB

-6

R-1

0 E

R-1

0 I

slan

d

Euk

Em

Ald

erm

an A

Ald

erm

an T

FG

-1

FG

-83

Big

Mar

sh

P-2

0

PC

-5

CS

A

Co

mp

lex

33 C

33 N

W

Har

dee

Lak

es

Ft

Gre

en

Xer

ic

Hal

Sco

tt

Hic

key

Bra

nch

Ho

rse

Cre

ek

Carduelis tritis American goldfinch* B I I B B I

Cathartes aura Turkey vulture I I I I I I I BI I I BI I BI I I I I I BI I I I I BI I I BI BI I I I

Catharus guttatus Hermit thrush* B B

Ceryle alcyon Belted kingfisher BI B B I I BI I BI I B

Chaetura pelagica Chimney swift* I I I I I I I

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer I B I I I I BI BI BI BI I BI B

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson's plover I

Chordeiles minor Common nighthawk* BI I I B I I BI I I B BI BI I I

Circus cyaneus Northern harrier* I I I B BI B BI I BI B

Cistothorus palustris Marsh wren B B

Cistothorus platensis Sedge wren BI BI BI I I

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed cuckoo* BI I B I B BI BI BI I BI B

Colaptes auratus Northern flicker* BI B I I I I I I I

Colinus virginianus Northern bobwhite* B BI I BI BI B BI BI B I I I I BI BI I BI I BI I I

Columba livia Rock Pigeon* I

Columbia passerina Common ground dove* B I BI BI BI I I I I BI BI BI I I I I BI

Contopus virens Eastern wood-pewee* I

Coragyps atratus Black vulture I I I I I I I I BI I I I I I I I I I BI BI I I I BI BI I I

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow* I I I BI I I I I I BI I BI BI I BI

Corvus ossifragus Fish crow I I I I B BI I I I I I I I BI I BI I BI I BI I I B

Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay* BI BI B BI B BI BI BI BI BI I I BI BI BI I BI I BI BI BI I BI BI I I BI BI BI I B

Dendrocygna autumnalis Black-bellied whistling duck I BI B BI B

Dendroica caerulescens Black-throated blue warbler* I

Dendroica castanea Bay-breasted warbler*

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler*

Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped warbler* BI BI B BI BI I BI B B BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI B

Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler* I I I B B B I B BI B I B I

Dendroica dominica Yellow-throated warbler* B I I B I I

Dendroica fusca Blackburnian warbler* I B

Dendroica magnolia Magnolia warbler* B

Dendroica palmarum Palm warbler* BI BI B BI BI I BI B B BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I B

Dendroica pensylvanica Chestnut-sided warbler*

Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler* I I B BI B BI

Dendroica pinus Pine warbler* BI B I I B BI B B BI B BI I I I I BI I

Dendroica striata Blackpoll warbler* B

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink* I I I BI

Dryocopus pileatus Pileated woodpecker* I I I BI B I I I BI I BI BI BI BI BI I I BI BI

Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird* B I B BI BI I I B B BI BI BI BI BI I BI B BI BI BI I BI I BI I B

Egretta caerulea Little blue heron I I I I I I BI I BI BI B I I I I BI I I BI I BI BI I I BI

Egretta thula Snowy egret BI I I I I I I BI I I I BI I I BI I I BI BI BI I BI

Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron I I I I I B I I BI BI I I I B I BI I BI I BI BI I I BI

C-12


1-F

B

BM

BB

BV

/PR

BB

GH

O

BO

W

Lak

e B

ranch

Bir

d B

ranch

Bonn

y N

Bonn

y W

SP

-11

CW

C

DB

-2

DB

-3

DB

-6

R-1

0 E

R-1

0 I

slan

d

Euk

Em

Ald

erm

an A

Ald

erm

an T

FG

-1

FG

-83

Big

Mar

sh

P-2

0

PC

-5

CS

A

Co

mp

lex

33 C

33 N

W

Har

dee

Lak

es

Ft

Gre

en

Xer

ic

Hal

Sco

tt

Hic

key

Bra

nch

Ho

rse

Cre

ek

Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed kite* I I BI B I I I I I

Elanus leucarus White-tailed kite* I I

Empidonax minimus Least flycatcher* I B B I B

Empidonax virescens Acadian flycatcher* B

Eudocimus albus White ibis I I I I I I I I I I I BI I I I BI I BI I BI

Falco columbarius Merlin* I

Falco sparverius American kestrel* BI I I I BI I I I

Fulica americana American coot B BI I B B BI BI I B

Gallinago gallinago Wilson's snipe B I I I B I B I I B

Gallinula chloropus Common moorhen BI I BI BI I BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI I BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI

Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat BI BI B B BI BI BI B B BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI B

Grus canadensis Sandhill crane I BI I I B

Grus canadensis pratensis Florida sandhill crane B

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I B

Helmitheros vermivorus Worm-eating warbler* B

Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked stilt I I I B B BI I I I

Hirundo rustica Barn swallow* BI BI I I I BI B I BI

Icteria virens Yellow-breasted chat*

Icterus galbula Baltimore oriole* I

Icterus spurius Orchard oriole* B

Ixobrychus exilis Least bittern B BI BI I I I

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike* I I I B I BI I B BI I BI I I I BI

Larus atricilla Laughing gull I I I I I I I

Larus delawarensis Ring-billed gull I I I I B I

Laterallus jamaicensis Black Rail

Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed dowitcher I

Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's warbler* B

Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded merganser I

Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied woodpecker* BI B BI BI B BI BI BI BI I BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI BI B

Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed woodpecker* BI

Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey* I I

Melospiza georgiana Swamp sparrow BI I B BI BI B

Melospiza melodia Song sparrow* I B

Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird* BI B BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I BI I BI I BI BI BI BI BI B BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I B

Mniotilta varia Black-and-white warbler* B I B B I

Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird* I BI I I I I I

Mycteria americana Wood stork I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BI I I BI I

Myiarchus crinitus Great crested flycatcher* B B B I BI B B B BI I BI I BI BI B

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night-heron I BI I I I I I BI I I I

Oporonis formosus Kentucky warbler*

Otus asio Eastern screech-owl* I BI I I I I I I

C-13


1-F

B

BM

BB

BV

/PR

BB

GH

O

BO

W

Lak

e B

ranch

Bir

d B

ranch

Bonn

y N

Bonn

y W

SP

-11

CW

C

DB

-2

DB

-3

DB

-6

R-1

0 E

R-1

0 I

slan

d

Euk

Em

Ald

erm

an A

Ald

erm

an T

FG

-1

FG

-83

Big

Mar

sh

P-2

0

PC

-5

CS

A

Co

mp

lex

33 C

33 N

W

Har

dee

Lak

es

Ft

Gre

en

Xer

ic

Hal

Sco

tt

Hic

key

Bra

nch

Ho

rse

Cre

ek

Pandion haliaetus Osprey I I I I BI B I BI I BI I BI I I I I I I BI I I BI I I I BI BI I I

Parula americana Northern parula* B B I I B I B BI BI I BI B B

Passer domesticus House sparrow* I

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow* BI I BI I BI BI I BI BI I BI BI I BI BI I BI BI I I

Passerina cyanea Indigo bunting*

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican I I I I I I I I I I I I I BI I I I

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown pelican

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant I I I BI BI I I BI I I I I I I I BI I BI BI I I BI

Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker* BI BI BI BI I B B BI B BI I BI B B BI BI BI I BI BI B BI BI B B

Picoides villosus Hairy woodpecker

Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern towhee* I BI BI B BI BI BI BI I BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI B

Piranga olivacea Scarlet tanager* B

Piranga rubra Summer tanager* BI I B I BI B I I

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy ibis BI I I I I I BI I I I I I I I BI I BI I I I BI I I BI

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe BI B BI B I BI

Poecile carolinensis Carolina chickadee* B

Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray gnatcatcher* BI BI B BI BI BI B B BI B BI B BI BI B I B B BI I I BI BI BI BI BI BI B

Porphyrula martinica Purple gallinule I B BI B

Porzana carolina Sora I B B B

Progne subis Purple martin* I I I I

Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary warbler B

Quiscalus major Boat-tailed grackle BI I I BI I B B BI I BI BI BI I BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI

Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle BI BI B I BI I B I I I I I I BI I BI I BI BI B I BI I

Rallus elegans King rail B I B B

Recurvirostra americana American avocet I

Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned kinglet* BI B B B I I B

Rynchops niger Black skimmer B

Sayornis phoebe Eastern phoebe* I BI B B I BI I B BI I I BI I BI B I BI BI B I BI I BI BI BI BI I

Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird* B I BI B BI

Seiurus noveboracensis Northern waterthrush I B B B I

Setophaga ruticella American redstart* BI I B I BI I I

Sialis sialis Eastern bluebird* B I BI I BI B

Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied sapsucker* BI I

Spizella passerina Chipping sparrow*

Stelgidopterix serripennis Northern rough-winged swallow* B B B I BI B BI I B B BI I B

Sterna antillarum Least tern I B I I I I

Sterna caspia Caspian tern I I I BI B I I I BI I B BI I BI I

Sterna forsteri Forster's tern B I I

Sterna maxima Royal tern B

Sterna nilotica Gull-billed tern B I

Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich tern I

C-14


1-F

B

BM

BB

BV

/PR

BB

GH

O

BO

W

Lak

e B

ranch

Bir

d B

ranch

Bonn

y N

Bonn

y W

SP

-11

CW

C

DB

-2

DB

-3

DB

-6

R-1

0 E

R-1

0 I

slan

d

Euk

Em

Ald

erm

an A

Ald

erm

an T

FG

-1

FG

-83

Big

Mar

sh

P-2

0

PC

-5

CS

A

Co

mp

lex

33 C

33 N

W

Har

dee

Lak

es

Ft

Gre

en

Xer

ic

Hal

Sco

tt

Hic

key

Bra

nch

Ho

rse

Cre

ek

Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared dove I I

Strix varia Barred owl* I I I I I BI I

Sturnella magna Eastern meadowlark* BI BI I I B I I I BI BI I BI B I BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI I BI

Sturnus vulgaris European starling* I I I

Tachycineta bicolor Tree swallow* BI BI I I BI BI I I I I I I BI BI I BI BI I BI BI

Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina wren* BI B B BI I I B B BI BI BI BI I BI B BI BI BI I BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI B

Toxostoma rufum Brown thrasher* I BI I B B B I B I I I

Tringa flavipes Lesser yellowlegs I I B B B

Tringa melanoleuca Greater yellowlegs I I I I I BI

Tringa solitaria Solitary sandpiper BI B

Troglodytes aedon House wren* I BI B B BI BI BI B B BI BI I BI B BI BI B B BI BI B BI B B I I B BI B

Turdus migratorius American robin* I BI B I BI I I I I I I BI BI B I I I I I I I

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird* BI B BI I I I I BI

Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's kingbird*

Tyto alba Barn owl* I

Unidentified Anatidae Unidentified duck I

Vermivora celata Orange-crowned warbler*

Vermivora peregrina Tennessee warbler* B

Vermivora pinus Blue-winged warbler* I I

Vermivora ruficapila Nashville warbler* I

Vireo bellii Bell's Vireo*

Vireo griseus White-eyed vireo* BI B BI BI BI BI B B BI BI BI BI BI B BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI B

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed vireo* B I I B I

Vireo solitarius Blue-headed vireo* B B B I

Wilsonia citrina Hooded warbler* I B

Wilsonia pusilla Wilson's warbler* I I

Zenaida asiatica White winged dove* I I

Zenaida macroura Mourning dove* I BI I I I B BI BI BI I I I I I BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI I BI BI I I BI

* - Upland species

C-15

Table C-10. Avian Species Encountered at Each Site, by Survey Method: Part II.


HP

-3

HP

-4

Key

Blu

es

Lee

k's

Mar

sh

LP

-2

Do

g L

eg

Med

ard

C

Med

ard

E

Med

ard

W

Mo

rro

w

Sw

amp

No

raly

n

Osp

rey N

est

Pan

ther

Poin

t

LP

C-1

AG

Eas

t

SP

-14

Pic

nic

Lak

e

Po

lyph

emu

s

Par

adis

e

Rock

y T

op

Sad

dle

Cre

ek

San

d V

alle

y

San

dy T

op

Sco

ut

Tim

's G

ift

Tri

o M

arsh

C

Tri

o M

arsh

E

Tri

o M

arsh

W

WC

1

WC

4

Wes

t E

nd

Wh

eeli

ng

Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk* BI B B I I

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned hawk* I

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird BI BI I BI BI BI I BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I I BI BI BI BI BI BI

Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow*

Aix sponsa Wood duck I B I BI BI I

Ajaia ajaja Roseate spoonbill I I I I

Ammodramus henslowii Henslow's sparrow*

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper sparrow* I

Anas acuta Northern pintail I

Anas clypeata Northern shoveler I

Anas discors Blue-winged teal I I B

Anas fulvigula Mottled duck I I I I

Anhinga anhinga Anhinga I BI I I BI BI BI BI I BI I I I BI I I BI I I I BI I

Anthus rubescens American pipit* I I

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub-jay*

Aramus guarauna Limpkin I BI BI BI BI

Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated hummingbird* B

Ardea alba Great egret I I I BI BI I BI I BI I I I I I BI I I BI I I I I I I I I BI I

Ardea herodia Great blue heron I I I BI I BI I BI I I I I I I I BI I BI I BI I I I BI I

Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl* I

Aythya affinis Lesser scaup I

Aythya collaris Ring-necked duck

Baeolophus bicolor Tufted titmouse* BI B I BI BI BI B BI B BI B I I

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar waxwing* I I I I

Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern

Bubo virginianus Great horned owl*

Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret I BI BI BI I I I BI I I I I I BI I I BI I I I I I BI B I

Bucephala albeola Bufflehead

Bucephala clangula Common goldeneye B I

Buteo brachyurus Short-tailed hawk* I

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk* I I I I I I BI I I I I I I I I I I I BI I I I

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk* I BI BI I I I I I BI I I BI I I I BI I BI B BI BI I I BI B I

Butorides virescens Green heron I BI I I BI BI BI BI I I BI I BI I BI BI B I BI I

Cairina moschata Muscovy duck I

Calidris minutilla Least sandpiper BI

Caprimulgus carolinensis Chuck-will's-widow* I I I BI I I I I

Caprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-will* B I

Cardinalis cardinalis Northern cardinal* BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI B BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI B I BI B I

C-16


HP

-3

HP

-4

Key

Blu

es

Lee

k's

Mar

sh

LP

-2

Do

g L

eg

Med

ard

C

Med

ard

E

Med

ard

W

Mo

rro

w

Sw

amp

No

raly

n

Osp

rey N

est

Pan

ther

Poin

t

LP

C-1

AG

Eas

t

SP

-14

Pic

nic

Lak

e

Po

lyph

emu

s

Par

adis

e

Rock

y T

op

Sad

dle

Cre

ek

San

d V

alle

y

San

dy T

op

Sco

ut

Tim

's G

ift

Tri

o M

arsh

C

Tri

o M

arsh

E

Tri

o M

arsh

W

WC

1

WC

4

Wes

t E

nd

Wh

eeli

ng

Carduelis tritis American goldfinch* I

Cathartes aura Turkey vulture I I I I I I BI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Catharus guttatus Hermit thrush* B I I B I B I

Ceryle alcyon Belted kingfisher I B BI BI BI

Chaetura pelagica Chimney swift* I I I I

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer I I I I I I I BI I B I I I

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson's plover

Chordeiles minor Common nighthawk* I I I I I I I BI I I I BI BI I

Circus cyaneus Northern harrier* I I I I B I I I

Cistothorus palustris Marsh wren

Cistothorus platensis Sedge wren I I BI I I BI B

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed cuckoo* I BI B I B

Colaptes auratus Northern flicker* I B I I BI

Colinus virginianus Northern bobwhite* I I BI I BI I I BI I B I I BI I

Columba livia Rock Pigeon* BI I

Columbia passerina Common ground dove* I I I I B I I BI I BI B BI BI B B I I B I

Contopus virens Eastern wood-pewee*

Coragyps atratus Black vulture I I I I I I BI I BI I I I I I BI I BI I I I I I I I I I I I

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow* I I B I I I I I I I I

Corvus ossifragus Fish crow I I I BI BI I BI I I I I I BI I BI I I I I I I

Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay* BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI I B BI BI BI I B B

Dendrocygna autumnalis Black-bellied whistling duck I I I

Dendroica caerulescens Black-throated blue warbler* I I I I I

Dendroica castanea Bay-breasted warbler* I I

Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler* I

Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped warbler* BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI B BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI B

Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler* I I B B B I B I I B I

Dendroica dominica Yellow-throated warbler* I I B I B I I B I I

Dendroica fusca Blackburnian warbler* I I B B I

Dendroica magnolia Magnolia warbler* B I B

Dendroica palmarum Palm warbler* BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI B BI BI BI BI BI BI I BI BI B BI BI BI BI BI B BI

Dendroica pensylvanica Chestnut-sided warbler* I B I I

Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler* I B I BI I B I

Dendroica pinus Pine warbler* I BI B I BI I BI I BI I BI BI I

Dendroica striata Blackpoll warbler*

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink* B

Dryocopus pileatus Pileated woodpecker* I B BI BI BI I I BI BI BI I I I BI I BI B B

Dumetella carolinensis Gray catbird* BI BI B BI B BI BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I BI

Egretta caerulea Little blue heron I BI I BI I BI BI I I I I I BI I I I I I BI

Egretta thula Snowy egret I I BI BI I BI I I B I I I I BI B BI I

Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron I I I I BI I BI I I I I BI I I I I I I I I BI I

C-17


HP

-3

HP

-4

Key

Blu

es

Lee

k's

Mar

sh

LP

-2

Do

g L

eg

Med

ard

C

Med

ard

E

Med

ard

W

Mo

rro

w

Sw

amp

No

raly

n

Osp

rey N

est

Pan

ther

Poin

t

LP

C-1

AG

Eas

t

SP

-14

Pic

nic

Lak

e

Po

lyph

emu

s

Par

adis

e

Rock

y T

op

Sad

dle

Cre

ek

San

d V

alle

y

San

dy T

op

Sco

ut

Tim

's G

ift

Tri

o M

arsh

C

Tri

o M

arsh

E

Tri

o M

arsh

W

WC

1

WC

4

Wes

t E

nd

Wh

eeli

ng

Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed kite* I B I I I

Elanus leucarus White-tailed kite*

Empidonax minimus Least flycatcher* I

Empidonax virescens Acadian flycatcher* BI I I

Eudocimus albus White ibis I I I I BI I I I I I I I I I I I BI I I I I BI

Falco columbarius Merlin* I

Falco sparverius American kestrel* BI B I I B I BI I

Fulica americana American coot BI BI BI I BI I

Gallinago gallinago Wilson's snipe I I BI I

Gallinula chloropus Common moorhen BI B BI BI BI BI B I BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I I BI

Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I BI B BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI B BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI

Grus canadensis Sandhill crane BI I I I

Grus canadensis pratensis Florida sandhill crane

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle I I I I I BI I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Helmitheros vermivorus Worm-eating warbler* B I

Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked stilt B I

Hirundo rustica Barn swallow* BI I I

Icteria virens Yellow-breasted chat* I

Icterus galbula Baltimore oriole*

Icterus spurius Orchard oriole* B

Ixobrychus exilis Least bittern B B B I B I I

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike* I BI B I I BI I I I BI I BI BI BI

Larus atricilla Laughing gull I I BI I I

Larus delawarensis Ring-billed gull I I I I I

Laterallus jamaicensis Black Rail BI

Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed dowitcher

Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson's warbler*

Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded merganser

Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied woodpecker* BI I BI B BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I I I BI BI BI BI I B I B B BI

Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-headed woodpecker* I

Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey*

Melospiza geogiana Swamp sparrow B BI B

Melospiza melodia Song sparrow*

Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird* I BI BI BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI B BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI

Mniotilta varia Black-and-white warbler* I I I BI I I I

Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird* I I I

Mycteria americana Wood stork I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BI I

Myiarchus crinitus Great crested flycatcher* BI BI I BI B BI I I I I B B

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night-heron B I BI BI I I I I B I

Oporonis formosus Kentucky warbler* I

Otus asio Eastern screech-owl* I I I I B I B BI B I I B B BI I

C-18


HP

-3

HP

-4

Key

Blu

es

Lee

k's

Mar

sh

LP

-2

Do

g L

eg

Med

ard

C

Med

ard

E

Med

ard

W

Mo

rro

w

Sw

amp

No

raly

n

Osp

rey N

est

Pan

ther

Poin

t

LP

C-1

AG

Eas

t

SP

-14

Pic

nic

Lak

e

Po

lyph

emu

s

Par

adis

e

Rock

y T

op

Sad

dle

Cre

ek

San

d V

alle

y

San

dy T

op

Sco

ut

Tim

's G

ift

Tri

o M

arsh

C

Tri

o M

arsh

E

Tri

o M

arsh

W

WC

1

WC

4

Wes

t E

nd

Wh

eeli

ng

Pandion haliaetus Osprey I BI I BI I BI I I I I I BI I I BI I BI I I BI I I BI I

Parula americana Northern parula* BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI I BI B

Passer domesticus House sparrow*

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow* I I I B BI I BI BI BI BI BI I I I I I I I

Passerina cyanea Indigo bunting* I B

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican I BI I I I I I I I I I

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown pelican BI I I

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant I BI I I BI I BI I I I I I I BI I I I I I BI I

Picoides pubescens Downy woodpecker* BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I I B BI BI BI I I BI BI BI BI BI BI BI I B BI

Picoides villosus Hairy woodpecker I

Pipilo erythrophthalmus Eastern towhee* BI BI BI B I BI BI BI I B I BI BI BI BI B BI BI I BI BI BI BI I BI BI

Piranga olivacea Scarlet tanager* I

Piranga rubra Summer tanager* BI I BI I B B B I

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy ibis I I I I I I BI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I BI

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe BI BI BI B I I I

Poecile carolinensis Carolina chickadee* B

Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray gnatcatcher* BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI B BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI

Porphyrula martinica Purple gallinule I I I I

Porzana carolina Sora

Progne subis Purple martin* I BI I I I I I

Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary warbler

Quiscalus major Boat-tailed grackle I BI I BI BI BI B BI I B I I BI BI BI I BI I BI BI BI BI BI I

Quiscalus quiscula Common grackle BI I I I BI I I I BI I I I I I I I I BI I I

Rallus elegans King rail I

Recurvirostra americana American avocet

Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned kinglet* BI BI I BI I I BI BI B I B BI

Rynchops niger Black skimmer B

Sayornis phoebe Eastern phoebe* BI B I B BI BI I BI BI BI B BI BI BI I I BI B I I BI BI

Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird* I I B BI BI I I I B BI B B

Seiurus noveboracensis Northern waterthrush BI B I I B I I

Setophaga ruticella American redstart* I I BI B I I B

Sialis sialis Eastern bluebird* B B B B

Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied sapsucker* I I I BI I B

Spizella passerina Chipping sparrow* I

Stelgidopterix serripennis Northern rough-winged swallow* I I B I BI

Sterna antillarum Least tern I I BI I

Sterna caspia Caspian tern BI I BI I I I I I I

Sterna forsteri Forster's tern B I I

Sterna maxima Royal tern BI I

Sterna nilotica Gull-billed tern I

Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich tern

C-19


HP

-3

HP

-4

Key

Blu

es

Lee

k's

Mar

sh

LP

-2

Do

g L

eg

Med

ard

C

Med

ard

E

Med

ard

W

Mo

rro

w

Sw

amp

No

raly

n

Osp

rey N

est

Pan

ther

Poin

t

LP

C-1

AG

Eas

t

SP

-14

Pic

nic

Lak

e

Po

lyph

emu

s

Par

adis

e

Rock

y T

op

Sad

dle

Cre

ek

San

d V

alle

y

San

dy T

op

Sco

ut

Tim

's G

ift

Tri

o M

arsh

C

Tri

o M

arsh

E

Tri

o M

arsh

W

WC

1

WC

4

Wes

t E

nd

Wh

eeli

ng

Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared dove* I BI

Strix varia Barred owl* I I I BI BI B I I

Sturnella magna Eastern meadowlark* I I BI BI BI BI B BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI I BI B BI BI B BI

Sturnus vulgaris European starling* BI I I

Tachycineta bicolor Tree swallow* BI BI BI I B I BI BI B I B BI I I BI BI

Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina wren* BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI I B BI BI BI BI BI B BI BI I B I BI BI BI BI I BI B

Toxostoma rufum Brown thrasher* BI B I B B BI I B BI I B B

Tringa flavipes Lesser yellowlegs I I

Tringa melanoleuca Greater yellowlegs I I I

Tringa solitaria Solitary sandpiper I

Troglodytes aedon House wren* B B BI BI BI I BI BI I I BI BI B BI BI B B BI B B

Turdus migratorius American robin* BI BI I I I I B BI I B I I I I I I BI I BI I I BI B

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird* I I I B BI BI

Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's Kingbird* I

Tyto alba Barn owl* I I I

Unidentified Anatidae Unidentified duck

Vermivora celata Orange-crowned warbler* BI I BI B B

Vermivora peregrina Tennessee warbler* I

Vermivora pinus Blue-winged warbler* I BI B I I

Vermivora ruficapila Nashville warbler* B

Vireo bellii Bell's Vireo* I

Vireo griseus White-eyed vireo* BI BI BI BI I BI BI BI BI BI B I BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI BI B BI BI I

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed vireo* I I I BI BI BI

Vireo solitarius Blue-headed vireo* B I B I BI I I BI I I BI B

Wilsonia citrina Hooded warbler* B I I

Wilsonia pusilla Wilson's warbler*

Zenaida asiatica White winged dove* I

Zenaida macroura Mourning dove* I BI BI I BI I BI BI I I BI I BI BI I I BI BI I BI I B I BI BI I BI I BI BI

* - Upland species

wildlife habitat and wildlife utilization of phosphate

Documents