Species Status Assessment Report for the Panama City Crayfish (Procambarus econfinae) Version 1.1
November 27, 2017
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Atlanta, GA
This document was prepared by Patty Kelly and Dr. Sean Blomquist with invaluable GIS analysis provided by Lydia Ambrose and Gayle Martin and the support of all of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Panama City , FL Ecological Services Field Office
Valuable reviews of this draft document were provided by Paul Moler, FWC and peer reviews of this draft were provided by:
Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Species status assessment report for the Panama City crayfish, Version 1.1, November, 2017, Atlanta, GA
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 2
Species Status Assessment Report for the Panama City Crayfish (Procambarus econfinae) Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Executive Summary
This species status assessment (SSA) reports the results of a comprehensive status review for the Panama City crayfish (PCC) (Procambarus econfinae), documenting the species historical conditions and providing estimates of current and future conditions under a range of different scenarios. The PCC is only known from a small portion of Bay County, Florida, in the vicinity of Panama City (Hobbs 1942, Mansell 1994, Keppner and Keppner 2001) (Figure 1.1). Historically, the PCC inhabited natural and often temporary bodies of shallow fresh water within open pine flatwoods (Hobbs 1942) and wet prairie-marsh communities. However, most of these communities have been cleared for residential or commercial development or replaced with slash pine plantations. Thus, the PCC currently is known to inhabit the waters of grassy, gently-sloped ditches and swales, slash pine plantations, utility rights-of-way (Keppner and Keppner 2001) and a few remnant parcels protected under wetland and private easements.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we used the conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (together, the 3Rs) to evaluate individual PCC life history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species’ demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about its response to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. This process used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of the species to sustain populations in the wild over time.
To evaluate the current and future viability of the PCC, we assessed a range of conditions to allow us to consider the species’ resiliency, representation, and redundancy. For the purposes of this assessment, populations were delineated by seemingly isolated tracts of property currently occupied.
Resiliency, assessed at the population level, describes the ability of a population to withstand stochastic disturbance events. A species needs multiple resilient populations distributed across its range to persist into the future and avoid extinction. These factors include (1) connectivity, (2) high inbreeding coefficient, and (3) sufficient and suitable habitat. The PCC will need adequate pine flatwoods and prairie-marsh habitat within core and secondary soils to survive and thrive in abundance. We discuss each of these factors. As we consider the future viability of the species, more populations with high resiliency distributed across the known range are associated with higher overall viability.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 3
Redundancy describes the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic disturbance events; for the PCC, we considered whether the distribution a localized endemic species population was sufficient for minimizing the potential loss of the species from a catastrophic event.
Representation characterizes a species adaptive potential by assessing geographic, genetic, ecological, and niche variability. The PCC has historically occurred within a range of ~56 square miles in Bay County, Florida. The species is currently represented throughout the historic range, albeit at isolated and small populations on the western portion of the range with a much larger area of undeveloped habitat within the eastern part of its range where developmental pressures are reduced.
We have assessed the PCC’s levels of resiliency, redundancy, and representation currently and into the future by ranking the condition of each population. Rankings are quantitate assessments of the relative condition of the PCC’s remaining habitat within its known range based on the knowledge and expertise of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s draft management plan, reports from PCC experts, and recent genetic analysis (Duncan et al. 2017; Appendix 1) .
Together Resiliency, Redundancy, Representation, the 3R’s, comprise the key characteristics that contribute to a species’ ability to sustain multiple distinct populations in the wild over time (i.e., viability). Using the principles of the 3 R’s, we characterized both the species’ current viability and forecasted its future viability over a range of plausible future scenarios. To this end, we ranked the condition of each population by assessing the relative condition of each population using the best available scientific information.
The most significant stressor to individuals and populations of the PCC is expansion of human populations and associated residential and commercial development. Much of this development has occurred within historic flatwoods habitats and much of the remaining undeveloped habitat is now largely in pine plantations. These plantations are currently at risk of development. Cumulative stressors include changes in weather patterns, such as droughts or altered rain patterns, that may reduce or alter breeding patterns and may have greater effects on smaller isolated populations. We also evaluated whether future climate change and sea level rise may reduce habitats currently available to the PCC. Two populations are susceptible to habitat changes due to sea level rise and may be unlikely to recover from catastrophic events. Translocations, and other population management techniques, are possible and may be necessary to sustain populations.
The PCC will experience a loss of habitat in the future, and we have forecasted what the PCC may have in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and representation under future plausible scenarios:
1) Expected human and commercial growth of the Panama City area over a span of approximately 10, 30 and 50 years (2030, 2050, and 2070); and 2) Expected human and commercial growth at three levels of intensity, status quo (>80% probability of occurrence), intermediate (>30% probability of occurrence), and high (>0% probability of occurrence).
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 4
We used the best available information to forecast the likely future condition of the PCC. Our goal was to describe the viability of the species in a manner that will address the needs of the species in terms of the 3 R’s. We considered a range of potential scenarios that may be important influences on the status of the species, and our results describe this range of possible conditions in terms of how many, how much, and where habitat protections are needed to persist into the future. (Table ES-1).
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 5
Table ES-1. Summary results of the Panama City crayfish species status assessment.
3 R’s NEEDS CURRENT FUTURE CONDITIONS (Viability) CONDITIONS Resiliency: large Adequate water Of the 13 known Overall: Loss of 4-6 high and moderately resilient populations able quality and quantity; populations, 4 highly and populations by 2070 to withstand sufficient 5 moderately resilient Status quo: 3 highly and 2 moderately resilient populations by stochastic events herbaceous populations. 2070 groundcover and Intermediate: 2 highly and 2 moderately resilient populations sufficient habitats by 2070 with suitable soils. High: 1 highly and 2 moderately resilient populations by 2070 Redundancy: Multiple resilient Overall, 54% reduction Overall: By 2030, 33-44% reduction in resilient populations; number and populations in habitat throughout by 2050 and 2070, 44-66% reduction in resilient populations distribution of throughout the range from historic Status quo: By 2070, 0 highly and 1 moderately resilient populations to eastern and western levels. 1 highly and 3 populations in the west; 3 highly and 1 moderately resilient withstand portions of range of moderately resilient populations in the east catastrophic the species. populations in the west; 3 Intermediate: By 2070, 0 highly and 1 moderately resilient events highly and 2 moderately populations in the west; 2 highly and 1 moderately resilient resilient populations in populations in the east the east. High: By 2070, 0 resilient populations in the west; 1 highly and 2 moderately resilient populations in the east Representation: Decreased genetic Local endemic species Overall: By 2070, 44-67% reduction in representation. genetic and inbreeding and less historically functioning Status quo: By 2070, 75% reduction in representation in the ecological population isolation as one metapopulation western group; 20% reduction in representation in the eastern diversity to but now fragmented into group maintain adaptive 13 known populations Intermediate: By 2070, 75% reduction in representation in the potential with genetically distinct western group; 40% reduction in representation in the eastern groups in the eastern and group western portions of High: By 2070, 100% reduction in representation in the range. western group; 40% reduction in representation in the eastern group
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 6
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION ...... 10 CHAPTER 2- INDIVIDUAL NEEDS: LIFE HISTORY AND BIOLOGY ...... 12 2.1. Taxonomy...... 12 2.2. Genetic Diversity...... 16 2.3. Morphological Description ...... 17 2.4. Life History ...... 18 2.5. Habitat ...... 21 CHAPTER 3-POPULATION, SPECIES NEEDS, AND CURRENT CONDITION ...... 25 3.1. Historical Range and Distribution ...... 25 3.2. Current Range and Distribution ...... 29 3.3. Species Survey Efforts, Genetics, and Patches (individual populations) ...... 30 3.4. Needs of the Panama City Crayfish ...... 56 3.4.1. Population Resiliency ...... 56 3.4.2. Species Representation ...... 58 3.4.3. Species Redundancy ...... 58 3.5. Current Conditions ...... 59 3.5.1. Current Resiliency ...... 59 3.5.2. Current Representation ...... 67 3.5.2. Current Redundancy ...... 68 CHAPTER 4 – FACTORS INFLUENCING VIABILITY ...... 68 4.1. Habitat Loss, Fragmentation, and Degradation ...... 69 4.2. Potential Future Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development ...... 71 4.3. Climate Change ...... 72 4.4. Potential Future Sea Level Rise ...... 73 4.5. Other Possible Stressors ...... 77 4.6. Summary ...... 79 CHAPTER 5 – FUTURE CONDITIONS ...... 80 5.1. Future Scenarios ...... 80 5.1.1. Predicting Population Factors ...... 80 5.1.2. Predicting Habitat Elements ...... 81 5.2. Summary ...... 95
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 7
5.2.1. Resiliency ...... 95 5.2.2. Redundancy ...... 96 5.2.3. Representation ...... 98 5.2.4. Overall ...... 98 LITERATURE CITED ...... 99 APPENDIX I: ...... 103 APPENDIX II: CALCULATIONS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS AND POPULATION FACTORS ...... 104 APPENDIX III: CALCULATIONS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS AND HABITAT ELEMENTS ...... 109
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 8
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 9
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
The Panama City crayfish (Procambarus econfinae) (PCC) is a semi-terrestrial crayfish that inhabits wet pine flatwoods and prairie-marsh communities and is known to historically occur within a 56 square mile area (Figure 1). Many crayfish display physiographic integrity – restriction to a particular province or subsection, and Procambarus species are mostly Coastal Plain endemics (Butler et al. 2003), including the PCC. It is endemic to a portion of Bay County, Florida, in the vicinity of Panama City (Hobbs 1942, Mansell 1994, Keppner and Keppner 2001). This species was petitioned for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), in 2010.
Figure 1.1. Panama City Range (thick gray line) endemic to Bay County in northwest Florida. Depicted are occurrences and absences from initial surveys (1999-2006) and from recent surveys (2012-2015).
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 10
The Species Status Assessment (SSA) framework (USFWS 2016) is intended to be an in-depth review of the species’ biology and threats, an evaluation of its biological status, and an assessment of the resources and conditions needed to maintain long-term viability. The intent is for the SSA Report to be easily updated as new information becomes available and to support all functions of the Endangered Species Program from Candidate Assessment, Listing, Consultations, and Recovery. As such, the SSA Report will be a living document that may be used to inform Act decision making, such as listing, recovery, Section 7, Section 10, and reclassification decisions.
Because the PCC SSA has been prepared at the 12- month petitioned finding phase, it is intended to provide the biological support for the decision on whether to propose to list the species as threatened or endangered and, if so, to determine whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat. Importantly, the SSA Report is not a decision document by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service); rather it provides a review of available information strictly related to the biological status of the PCC. The listing decision will be made by the Service after reviewing this document and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies, and the results of a proposed decision will be announced in the Federal Register with appropriate opportunities for public input. For the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of the species to sustain resilient populations in open pine flatwood ecosystems for at least 50 years. We chose 50 years, which encompasses 25-33 generations of the short-lived PCC and is within the range of the available human population growth (expansion into crayfish habitats) and sea level rise model forecasts. Using the SSA framework, we consider what the species needs to maintain viability by characterizing the status of the species in terms of its redundancy, representation, and resiliency (USFWS 2016; Wolf et al. 2015).
• Resiliency is assessed at the population level and reflects a species’ ability to withstand stochastic events (events arising from random factors). Generally, demographic measures that reflect population health, such as fecundity, survival, and population size, are the metrics used to evaluate resiliency. Resilient populations are better able to withstand disturbances such as random fluctuations in birth rates (demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall (environmental stochasticity), and the effects of anthropogenic activities (timber harvest, mosquito spraying).
• Representation is assessed at the species’ level and characterizes the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Metrics that speak to a species’ adaptive potential, such as genetic and ecological variability, can be used to assess representation. Representation is directly correlated to a species’ ability to adapt to changes (natural or human-caused) in its environment.
• Redundancy is also assessed at the level of the species and reflects a species’ ability to withstand catastrophic events (such as a rare destructive natural event or episode involving many populations). Redundancy is about spreading the risk of such an event across multiple, resilient populations. As such, redundancy can be measured by the number and distribution of resilient populations across the range of the species.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 11
To evaluate the current and future viability of the PCC, we assessed a range of conditions to characterize the species’ resiliency, representation, and redundancy (together, the 3Rs). This SSA Report provides an account of known biology and natural history and assesses the risk of threats and limiting factors predicted to affect the future viability of the species.
This SSA Report includes: a description of PCC resource needs at both individual and population levels; a characterization of the historic and current distribution of populations across the species’ range; an assessment of the factors that contributed to the current and future status of the species; the degree to which various factors influenced viability; and a synopsis of the factors characterized in earlier chapters as a means of examining the future biological status of the species. This document is a compilation of the best available scientific and commercial information (and associated uncertainties regarding that information) used to assess the viability of the PCC.
CHAPTER 2- INDIVIDUAL NEEDS: LIFE HISTORY AND BIOLOGY
In this section, we provide basic biological information about the Panama City crayfish (PCC), including its physical environment, taxonomic history and relationships, morphological description, and other life history traits. We then outline the resource needs of individuals and populations. Here we report those aspects of the life histories that are important to our analyses. For further information about the PCC, refer to Keppner and Keppner (2002, 2004, 2014).
2.1. Taxonomy
Worldwide, freshwater crayfishes include over 640 species (Crandall and Buhay 2008), with the southeastern US being one of the epicenters of diversity. More than 360 species are represented in the US (Taylor et al. 2007). With 170 described species and 16 taxa listed as subspecies, the genus Procambarus contains the largest number of species of any genus of freshwater crayfish worldwide. The genus is currently divided into 15 subgenera that include: Acucauda, Astrocambarus, Capillicambarus, Girardiella, Hagenides, Leconticambarus, Lonnbergius, Mexicambarus, Ortmannicus, Paracambarus, Pennides, Procambarus, Scapulicambarus, Tennicambarus, and Villalobosus. The distinguishing feature of the genus Procambarus is the presence of four terminal elements of the male gonopods, which are the external reproductive organs found in arthropods. Representatives of the genus are found throughout much of eastern North America, ranging along the eastern seaboard and the coastal regions of the Gulf of Mexico, up the Mississippi River drainage as far as southern Wisconsin, and south through Texas and Mexico to Honduras (Longshaw and Stebbing 2016, p. 206).
Horton Hobbs, Jr., surveyed for and collected crayfishes in northwestern Florida in 1938. Four years later in 1942, Hobbs published the results of this survey, which included the first formal scientific description of the PCC as Procambarus econfinae, which was described from specimens collected at two sites along and near Highway 231. He designated the type locality as east of US 231 along Industrial Drive in Bay County, Panama City, Florida. From the time of Hobbs’s original collections in 1938 until 1986 there were no reports of the occurrence of this species (Keppner and Keppner 2014). The species was reported again in 1986 when specimens
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 12
were collected from a roadside ditch draining into flatwoods habitat near the junction of County Road (CR) 390 and CR 389 in Bay County (Keppner and Keppner 2014).
The species again was found in 2000 at a site thought to be one of the original sites (type locality) on Industrial Drive (Keppner and Keppner 2000). Since 2000, there have been multiple papers published about the distribution of the species and its defined home range (Keppner and Keppner 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004; Cook 2006; and FWC database 2012-2017). The species is considered to be a valid species (Taylor et al. 1996, 2007; Integrated Taxonomic Information System 2017) and meets the Endangered Species Act definition of a species (Breinholt and Moler 2016).
The currently accepted classification is (Integrated Taxonomic Information System 2017): Phylum: Arthropoda Subphylum: Crustacea Class: Malacostraca Order: Decapoda Family: Cambaridae Subfamily: Cambarinae Genus: Procambarus Subgenus: Procambarus (Leconticambarus) Species: Procambarus econfinae (Hobbs 1942)
FWC’s draft management plan (2017) summarizes that eleven crayfish species are known from Bay County (Table 1.1) and eight, including the PCC, are found in the PCC range. Two of these (P. versutus and P. spiculifer) are strictly stream species, one (P. paeninsulanus) is more typically associated with swamps and overgrown ponds (not typical PCC habitat; see Life History and Habitat), and two (P. pycnogonopodus and P. rogersi) are found in the same habitat as the PCC and may co-occur with it. However, the PCC’s size, shape, and color pattern (Figure 2.1) distinguish it from most of the other species of crayfish that occur within its range (Figure 2.2). The exceptions are two species (P. kilbyi and P. hubbelli) (Figures 2.3 and 2.4) that closely resemble the PCC and have been recently discovered in a small part of its range. The PCC is not known to hybridize with other species of crayfish.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 13
Figure 2.1. The Panama City crayfish, Procambarus econfinae, light form male, dorsal view (Keppner and Keppner 2014). (Photo credit: Dr. Ed Keppner)
Figure 2.2. Range of PCC and other crayfish of similar appearance: P. apalachicolae and P. kilbyi in proximity to the PCC. (Map credit: Keppner and Keppner 2014).
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 14
Figure 2.3. A photo of Procambarus kilbyi (from Keppner and Keppner 2014). (Photo credit: Dr. Ed Keppner).
Figure 2.4. A photo of Procambarus hubbelli; the arrows indicate barbate chelae (Keppner and Keppner 2014). (Photo credit: Dr. Ed Keppner)
Table 2.1. Crayfish species found in Bay County, Florida (info slightly modified from FWC 2017).
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 15
Species Found in PCC range Uses same habitat as Comments PCC Cambarus diogenes No No Devil crayfish Procambarus apalachicolae No -- Coastal flatwoods crayfish Procambarus econfinae Yes, is PCC Yes, is PCC Panama City crayfish Procambarus hubbelli Yes -- Jackknife crayfish, closely related and similar Procambarus kilbyi partial possible encroachment Hatchet crayfish, closely related and similar Procambarus latipleurum No -- Wingtail crayfish Procambarus paeninsularus Yes Some overlap Peninsular crayfish, found in swamps and ponds Procambarus Yes Yes Stud crayfish pycnogonopodus Procambarus rogersi Yes Yes Seepage crayfish Procambarus spiculifer Yes No White-tubercled crayfish, stream dweller Procambarus versutus Yes No Sly crayfish, stream- dweller
2.2. Genetic Diversity
A variety of genetics tests and statistical analyses were performed to determine if 2 species that resemble one another (P. apalachicolae and P. econfinae) should be recognized as unique species (Figure 2.5). All things considered, the recommendation of the geneticists is that the “apalachicolae clade”, or group of similar-looking crayfish, actually includes 4 genetically distinct or recognizable species. These 4 species are related to P. kilbyi in that they shared a common ancestor at one point along the evolutionary continuum. The 5 genetically different groups of crayfish also appear to inhabit discrete areas across the range, with little overlap (based on sampling location data). Based on this analysis, each of the proposed “apalachicolae clade” species of crayfish occur in unique/distinct areas of the Central Florida Panhandle (Breinholt and Moler 2016) (Figure 2.5). .
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 16
Figure 2.5. Phylogenetic tree based on 3 mitochondrial genes and map of the sample locations colored by clade (Breinholt and Moler 2016). 2.3. Morphological Description
The PCC is a small crayfish, growing to about two inches (body length minus claws). Detailed morphological descriptions of the PCC are provided by Hobbs (1942), Keppner and Keppner (2001), and Breinholt and Moler (2016)(Figure 2.6). The color pattern consists of a medium-dark brown background color, lighter brown mid-dorsal stripe, and darker brown dorsolateral stripes (Figure 2.1). The lower lateral carapacial surfaces are lighter brown with reddish-brown spots.
Figure 2.6. Procambarus econfinae (from Hobbs 1942): 16. Dorsal view of carapace, 17. Upper surface of cheliped, 18. Annulus ventralis of female, 19. Lateral view of first pleopod of Form II male, 20. Lateral view of first pleopod of Form I male.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 17
Some Procambarus (Leconticambarus) species are quite similar in size and appearance and can be difficult to separate from one another based only on the general appearance or color. Accurate identification of the species of crayfish in the genus Procambarus requires the examination of the external reproductive structures (gonopods), preferably those of the reproductively competent Form I male (Figure 2.6 and 2.7). This is best achieved with the aid of a stereoscopic microscope. The PCC is distinguished from related species of Procambarus (P. kilbyi, P. apalachicolae, P. hubbelli) that occur outside its range by the shape and arrangement of the terminal processes of the first pair of pleopods of the reproductive males (Hobbs 1942, Keppner and Keppner 2001, 2014).
Hobbs (1942a) stated that males in Procambarus alternate between a sexually competent form (Form I males) and a sexually incompetent form (Form II males). It is the anatomy of the first pair of pleopods of the Form I male that provides the best identification to species, because the keys to Procambarus (Leconticambarus) species are based primarily, if not entirely, on the morphology of the first pleopod of the Form I male.
Figure 2.7. Male and female Panama City crayfish. Male (left), as evidenced by the modified pleopods and female (right) as evidenced by the annulus ventralis. Credit FWC (2017). 2.4. Life History
The life history of this species is not well known. Surveys conducted to date were focused on finding locations where the PCC currently survives and attempting to characterize those habitats and to begin management on easements when possible. Quantitative studies of population densities and the life history were not part of the surveys, although abundance records were captured during certain years. As a result, there are only fragments of information regarding breeding seasons, seasonal occurrence of juveniles, fecundity, and population density. Butler et al. (2003) provides an overview of crayfish of North America and generalities obtained from the study of a few of the many species of cambarid crayfishes: 1) Generally in the southern United States, crayfish mate in the spring and the fertilized
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 18
eggs adhere to the female’s swimmerets while she sequesters herself in a safe place while “in berry” (her egg mass resembles berries). Upon hatching, the young remain with the female for the first three molts before leaving for an independent existence. Brown and Gunderson (1997) stated crayfish are ectothermic, meaning their body temperature is the same as the environmental temperature. Reproduction is cued by seasonal changes (particularly temperature) and growth of juveniles tends to be during the period of maximum availability of food and optimum temperature. This is in response to seasonal changes, also. Optimum temperature for crayfish, regardless of species, is generally thought to be in the range of 68-79o F (20- 26o C).
2) Molting or shedding of the exoskeleton provides a period for growth before the new exoskeleton hardens. This is a critical time for crayfish due to increased vulnerability to predation and pollutants.
3) Many crayfish species have a maximum life span of 1.5 to 3.5 years. According to Hobbs (2001), cambarid crayfishes live about 2.5-3 years. The majority breed more than once, with mating among mature yearlings frequent; however, many individuals do not become sexually active until late summer or fall.
4) Crayfish can be keystone predators in some situations. Some species of crayfish are omnivorous and feed on a wide variety of food items, including plant material, detritus, carrion, and live prey (Smith et al. 2011).
Information summarized below is more specific to the PCC and depicted in a life cycle in Figure 2.8:
1) Males alternate between reproductively mature forms (Form I) and nonreproductive forms (Form II) through a continuous series of molts (Taylor et al. 1996, p. 27). Most breed more than once, with mating among mature yearlings frequent. PCC Form I males have been captured in April and June (Hobbs 1942, Keppner and Keppner 2014)
2) There are multiple instances of females captured from burrows with eggs or young and even adult males in the presence of females with young (Hobbs 1942, Keppner and Keppner 2002, FWC 2017 dataset) (Table 2.2). Female PCC have been found with eggs and/or young from March through September. Juveniles are most frequently found in the summer and have been observed through December, so young appear to be produced from at least March to December. Juveniles can be carried overland by sheet flow during rainy periods, which aids in dispersal (Keppner and Keppner 2002) (Table 2.2). Juveniles about the size that just detached from the females (from 15-25 mm in length) were netted a number of times in December 2003 (Keppner and Keppner 2004). However, the number of juveniles encountered decreased from September through December (seasonal dry period)(Table 2.2). During the normal, seasonal dry conditions experienced from April through May, captures are challenging due to limited surface water.
We developed a conceptualized life cycle diagram for the PCC based on available life history information but when information was lacking we relied on data available regarding another semi-terrestrial crayfish, Procambarus hayi (Figure 2.8) and general crayfish life history information (Butler et al. 2003; Longshaw and Stebbing 2016).
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 19
3) Adult and juvenile PCC crayfish held in captivity have often died during molting phases where neither predation nor pollutants were issues, but perhaps they lacked certain minerals to successfully complete the process (Patty Kelly pers. comm. 2017). Almost all specimens held in aquaria molted at least once during their captivity if captivity was of sufficient duration (Keppner and Keppner 2014). One juvenile molted twice within a span of two months in captivity (Patty Kelly, USFWS, pers. comm. May 2017).
Figure 2.8. Conceptualized PCC Crayfish Life Cycle integrated with P. hayi (Longshaw and Stebbing 2016).
Table 2.2. Current information regarding reproduction is sparse but shows similar reproductive periods during the year for four closely related species. Slight modifications from Keppner and Keppner (2014).
Crayfish Form I Males Females with Females with Hatchlings Eggs Young Captured P. apalachicolae April, May, June, May & June June no data October P. econfinae April & June March through March through March-April (PCC) September December August- December
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 20
P. hubbelli February, March, April & May No data no data April, June P. kilbyi February-June & May & June May-June no data October-November (Hobbs 1942)
2.5. Habitat
Historically, the PCC inhabited natural and often temporary bodies of shallow fresh water within open pine flatwoods and prairie-marsh communities (Hobbs 1942). However, most of these communities have been cleared for residential or commercial development or replaced with slash pine plantations. Thus, the PCC currently is known to inhabit the waters of grassy, gently-sloped ditches and swales, slash pine plantations, and utility rights-of-way (Keppner and Keppner 2001). Several conservation easements within their range are under management for the PCC. These easements are largely wet pine flatwoods and wet prairie habitats. Other private lands are inaccessible to surveyors although, lacking significant disturbance, are likely occupied by PCC given the appropriate soil types discussed further below.
The highest densities of PCC have been recorded in areas with little to no shrub or tree cover. Suitable habitat is normally dominated by herbaceous vegetation such as redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana), beakrushes (Rhynchospora spp.), pitcher plants (Sarracenia spp.), sundews (Drosera spp.), butterworts (Pinguicula spp.), and lilies (Hymenocallis spp.) (Keppner and Keppner 2004, Keppner and Keppner 2005). Lowest population densities have occurred in small, open sites where shrubs or trees were present, or in the furrows between bedding rows in some pine plantations (Keppner and Keppner 2005). When encountered in dense titi (Cyrilla racemiflora and Cliftonia monophylla) swamps, the species was associated with temporarily inundated areas open to the sun with some herbaceous vegetation. Such sites may be considered secondary or suboptimal habitat for PCC. On sites where mixed habitat features are present (e.g., partially wooded sites or sites with permanent, deep-water ponds), PCC appear to select favorable areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation, with shallow or fluctuating water levels (Keppner and Keppner 2005). The overall value of mixed-habitat sites for conservation of PCC depends on the extent and quality of suitable wetland habitats restored or maintained on a given site. Removal and control of nonnative plants is an important part of ongoing and future PCC habitat restoration efforts.
PCC are rarely collected from water bodies that lack vegetation. Vegetation is likely important for sheltering while in water given their small size as well as for food. Observations on PCC that were held in aquaria spanning 1.5+ years (Keppner 2014) indicate that they are detritivores and herbivores. Specimens were offered dead animal material, but they avoided it in favor of processing the substrate for particles of prepared fish food and the fresh aquatic vegetation that were provided as primary food sources. Shelters are an important resource for crayfish as some species build burrows and others use natural substrates for protection. Shelters are used for protection against conspecifics, extreme conditions, environmental changes and predators, during vulnerable stages such as molting, as well as attracting potential mates. Crayfish will use vegetation, gravel, and large rocks for shelters. Crayfish will compete with conspecifics and other species for use of shelters and often engage in agonistic bouts with conspecifics over shelter usage (Longshaw and Stebbing, 2016).
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 21
Hobbs (1942a and 1981) categorized the species of crayfish in the genus Procambarus by their burrowing habits, and provided drawings and a detailed discussion of the types of crayfish burrows (Hobbs 1981). The PCC is a secondary burrower (Figure 2.9 is from Hobbs, 1981). Secondary burrowers are normally in surface water when it is present on the hydric soils they inhabit. They construct burrows that contact the water table as the surface water of their habitat recedes, and they occupy burrows when surface water is absent or during periods of extreme water temperatures. They emerge from the burrows when surface water is present again or water temperatures are favorable. Their burrows are usually rather straight tunnels to the water table, much like a tertiary burrower, but a side chamber may occasionally be present and a second opening to the surface may also be present. These species can often be collected from the surface waters although they may retreat to burrows even when surface water is present. It appears that they can survive significant periods of drought in their burrows when they can maintain contact with the water table. During these dry periods the PCC excavates and lives in unbranched burrows up to three feet long that extend down to the water table, thereby enabling the PCC to remain adequately hydrated and survive. When surface water is absent, the entrance to PCC burrows can usually be detected through identification of small, distinct balls of mud that are deposited on the surface during burrow excavation, forming a chimney. It should be noted that other crayfish within the range of the PCC also build chimneys, so a given chimney cannot be assigned to a particular crayfish species unless the burrow is excavated and its occupant identified. Hobbs (1981) discussed the “function” of the chimney and provided information from others who either believed the chimney was of no purpose or that it was deliberately constructed by the crayfish to serve a purpose. Hobbs (1981) proposed that the chimney is above the ground surface to provide a vent for air flow in the burrow (oxygen in the water in the tunnel system is often less than 2 mg/l).
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 22
Figure 2.9. Burrows and Chimneys, Hobbs (1981). Keppner and Keppner (2004) provided the number of occurrences of P. econfinae in the various occupied soil types and provided the following table of soils that supported P. econfinae locations during their surveys (Table 2.3). Core soils were those soil types that supported the PCC during the drought period of 1998-2003 and during the normal dry seasons (Table 2.3). The locations in Albany sand and other less hydric soil types are in ditches or in small depressions in these soil types. They are not considered to be core soils at this time, because return visits to a few of these locations, after the initial observations of the PCC at the locations with surface water, revealed the absence of surface water and absence of burrows (Keppner and Keppner 2014). Essentially, the “core soils” acted as long hydropattern wetlands as defined by Acosta and Perry (2001), with a water table that remained sufficiently close to the surface during drought for the Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 23
crayfish to maintain contact with it (Table 2.3). The long hydropattern wetlands provided for survival during drought and provided juveniles for dispersion under normal and increased annual precipitation patterns. The secondary soils acted as short hydropattern wetlands as defined by Acosta and Perry (2001) and acted as sinks during drought and sustaining habitat only during normal or higher than normal annual precipitation patterns (Table 2.3). Table 2.3. Soil types supporting P. econfinae within their known Range (* = considered “core soils”).
Soil # Soil Name Characteristics
1 Albany Sand Somewhat poorly drained along defined drainageways and on areas leading to lower wet areas, water table at depth of 18-30 inches for 1-3 months.
12 Leefield Sand Somewhat poorly drained nearly level soil in wet areas along drainageways in flatwoods. Water table at 18-30 inches for about 3-4 months. Irregularly ponded.
13 Leon Fine Poorly drained, nearly level soil in flatwoods, water table within a depth of 10 inches for up to 4 Sand months each year, 10-40 inches the remainder of year.
22* Pamlico- Very poorly drained, depressional areas along low gradient drainages, ponded after flooding for Dorovan 4-8 months, water table at 10 inches each year. Complex
29* Rutlege Sand Very poorly drained, level to slightly depressional areas along drainages, ponded 4-6 months, water table at or near surface 4-6 months each year.
31 Osier Fine Poorly drained, nearly level or slight depressions and flatwoods slopes, ponded 2-4 months, Sand water table within 10 inches 3-6 months each year.
32* Plummer Poorly drained, low-lying areas and poorly defined drainages, ponded for brief periods, water Sand table within 10 inches 3-6 months each year.
33* Pelham Sand Poorly drained, slight depression, flats along poorly defined drains, brief periods of flooding, water table within 15 inches 3-6 months each year.
36 Alapaha Loamy Poorly drained, nearly level in wet depressions along poorly defined drainageways in flatwoods. Sand Water table less than 15 inches for 3-6 months, brief flooding when water table is high.
39* Pantego Sandy Very poorly drained in wet depressions and poorly defined drainageways in flatwoods and Loam moderately well-defined drainageways in uplands. Water table at less than 15 inches for 3-6 months, depressional areas ponded for 1-3 months.
51* Rutledge- Very poorly drained, frequently flooded, drainage ways and wide depressional areas, flooded Pamlico about 3-6 months each year, water table within about 20 inches of surface. Complex
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 24
CHAPTER 3-POPULATION, SPECIES NEEDS, AND CURRENT CONDITION
In this chapter we consider the PCC’s historical distribution, genetic information, its current distribution, and what the species needs for viability. We first review the historical information on the range and distribution of the species. We next review the conceptual needs of the species, including population resiliency, redundancy, and representation to support viability and reduce the likelihood of extinction. Finally we consider the current conditions of the PCC populations. 3.1. Historical Range and Distribution
The PCC’s historic range is located in south-central Bay County, Florida and is estimated to cover a 56 square mile area (FWS GIS 2017). It’s range, on a peninsula, is bounded by Callaway Bayou to the southeast, Callaway Creek to the east, Bayou George Creek and the headwaters of Callaway Creek to the northeast, North Bay to the north, West Bay to the west, and St. Andrew Bay and East Bay to the south (Figure3.1).The PCC range overlaps jurisdictional boundaries of four cities (Panama City, Lynn Haven, Callaway, Springfield) and Bay County proper (Figure 3.2).
Using the Natural Resource Conservation Service—Soil Survey Geographic Database (NRCS SSURGO) dataset, ArcGIS software was used to calculate the acreage of core and secondary soils within the historic range of the PCC prior to anthropogenic habitat disturbances (FWS GIS 2017) (Figure 3.3). We used the Cooperative Land Cover (CLC) version 3.2 GIS data obtained from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)-Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) and the Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR) parcel data to filter out habitats considered “developed” or unsuitable to the PCC. Familiarity with the local landscape, we recognize that some hardwood swamps not considered suitable for the PCC, except the ecotonal transition habitat, still fall within the core soil category but with time limitations for field checks these remain within the estimated original acreage. Land acreages within the PCC’s range total 35,658 acres, with a composition of the following soils: 1) core with 14,880 acres (42% of the land area); 2) secondary with 12,379 (35% of the land area), and 3) unsuitable soils with 8,399 acres (23% of the land area) (Table 3.1). We estimate that historically 3,898 acres of the core (3,242 acres [22%]) and secondary (364 acres [3%]) are hardwood swamp, not directly used by the PCC but included in Table 3.1 totals.
Table 3.1. Historic and current core and secondary soil acreage available to the PCC minus some hardwood swamp habitats not suitable for the species.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 25
PCC Range= 56 sq. Historic % of Range 2016 % of miles Acres Undeveloped historic ac (hectares) acres remaining (hectares) Acres within Range 35, 658 100% 14,827 42% (14,430) (6,000) Core Soils 14,880 42% 9,180 62% (6021) (3,715) Secondary Soils 12,379 35% 5,647 46% (5,010) (2,285) Unsuitable Soils 8,399 23% 3,328 40% (3,399) (1,347)
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 26
Figure 3.1. The range of the Panama City crayfish is bordered on the east by Callaway Creek, the northeast by Bayou George Creek, the north by North Bay, the west by West Bay, and the south by East and St. Andrew Bays.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 27
Figure 3.2. The PCC occurs within 4 city limits and Bay County proper.
Figure 3.3. Depicts habitats available to the PCC historically prior to habitat alterations.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 28
3.2. Current Range and Distribution
Using November 2016 Bay County, Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) parcel layers, we estimated undeveloped acres remaining in core and secondary soils (Table 3.1). “Undeveloped” parcels include lands labeled cropland, improved agriculture, vacant industrial, vacant commercial, vacant residential, grazing, urban, utilities rights-of-way, and timberland (FWS GIS 2017). Sixty-one (61%) or 9,180 acres of historic core soils remain undeveloped and 46% or 5,646 acres or secondary soils remain undeveloped (Figure 3.4)(Table 3.1). Averaging the losses of both core and secondary soils, we estimate that 54% of the original lands historically available to the PCC remains potentially available for use by the PCC. If we remove hardwood swamps from the core and secondary soils, then 6,287 acres (42%) of core, and 5,325 acres (43%) remain undeveloped from historic levels, or 43% overall. A 2013 aerial photo shows the undeveloped areas remaining within the PCC’s range (Figure 3.5).
Figure 3.4. Depicts habitats available to the PCC in November 2016 but includes hardwood swamps not fully used by the PCC.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 29
Figure 3.5. Aerial photo of developed and undeveloped lands within the PCC’s range. 3.3. Species Survey Efforts, Genetics, and Patches (individual populations)
Keppner and Keppner (2002), surveyed for PCC on Gulf Power rights-of-way between Star Avenue and Transmitter Road in 2002, and on St. Joe Lands (largest private lands owner in PCC range) east of Panama City in 2003 and 2004 (Keppner and Keppner 2004). These surveys defined the eastern/southeastern range of the PCC (Keppner and Keppner 2004). In 2003, the City of Panama City hired Dr. Frasier Bingham to conduct a PCC survey (Bingham 2003). Later in 2003, the Keppners surveyed this same general area (Keppner and Keppner 2004) and conducted resurveys at a few points in 2006 (Figure 1.1). In 2012-2013, FWC led a survey effort in which FWC staff and partners resurveyed previously documented points on rights-of-way and public road edges and at undocumented points throughout the species’ range. In 2013, some 10 years after the original surveys by the Keppners, the St. Joe Company provided access for these surveys (Figure 1.1). Although these surveys documented new occurrences that further defined the PCC range, surveyors failed to confirm PCC at several previously documented occurrence points. Data collected from opportunistic surveys, environmental consultants, and annual surveys on PCC management areas are continually added to the PCC database. Occurrence data from these surveys formed the basis for determining the species’ range (Figure 1.1). PCC surveys are limited to rights-of-way, lands
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 30
open to the public, or private lands where access is granted, so there remain lands where the PCC likely occurs but access remains unauthorized (Figure 1.1). In 2016, FWS funded a genetic status and landscape connectivity analysis of the PCC throughout its range where access was allowed and occurrences known (Duncan et al. 2017). FWS and FWC biologists collected 170 PCC samples from the field in February-April and August- September 2016. Adequate DNA from 161 samples (some had insufficient quality from DNA degradation) was obtained (Duncan et al. 2017). The samples represented most of the areas with recent records of PCC, which allowed the researchers to evaluate trends in genetic diversity and differentiation.
Genetic sampling locations showed patterns of differentiation. There was a strong pattern of isolation-by-distance, where increasing geographic separation tended to reflect increasing genetic differentiation among sample locations. The largest differences occurred between the eastern and western portions of the range (Figure 3.6). The results of a landscape analysis, which will be described further below, also demonstrate the importance of core and secondary soils in describing this genetic differentiation. For this reason, we have summarized the availability of these “suitable” habitats within each patch’s polygon in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 and again within each individual patch’s summary.
For ease of summarizing habitat status associated with each patch, the PCC were delineated by polygons using one-quarter mile circles around each core sample. When the populations were delineated and multiple patches were the same genetically, we merged the one-quarter mile polygons into one larger polygon. Lacking an exact minimum separation distance between sampling points, we used one-quarter mile (0.4 km). Literature on crayfish dispersal distances are largely based on migratory and often invasive species. NatureServe recommends a 2 km distance for movement across suitable and unsuitable habitats. The PCC is a small crayfish that does not have large migratory movements, especially through unsuitable habitats, so we erred on the side of caution and used one-quarter mile (0.40 km) separation distance. We did not remove isolated lands that may be separated by development within the polygons due to time constraints. With larger populations, where genetically similar sample sites were distributed across a broader landscape, polygons were drawn separating each population by using breaks in habitats deemed biological barriers to movements (i.e., stream or unsuitable soils). Also, for ease of delineation, roadways or the PCC range was used as a delineating boundary (Figures 3.6, 3.7 and 3.16). The individual population boundary colors correspond with the genetic analysis report (Duncan et al. 2017) (Figures 3.6, 3.7, and 3.16).
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 31
Figure 3.6. Map of PCC genetic samples and eastern-western differentiation break-out.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 32
Table 3.2. Summary of western range of the PCC and habitats (resistance layers) located within one-quarter mile polygon surrounding genetic points and surrounding habitat categories.
Possibly Secondary Effective Inbreeding Core Soils-- Suitable- Undeveloped, Urban Open Population Soils-- Unsuitable Developed Total acres Population Coefficient undeveloped right soils other soils Land undeveloped Size (Ne) but disturbed West: 21.02 8.20 15.91 12.16 --- 26.69 58.49 142.48 32.6 0.359 Shriners Airport 9.87 9.25 --- 8.72 36.97 83.52 --- 148.32 --- 0.214 -north Airport 6.70 11.87 --- 0.38 38.03 58.70 82.38 198.06 61.3 0.344 -south 61.34 24.81 --- 16.15 --- 26.55 69.01 197.86 424.5 0.310 Talkington City of Lynn 43.72 15.59 --- 44.90 0.05 9.50 11.82 125.58 ------Haven 13.16 5.53 --- 0.06 8.82 63.93 74.84 166.33 --- 0.395 Industrial St. Joe 232.10 99.56 --- 5.13 0.72 21.71 70.05 429.28 1638 0.348 Mitigation College 3.20 1.99 --- 0.97 --- 29.90 89.52 125.58 ------Point TOTALS: 390.12 176.78 15.91 88.48 84.60 320.47 456.02 1533.37
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 33
Table 3.3. Summary of eastern range of the PCC and habitats (resistance layers) located within either one-quarter mile polygon surrounding genetic points or larger polygons that merged several associated genetic points and surrounding habitat categories.
Possibly Secondary Suitable- Effective Inbreeding Core Soils-- Undeveloped, Urban Population Soils-- right soils Unsuitable Developed Total acres Population Coefficient undeveloped other soils Open Land undeveloped but Size (Ne) disturbed East 76.10 ------70.07 2.60 16.75 48.18 213.69 63.1 0.260 Highpoint 585.40 258.45 --- 213.09 --- 84.71 56.86 1,198.51 9.4 0.448 Deerpoint 231 143.73 133.99 --- 14.00 --- 29.28 8.65 329.65 --- 0.396 north Star 1,754.07 1,344.59 2.04 336.89 9.32 355.68 729.71 4,532.30 1450.9 0.493 Avenue 231 3,007.99 2,301.25 23.09 281.89 3.54 328.75 449.43 6,395 145.6 0.460 South- St Joe TOTALS: 5,567.29 4,038.28 25.13 915.94 15.46 815.17 1,292.83 12,669.15
Totals of All 5,958.40 4,215.08 41.04 1,004.41 100.05 1,135.67 1,748.94 14,202.64 Columns
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 34
Western Patches within PCC Range as summarized in Figure 17:
Figure 3.7. Eight different patches are located in the western part of the PCC range.
The landscape genetic analysis (Duncan et al. 2017) delineates eight different patches occurring in the western range of the PCC (Figure 3.7), as summarized below:
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 35
Shriners: The southwestern-most population, with the species centered around an active railroad track. Only secondary soils remain undeveloped, but the elevated railroad track has artificially provided a water barrier, often keeping the site ponded when all others have dried up. Maintenance for the railroad has kept the right-of-way in dense, herbaceous vegetation that is ideal for the PCC. Adjacent artificially dense slash pine stands, where burrows have been documented, make up 3.4 acres, and a mowed grass field, occupancy unconfirmed, provides 0.8 acres of habitat. All lands are in private ownership.
Survey Data: PCC captured in 2001, 2012-14, 2016-17. Numbers range from fewer than 10 up to 20, with the exception of a crayfish marking experiment conducted in May 2017 in which 42 PCC were captured in a two consecutive day survey.
Land under Easement: Railroad right-of-way is mowed (~0.20 ac) but not under conservation agreement. Inbreeding Coefficient: 0.359 Effective Population size: 32.6 Population Isolation: Talkington is closest at 4,725 meters Suitable habitat (acres): 29 acres but skewed some by calling Shriners parcel as developed but it is only partially and has secondary soils. Water quality and availability: 60% of polygon is developed or unsuitable; moderate for water ranking.
Figure 3.8. Shriners survey data.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 36
Airport-north (AN) and Airport-south (AS): The northwestern-most population, Airport-north (AN) is located within the right-of-way of the historic Bay County airport adjacent the old runway. Airport-south (AS) population is located on the southern end of the airport runway buffer zone. All of the historic airport property is under private ownership and permitted for development. The Corps’ applicant, St. Andrew Bay Land Company, LLC (Stantec) requested and the Service issued a conference opinion (CO) in March 2013 for the PCC and gopher tortoises. Project is a mixed-use development comprising residential, commercial, office, and institutional land uses. The project is also permitted by FWC. The proposed project would result in the development of 606 of the site’s 684 acres. Approximately 532 acres of the 606 to be developed represent heavily disturbed areas that have been impacted by over 60 years of airport operations. The Applicant retained as part of the proposed action 95% of the onsite PCC population with a commitment to maintain, enlarge, and enhance onsite habitat for this and the Airport-south populations and expand into enhanced and restored areas with core soils. Take includes habitat associated with 4 sectional ditches that totaled 0.67 acres. The PCC still occupies all but one of these ditches. As required by the CO and FWC permit, the lands remaining for the PCC are held under a DEP conservation easement. The direct effects of the action include the permanent loss of 0.67 acres of the 1.39 acres of occupied habitat. A total of 3.17 acres in core or suitable habitat is in permanent DEP easement with management requirements (FWS 2013).
Airport-north (AN): Survey Data: PCC discovered in 2012 and confirmed again 2016. Numbers ranged 4-20. Land under Easement: Permit authorizes loss of 2 ditches that equal 0.45 acres; DEP easement shows 1.28 acres in core soils and 0.64 acres grassy swale. Management is required but not yet implemented. Inbreeding coefficient: 0.214 Effective Population size: could not analyze Population Isolation: No Least Cost Path available; complete isolation from airport development over 60 years ago. Suitable habitat (acres): 19 acres Water quality and availability: 56% of polygon is developed or unsuitable; moderate for water ranking.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 37
Figure 3.9. Airport-north (AN) survey data.
Airport-south (AS): Survey Data: PCC discovered in 2012, seen again in 2013, 2016. Between 10-20 PCC were captured within each ditch. Fewer than 10 were captured within the wetland easement site. Land under Easement: Permit authorizes loss of 2 ditches equaling 0.22 acres in size; DEP conservation easement is 2.42 acres in size, but only 1.25 acres is suitable PCC habitat and protected per CO. Management is required but not yet implemented. Inbreeding coefficient: 0.344 Effective Population size: 61.3 Population Isolation : Talkington is closest at 1,910 meters Suitable habitat (acres): 18.57 Water quality and availability: 71 % of polygon is developed or unsuitable; low for water ranking.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 38
Figure 3.10. Airport-south (AS) survey data.
Talkington: This population has the third (out of 8) highest effective population size. The PCC largely occupies the 10-acre Talkington Family Nature Preserve, with land ownership held by the Bay County Conservancy (BCC), but the conservation easement deed is held by Florida DEP (FDEP). The 10 acre tract is in pine flatwoods and also contains a cluster of pond pine trees in the center portion. Sixty one acres of core soils provide opportunity for additional land protections. The land directly south and adjacent to Talkington is believed occupied, given that PCC have been documented in the adjacent ditches. This 28 acre parcel is for sale. BCC has made offers for purchase of portions of the property but the asking price is near one million, which is not feasible for a local conservancy organization. The developed portion of land surrounding Talkington is mostly apartment buildings, residential homes, and some commercial office buildings. PCC are located in other ditches adjacent to undeveloped properties in core and secondary soils, likely indicating additional occupation by PCC. The FWS and FWC have a Management Agreement in place where gyro-tracking and mowing are used to manage the property on an every 2-3 year basis. Fire as a management tool is not allowed, given the proximity to a heavily used roadway adjacent the property (Jenks Avenue). A road widening project is proposed along Jenks Avenue that may impact the PCC and its habitat. Consultation with FWC is underway.
Survey Data: Documented on site since 2000. Other surveys recorded in 2001, 2003, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2016, and 2017. Highest count in August 2012 of 42 individuals but just juveniles captured; highest adult captures occurred in March 2013 with 6 males and 3 females (21 juveniles). Land under Easement: 10-acres Talkington Family Nature Preserve, under management; ~6.2 acres under Gulf Power ROW management. Inbreeding coefficient: 0.310 Effective Population size: 424.5 Population Isolation: Airport-south is closest at 1,910 meters Suitable habitat (acres): 86 acres
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 39
Water quality and availability: 48% of polygon is developed or unsuitable; moderate for water ranking.
Figure 3.11. Talkington survey data.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 40
City of Lynn Haven (L2): Encompassing 44 acres of core soils, this site is largely hardwood- cypress swamp with some possibilities for improving habitat suitability along 6 acres near and adjacent to the swamp ecotone. Thirty-two acres is under easement held by FDEP, with land owned by the City of Lynn Haven. FWC and FWS have a Management Agreement with the City of Lynn Haven. Funds are lacking to move forward with restoration actions, but FWS Partners program constructed a low water crossing for access and the Coastal Program provided funds to clear the right-of-way of dense pines. Other undeveloped lands surrounding the easement consist of dense slash pine plantations. The property has deep rutting from off-road vehicles, horses, and likely logging equipment. Remaining lands include Moseley High School and residential and commercial development.
Survey Data: No voucher specimen to confirm PCC exists onsite but one possible adult female and male were reported April 2015. One juvenile collected for genetic work but insufficient information to process and due to size, identification not clear. Land under Easement: 32 acres easement held by FDEP, land owned by City of Lynn Haven. 6 acres might be improved for a PCC population but augmentation likely needed. Inbreeding coefficient: Insufficient data Effective Population size: Insufficient data Population Isolation: Not included but LCP runs through Lynn Haven between these two: direct path is 1,609 meters to Talkington and 2,092 meters to St. Joe mitigation. Suitable habitat (acres): 85 acres Water quality and availability: 17 % of polygon is developed or unsuitable; high for water ranking.
Figure 3.12. City of Lynn haven (L2) survey data.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 41
Industrial: This PCC site parallels Highway 231, the primary 2 lane ingress and egress roadway to reach and leave Panama City Beach, and a Bay Line Railroad track that was completed by 1908. This location is in the industrial area of Panama City. Lands surrounding the site include Panama City Mall, Warehouse Storage, Panama Industrial, LLC, Vulcan Land, Inc., Cargill Steel and Wire, Inc., Bay Tank and Fabricating Co., Inc., and Segrest Management Inc.-a warehouse company. Only 13 acres of core soils are within the immediate ¼ mile vicinity of the PCC confirmed locations but they likely contain too much water to be ideal for the PCC. The habitat break-out labels the occupied habitats as Urban Open Land that contains core and secondary soils and amounts to 8.82 acres. There appear to be approximately 250 acres of core and secondary soils, likely with some occupancy outside of the ¼ mile vicinity of the PCC, but only limited surveys along accessible roadways have been conducted, since all are privately owned corporations. Connectivity may be one explanation for a medium inbreeding coefficient when the immediate available habitat appears limiting with only 19 available acres.
Survey Data: One of the original localities reported by Hobbs (1942) and again by the Keppners in 2000 with 2 males, 2 females, 9 juveniles; 2001 1 dug from burrow, 11 burrows seen; 2012 3 adults, 2 subadults, and in 2016, 3 adult males, 4 adult females, 1 juvenile. Land under Easement: None Inbreeding coefficient: 0.395 Effective Population size: Insufficient data Population Isolation: Not included but direct line is 3,218 meters from Airport-south population. Suitable habitat (acres): 19 acres Water quality and availability: 83% of polygon is developed or unsuitable; low for water ranking.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 42
Figure 3.13. Industrial survey data.
St. Joe Mitigation: Approximately 77% of the lands within this population are located in core (231 acres) and secondary (99.6 acres) soils. These lands and an additional 200 acres outside of the one-quarter boundary are categorized as timber or improved agriculture with the likelihood of additional PCC based on similar habitat features of timber activities and soils within the population and no barriers between them. The developed surrounding properties include Lynn Haven sports complex, a church, light industrial, and residential neighborhoods. Florida DEP holds multiple conservation easements on a total 86.6 acres of pine flatwoods; the landowner is the St. Joe Company, Inc. The easement lands are managed as required by permit with either mowing or burning, but we are unsure how long the management is required. St. Joe Company, Inc., is willing to work under an agreement should we or FWC be willing to take over management activities.
Survey Data: First confirmed occupied in 2004 with 2 adult males and 8 juveniles reported; 2013 confirmed sightings, no specific numbers; two survey days in March 2016 resulted in the capture of 57 adult males, 47 adult females, 71 juvenile male, and 58 juvenile females totaling 232 PCC captured. (55:45 male:female sex ratio)
Land under Easement: 86.6 acres (~78 in core and 9 in secondary soils) Inbreeding coefficient: 0.348, considered middle range (5 of 11 populations) Effective Population size: 1638 reported, the highest of 8 Population Isolation: Talkington is closest at 6,283 meters Suitable habitat (acres): 332 acres Water quality and availability: 21% of polygon is developed or unsuitable; high for water ranking.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 43
Figure 3.14. St. Joe Mitigation survey data.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 44
College Point: Found on a northern-central point in the PCC range, this site is seemingly isolated and likely not a viable population. It is located in a fully built out residential neighborhood. Individual PCC were captured from a small ditch that stays wet from an adjacent shrubby wetland in core soils and unmanaged conditions. Only 3.21 acres are in core soils, of which all but 0.03 acres are protected under a Bay County easement, with land ownership held by College Oaks Homeowners Association. An electric substation is located on a small portion of the easement.
Survey Data: First documented in 2012 with one individual, not found in 2013, and 1 male captured in 2016 for the genetic work. Land under Easement: 2.99 acres of core and secondary soils under easement held by Bay County and HOA. Inbreeding coefficient: Insufficient data Effective Population size: Insufficient data Population Isolation: Not included Suitable habitat (acres): 5 acres Water quality and availability: 95% of polygon is developed or unsuitable; low for water ranking.
Figure 3.15. College Point survey data.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 45
Eastern Patches within PCC Range as summarized in Table 3.5 (Figure 3.16):
Figure 3.16. Five different patches are located in the eastern part of the PCC range.
The landscape genetic analysis (Duncan et al. 2017) reported five different patches occurring in the eastern range of the PCC (Figure 3.6), as summarized below:
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 46
Highpoint: This is the northern-most population and has the second lowest inbreeding coefficient. Principle component analysis shows a complete separation of the Highpoint population from any other PCC populations (Duncan et al. 2017). Voucher specimens confirming the identity of the specimen reside at the Florida Museum of Natural History (vouchers labeled #104, collected in 2010, and #266, collected in 2015) (Ed Keppner via email to Patricia Kelly, dated June 10, 2017). Thirty six percent of the quarter-mile habitat partition contains core soils and 34% are categorized as rural open or coniferous plantations, neither within soils identified as PCC suitable, although documented collections are recorded within these habitat types. Development and unsuitable habitats form the remaining 30%. An 11 acres conservation easement, called Marjorie’s Magical Marsh-Symone’s Sanctimonious Swamp, contains the majority of the PCC population to date. Prior to the PCC being located on the easement property, 6 of the 11 acres were largely a monoculture of overgrown and dense titi (Cyrilla racemiflora and Cliftonia monophylla ) shrub thicket with sparse slash pines (Pinus elliotti) in the overstory as a result of many years lacking fire management. The remaining 5 acres is a wetter hardwood-bay swamp habitat not used by the PCC except along the ecotone. Under a management agreement with FWS and FWC and funds provided by both agencies, the easement lands are in restoration status, with gradual improvements with a more diverse herbaceous groundcover, minimal shrub layer, and a sparse slash pine overstory. The undeveloped lands surrounding the easement were historically managed for timber but currently support mostly dense titi with an intermittent slash pine overstory, but they likely contain additional PCC. The developed lands are strictly residential housing, and recent clear-cuts east of the quarter-mile polygon may indicate future housing.
Survey Data: PCC confirmed in 2010, 2012-2014, 2015-2017. Highest count was in December 2014 with 3 adult females, 1 adult male, 37 juveniles and 9 hatchlings recorded. Land under Easement: 11 acres, 6 that are suitable for the PCC. Under management. Inbreeding coefficient: 0.260 Effective Population size: 63.1 Population Isolation: Star Avenue is closest at 7,616 meters Suitable habitat (acres): 76 Water quality and availability: 30% of polygon is developed or unsuitable; high for water ranking.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 47
Figure 3.17. Highpoint survey data.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 48
Deerpoint: This PCC population is established on a peninsula with the second highest inbreeding coefficient. The land is bordered by Willams Bayou on the northeast, Mill Bayou on the southwest, and North Bay to the north. Principle component analysis shows a complete separation of the Deerpoint population from any other PCC populations but in closest proximity to Star Avenue and 231-south populations (Duncan et al. 2017). It has a 9.4 effective population size, the lowest reported throughout the PCC range (Duncan et. al. 2017). The majority of the habitat available to this population is in core and secondary soils, whereas the remainder is in pine flatwoods habitat within different soil types. These lands are heavily timbered and unmanaged, resulting in dense overgrowth of titi and often dense slash pine. This parcel is almost completely undeveloped with the exception of 20 acres owned by Bay County schools for an elementary school, field, and parking zones. A few borrow pits and dirt roads traverse the lands. Four easements lie within the habitats accessible to this population: (1) Lynn Haven Conservation Park (LHC Park)- a recent Trust for Public Lands acquisition that is 90 acres in size, with about 60 acres in core and secondary soils, (2) FDEP holds three easements, 1 owned by the Bay County School Board (11 acres), and 2 owned by D&H Properties, LLC (24 acres). Totaled, all easements protect approximately 95 acres of core and secondary soils. The LHC Park will provide walking trails and develop the drier portion of the property that are mostly out of PCC habitat. It’s unknown if the land will be managed for PCC. FWS and FWC hold a management agreement with D&H Properties, LLC, and have mowed and burned portions of the property on a regular basis. Survey Data: First confirmed in 2001, additional surveys occurred on easements in 2012, again in 2014-2017. Highest counts were in April-August 2016 for the genetic collections. 40 adult males, 31 adult females, 18 juvenile males, 19 juvenile females, and 3 hatchlings, totaling: 108 individuals. Land under Easement: 1) LHC Park-60 acres core and secondary soils; 2) FDEP easements that total 35 acres of core and secondary soils. Management agreements in place for 24 acres. Inbreeding coefficient: 0.448 Effective Population size: 9.4 Population Isolation: 231-north is closest at 2,403 meters from genetic points but is separated by 0.25 miles of suitable habitats. Suitable habitat (acres): 843 acres Water quality and availability: 12% of polygon is developed or unsuitable; high for water ranking.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 49
Figure 3.18. Deerpoint survey data.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 50
231-north: All captures for this population occurred adjacent to County Road 2321 or Highway 231. Both major roads divide the lands available to this population. Lands that run parallel to the county road are mostly in dense slash pine plantations with overgrown groundcover. The eastern plantations have been harvested recently. There is no regular management. There are no conservation easements in place. One parcel is owned by the State of Florida and used by the Florida Highway Patrol. The majority of lands providing habitat to this population are owned by the St. Joe Paper Company, Inc.
Survey Data: Surveys were conducted in 2001, 2003-04, 2012-13, 2016. Database states between 10-20 at a few sites but a lot of sites sampled had negative findings. 4 adult and 2 subadults were captured in 2016 for the genetic studies but usually just one adult captured per sampling effort. Land under Easement: 0 Inbreeding Coefficient: 0.396 Effective Population size: Insufficient data Population Isolation: Deerpoint is closest at 2,403 meters to each genetic center point Suitable habitat (acres): 278 acres Water quality and availability: 12 % of polygon is developed or unsuitable; high for water ranking.
Figure 3.19. 231-north survey data.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 51
Star Avenue: This population forms the furthest east-northeast boundary of the PCC’s range. Using the PCC genetic results coupled with geographic boundaries (creek systems) that are likely barriers for PCC movements, we merged all lands into one polygon. This population is afforded 3,099 acres of suitable lands mostly under timber management since the mid-1980’s and in various stages from recent clear-cuts to dense slash pines with dense titi shrub layers. Two primary landowners, St Joe Paper Company and Bay Properties, Inc., hold most of the lands within this unit. Gulf Power Company manages rights-of-way along approximately 86 acres of land that is populated with the PCC. FWS and FWC have a management agreement that provides recommend best management practices to Gulf Power Company, with which they have largely complied. Residential, commercial, and Bay County prison populate the developed portions of land within the polygon. Currently a 2-lane road, Star Avenue, bisects this population. Department of Transportation intends to expand this into a 4 lane highway. The PCC within this unit displays the least inbreeding effects and has the second largest effective population size, second to St. Joe Mitigation. The majority of undeveloped lands are in core and secondary soils.
Survey Data: Localized sampling occurred in 2001, 2002, 2006. Larger sampling events occurred during the winter of 2003-04, spring of 2012, and spring of 2013. Genetics were sampled in September 2016 from 19 sites, with material from: 2 adult females, 5 adult males, 3 subadult females, 7 subadult males and 1 subadult of unknown sex (Table 3.4).
Table 3.4. Summary of PCC captures within the Star Avenue Population Polygon. # PCC 2003- 2012 2013 captured 04 0 85 19 22 <10 98 12 21 10-20 19 9 5 >20 8 4 3 #sampled 210 44 51 total with 125 25 29 PCC
Land under Easement: Gulf Power Right-of-Way under agreement with BMPs (~120 acres). Inbreeding Coefficient: 0.493 Effective Population size: 1450.9 Population Isolation: 231-north is closest at 2,548 meters Suitable habitat (acres): 3,099 acres Water quality and availability: 24% of polygon is developed or unsuitable; high for water ranking.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 52
Figure 3.20. Star Avenue survey data.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 53
231 South-St Joe: This population forms the furthest south-southeast boundary of the PCC’s range. Using the PCC genetic results coupled with geographic boundaries (creek systems) that are likely barriers for PCC movements, we merged all lands into one polygon. This population is afforded 5,309 acres of suitable lands mostly under timber management since the mid-1980’s and in various stages from recent clear-cuts to dense slash pines with dense titi shrub layers. St Joe Paper Company holds most of the lands within this unit. Gulf Power Company manages rights-of-way along approximately 114 acres of land that is populated with the PCC. FWS and FWC have a management agreement that provides recommend best management practices to Gulf Power Company, with which they have largely complied. Residential and commercial populate the developed portions of land within the polygon. Currently a 2-lane road, Star Avenue, bisects this population. Department of Transportation intends to expand this into a 4 lane highway. Tram Road also bisects the lower third of the polygon. It is currently a dirt road with plans for improving to an asphalted and 4-lane road. The PCC within this unit displays the second least inbreeding effects with a middle ranged effective population size. The majority of undeveloped lands are in core and secondary soils. Two conservation easements, 11.27 and 7.3 acres in size, are held by FDEP and 2 separate landowners. They have not been contacted about PCC management.
Survey Data: Localized sampling occurred in 2001, 2002, 2006. Larger sampling events occurred during the winter-spring of 2003-04, spring of 2012, and spring of 2013. Genetics were sampled in August-September 2016 from 42 sites with materials from : 16 adult females, 4 subadult females, 9 adult males, 10 subadult males, 1 juvenile female, 1 juvenile male, and 1 hatchling (Table 3.5).
Table 3.5. Summary of PCC captures within the 231-south Population Polygon. # PCC 2003- 2012 2013 captured 04 0 313 17 48 <10 255 14 25 10-20 135 3 5 >20 132 30 6 #sampled 835 64 84 total with 522 47 36 PCC Land under Easement: Gulf Power Right-of-Way under agreement with BMPs (~220 ac). Inbreeding Coefficient: 0.460 Effective Population size: 145.6 Population Isolation: Star Avenue is closest at 5,125 meters Suitable habitat (acres): 5,309 acres Water quality and availability: 12% of polygon is developed or unsuitable; high for water ranking.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 54
Figure 3.21. South-St Joe survey data .
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 55
3.4. Needs of the Panama City Crayfish
As discussed in Chapter 1, for the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of the species to sustain populations in the wild over time (in this case, 50 years). Using the SSA framework, we describe the species’ viability by characterizing the status of the species in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, and representation (the 3Rs). Using various time frames and the current and projected levels of the 3Rs, we thereby describe the species’ level of viability over time. 3.4.1. Population Resiliency
As previously described, PCC populations were delineated by genetic differentiation and separated by polygons (Figure 3.6, 3.7, and 3.16). Given the hierarchical nature of the relationship between individuals, populations, and species, we first consider resiliency at the level of an individual, then scale up to populations (patch polygons), and, ultimately, make inferences at the species-level.
Resiliency (measured at the population level) is the foundational building block of the SSA Framework; thus, for the PCC to be viable, some portion of its range must be resilient enough to withstand stochastic events. Stochastic events that have the potential to affect PCC populations include droughts, flooding, altered surface water quality, altered groundwater quality and quantity, and accumulated duff (plant material) over time. Given the data available, the metrics that were used to assess resiliency were categorized as population factors (inbreeding coefficient, isolation, and population abundance) and habitat elements (ground cover via management abilities, freshwater quality and quantity) (Table 3.7). In the next section, we discuss the methods used to estimate resiliency metrics and we explore potential causal relationships between resiliency and PCC habitat requisites.
Population Factors that Influence Resiliency
Inbreeding Coefficient: Multiple studies have shown that small populations are more likely to go extinct than large ones. Small populations are more vulnerable to chance events, such as all individuals happening to be one sex or all failing to reproduce or survive. Small populations are also less likely to be viable after an environmental disaster such as drought or flooding events (Sutherland 2000). Small populations may also suffer from the Allee effect, meaning the decline in survival rate or mean reproductive output at small populations due to a range of processes such as increased predation, reduced ability to find mates, or reduced breeding success in small groups (Sutherland 2000). The main genetic concern with a population becoming small is a loss in genetic variation and an increase in the likelihood that fertilization will be with a relative. Both result in an increase in homozygosity. A recent genetic analysis of population differentiation and clustering methods was used to assess the population structure of the PCC (Duncan et al. 2017). Population Isolation: To promote genetic connectivity in the PCC, we must have an understanding of their potential abilities to move between populations. One working hypothesis was that ditches within the range promote movement, especially during flooding events. This idea is supported by observations of some localized movements of PCC into previously
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 56
unoccupied ditches after recent flooding where they were not seen in these new locations during the next sampling event. Because the landscape occupied by the PCC is spatially heterogeneous, it is important to understand how certain landscape features affect the PCC’s ability to move in order to meet requirements for foraging, migration, or other movement-dependent processes (Crooks and Sanjayan 2006 as cited in Duncan et al. 2017). Linear genetic distances may not best explain patterns of genetic connectivity where other factors have important roles in shaping observed genetic patterns, such as land cover or land use effects on demography. We rely on a landscape “Least Cost Path (LCP)” land cover analysis conducted by Duncan et al. (2017) to assist in determining what may affect genetic connectivity in Panama City crayfish.
Population Abundance: The size of an individual population coupled with age and sex classifications can be used as an indicator of resiliency. Within Chapter 3.3 we have summarized the years that surveys of varying levels were completed within each population or patch. Semi-terrestrial crayfish spend a significant portion of their life cycle within their burrows. Standardized methods for assessing PCC population density have not been developed but are critical to assessing PCC populations in the future. The protocol currently used for PCC monitoring typically depends on dip-net sampling when sufficient surface water is present and nondestructive evaluation of crayfish burrows. The protocol is quantitative and results in a catch per standard unit effort estimate of the population. The protocol can miss specimens in vegetation and does not sample individuals living below ground in burrows, and we currently do not have an estimate of detection probability using this protocol. We use population counts to assess the relative population size across the range of the species.
Habitat Elements that Influence Resiliency
Water Quality & Quantity: Although crayfish are facultative air breathers, moisture is required to facilitate the respiratory process (Longshaw and Stebbing 2016, p. 327). Burrowing to groundwater or access to surface water are both important habitat features needed to prevent desiccation of individuals and populations. It is believed that the PCC cannot burrow much deeper than 3 feet below the surface (Keppner and Keppner ??).
Declines in water quality are known to present a significant threat to other species of crayfish (and presumably to PCC). These declines can range from oxygen-deficient conditions resulting from algal blooms, sewage spills, or localized leaks to pollution originating from roadway runoff or chemical spills (Acosta and Perry 2001). Many substances commonly used around the home or business can be toxic to PCC and other wildlife if used or disposed of improperly. PCC often inhabit ditches and swales close or adjacent to commercial and private properties, which may affect the water quality at these sites.
We used a proxy measure of water quality and quantity based on the amount of development surrounding the population. We assumed that greater acreage in developed and unsuitable landcover types (which includes transportation and other development-related types) is correlated with declines in this habitat element.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 57
Herbaceous Ground Cover: The PCC naturally inhabits shallow, ephemeral, freshwater wetlands that are associated with early successional wet prairie-marsh and wet pine flatwoods. These locations historically supported a native herbaceous plant community dominated by native wetland grasses and sedges with an accompanying overstory of low-density pines, and were naturally maintained by periodic wildfire. Nearly all remaining PCC habitat has been temporarily or permanently altered due to silvicultural practices, ditching, draining, exotic plant invasion, fragmentation, and/or fire exclusion/suppression, leading to unnaturally dense thickets of aggressive hardwood shrubs (e.g., titi sp. [Cliftonia monophylla and Cyrilla racemiflora], wax myrtle [Myrica cerifera], yaupon [Ilex vomitoria]).
Herbaceous vegetation is important to the PCC for food, detritus formation, and cover. Absence of vegetation increases exposure of this small crayfish to predation and reduced availability of food. Unmanaged habitat tends to overgrow with woody vegetation, which eventually eliminates herbaceous vegetation and possibly increases the transpiration rate and increases the depth of the water table during dry periods.
Suitable Habitat: Species sampling efforts and a recent landscape modeling analysis support the theory that the PCC almost exclusively relies on core and secondary soils. These soils provide the sediment structure needed for burrow construction to the water table and also support the herbaceous vegetation upon which the species relies for food and cover. Lands supporting the PCC must be of sufficient size to sustain a PCC population, but we don’t know the minimum size, as many factors influence a PCC population, including other habitat conditions. The recent work of Duncan et al. (2017) showed that all remaining populations with >800 acres of suitable habitat supporting them were genetically healthy, and population counts support this as well.
3.4.2. Species Representation
Maintaining representation in the form of genetic or ecological diversity is important to maintain the PCC’s capacity to adapt to future environmental changes. The PCC is a localized endemic historically existing within a portion of a 56 sq. mi. area. Its historic range likely created one population largely connected by core and secondary soils. The PCC’s historic range occurs within a peninsular area that is heavily developed and surrounded on 3 sides by large bodies of salt water and a creek system on the eastern side. As an endemic species it is likely the PCC has always been just one population connected through core and secondary soils until urban growth came to Panama City (incorporated in 1909), thereby beginning the phases of fragmentation and isolation. The species is now supported by 13 remaining patches or localized populations that show relatively high genetic differentiation with inbreeding coefficients ranging from 0.214 to 0.493 (Figure 3.6, Tables 3.2 and 3.3 ) (Duncan et al. 2017) and associated acreages of suitable soils ranging from 5 acres to 5,309 acres.
3.4.3. Species Redundancy
Redundancy reduces the risk that a large portion of the species’ range will be negatively affected by a natural or anthropogenic catastrophic event at a given point in time. Species that have resilient populations spread throughout their historical range are less susceptible to extinction
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 58
(Carroll et al. 2010; Redford et al. 2011. The PCC historically lacked redundancy in that its historic range consisted of one population of interconnected soils, but today across the range of the species there is a distinct difference, genetically, between individual patches located in the western range versus individual patches within the eastern range (Duncan et al. 2017). While this pattern likely corresponds to patterns of fragmentation from urban development as well as some natural wetland buffers (creeks, stream bodies), it has created a scenario of the PCC now having two distinct groups of populations. The western group of populations includes 8 separate patches and the eastern group of populations includes 5 separate populations.
3.5. Current Conditions
The available information indicates that the PCC continues to be found within the boundaries of its historic range. Sixty-one % or 9,180 acres of historic core soils remain undeveloped and 46% or 5,646 acres of secondary soils remain undeveloped (Figure 3.4)(Table 3.1). Adding the losses of both core and secondary soils, we estimate that 54% of the original lands historically available to the PCC remain potentially available for use by the PCC. If we remove hardwood swamps from the core and secondary soils, then 6,287 acres (42%) of core, and 5,325 acres (43%) of secondary remain undeveloped from historic levels, or 43% overall.
Genetic analysis indicates that habitat fragmentation and isolation are likely the reasons behind the current partitioning into 13 populations, although there are natural habitat features that possibly aided in some of these isolation factors (i.e., unsuitable soils or stream systems). The PCC is listed as a State Species of Special Concern by Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species Rule. It has been afforded protection by State law since 1989. The species is provided the following protective provisions: “No person shall take, possess, transport, or sell any species of special concern included in this subsection or parts thereof or their nests or eggs except as authorized by permit from the executive director, permits being issued upon reasonable conclusion that the permitted activity will not be detrimental to the survival potential of the species. For purposes of this section, the definition of the word take in Rule 68A-1.004, F.A.C., applies.” 3.5.1. Current Resiliency
To summarize overall current conditions of PCC population factors and habitat elements, we sorted them into three categories (high, moderate, low) based on the population factors and habitat elements described in Table 3.8 and using methods below. The current condition category is a quantitative estimate based on analysis of the three population factors (inbreeding coefficient, population isolation, and population sampling-relative abundance) and three habitat elements (water quality/availability, herbaceous ground cover, and suitable habitat). Overall population condition rankings and habitat condition rankings were determined by combining the three population factors and three habitat elements. For the population conditions and habitat conditions, we counted each of the condition categories and took the most frequent. For overall conditions, we counted all six of the population factors and habitat elements and took the most frequent. In the case of a tie, we erred on the side of caution and took the lesser of the two categories (e.g., moderate rather than high).
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 59
Inbreeding Coefficient PCC, once connected through core and secondary soils within a 56 sq. mile area, is now separated into 13 populations of varying patches or individual populations that, when combined, total a significantly smaller area than occupied by the historic, interconnected population. A recent genetic analysis of population differentiation and clustering to assess population structure of the PCC also quantified each populations inbreeding coefficient (FIS) numbers (Duncan et al. 2017) (Table 3.6). The differences likely correspond to patterns of fragmentation from urban development and not necessarily from selective pressures maintaining adaptive differences. Little work has been done on the population genetics of wild crayfish populations. We have no comparison for values in crayfish species of expected inbreeding coefficients (Duncan et al. 2017), and treat this as a relative measure. Thus, we ranked individual patches or populations into three numerically distinct breaks: Low when inbreeding coefficients were less than 0.200, moderate when they ranked between 0.200-0.400, and high when results were greater than 0.400 (Table 3.6). For the City of Lynn Haven (LH2 in Table 3.6) and College Point (College Oaks in Table 3.6) where very few PCC were collected after significant attempts at captures, we assumed FIS was lower than 0.200 given their geographic isolation and seemingly almost non-existent population . Three populations ranked in the high category, 8 in the moderate, and 2 in the low (Table 3.8). Table 3.6. Population genetic statistics for each population where more than one individual was sampled: observed heterozygosity (HOBS), expected heterozygosity (HE), and the inbreeding coefficient (FIS).
Population Isolation: A landscape analysis, Least Cost Path (LCP), focused at the patch level, was conducted by Duncan et al. (2017). Resistance layers (r1-r7) representing alternative hypotheses for isolation by resistance based on the input of five species experts are listed in Table 3.7. These layers include the following land-cover types: developed; possibly suitable; undeveloped other soils; Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 60
undeveloped core soils; undeveloped secondary soils; unsuitable; or urban open land. The resistance values (ranked where a higher number indicates more resistance, or lower likelihood of movement through that land-cover type) used for each resistance layer are shown under the columns for land-cover types.
Table 3.7. Resistance layers (r1-r7) based on expert opinion for how land cover may be influencing least cost paths and genetic connectivity (conditional genetic distance) in Panama City crayfish (Duncan et al. 2017).
There was support for the hypothesis that land cover is affecting genetic connectivity in Panama City crayfish. All models that included land-cover resistance (i.e., least cost and circuit models), with resistance based on expert opinion (Table 3.7) performed better than the null (intercept- only) model and six were ranked higher by model selection (i.e., lower AICc and higher model weight) than the geographic distance model (Duncan et al. 2017). The highest ranked model (lc6) was a least cost path model that showed negative effects of urbanization on genetic connectivity where urban development acts as barriers for crayfish connectivity (i.e., high resistance) and also positive effects of undeveloped core and secondary soils for enhancing connectivity (i.e., low resistance) based on the r6 hypothesis (Duncan et al. 2017) (Figure 3.22 ). We note that there was also support for the simple isolation by distance hypothesis as genetic distance tends to increase with geographic distance in Panama City crayfish. However, this model had weaker support than the highest ranked land-cover layer, and geographic distance was no longer significant when land cover was included in the model. Therefore, this modeling effort suggests that the land cover between populations, as well as the geographic distance, affects the genetic distance between those populations (Duncan et al. 2017).
We used the results of the lc6 model to rank population isolation of the PCC populations based on LCP. Populations with a LCP greater than 2 kilometers (km) were ranked low, those between 0.5-2 km were ranked moderate, and those less than 0.5 km were ranked high (Tables 3.7 and 3.8). Similar to our logic for separation distance between sampling points, we used literature on crayfish dispersal distances largely based on migratory and often invasive species. NatureServe recommends a 2 km distance for movement across suitable and unsuitable habitats. The PCC is a small crayfish that does not have large migratory movements, especially through unsuitable habitats, so we erred on the side of caution and used 0.5 km for our minimum separation distance and 2 km for our maximum separation distance. The recent estimates of inbreeding generally support this break but also indicate that other factors may be playing a role in driving inbreeding. For example, Airport-south and Talkington each have a moderate inbreeding coefficient yet have
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 61
the most connectivity based on shortest LCP. This example indicates that other factors emerge to explain the inbreeding coefficient, such as patch size, which was not included in the LCP models. While these two populations are closest, their combined suitable habitats have a moderate ranking (105 acres, just over the low ranking of suitable habitats). This indicates that use of these two metrics to measure population health is not redundant.
Figure 3.22. The least cost paths between 9 primary Panama City crayfish populations.
Population Abundance: Based on survey data from year to year, most populations except those where only a few crayfish were caught had all age (adult, subadult, and juvenile) and sex classes (male and female), so categorizing in this manner was not effective (FWC 2017, unpublished dataset). Those lacking reported age classes were Airport-north, City of Lynn Haven, Industrial, and 231-north. We used the results of these surveys over time to categorize the status of each PCC population based on relative abundance levels. Populations where 1-20 PCC were captured, regardless of age or sex, were considered in the low range; sites where 21-50 PCC were captured were ranked at the moderate range, and sites with greater than 51 PCC’s were put into the high category (see individual population summaries for survey results). Four populations ranked with greater than 51 PCCs captured during a seasonal sampling event ranked high, four ranked moderate with n 21-50 PCC captured, and 5 ranked in the low category (Table 3.9).
Water Quality and Quantity: We lacked information to categorize sites that may be affected by decreased groundwater levels or polluted ground water. Bay County has a significant population that continues to rely on groundwater for use in homes and business, which alleviates concerns
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 62
of insufficient ground water quality, yet we recognize that perhaps this withdrawal could impact the species, especially during times of drought.
Surface water quantity and quality are also important habitat features. PCC of all age classes are captured from surface waters, indicting a primary habitat element needed to sustain the species. Surface waters provide shelter for juveniles to grow prior to being large enough to burrow. These locations also provide for breeding and feeding grounds. Water must be sufficiently deep to support the species but shallow enough to sustain herbaceous vegetation.
To quantify possible effects to individual populations, we ranked surface water quality and quantity by adding the percentages of acreage in habitat types labeled developed or unsuitable as compared to the other 5 habitat categories listed in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. This is a proxy measure based on the logic that developed land cover generally indicates a significant level of habitat unsuitable for crayfish, and that these areas contain housing and commercial businesses, where flooding events and standing waters are generally unappreciated and, therefore, removed through storm water control methods. The expedited efforts to move water quickly away likely artificially drains adjacent “natural” habitats. In addition, the “unsuitable” habitat category includes the transportation system (e.g., roads, airports), which are often the source of contaminants such as petroleum products that are likely of concern for invertebrate species such as the PCC.
Populations with habitats quantified as greater than 66% developed and unsuitable were given a low rank for this habitat element. Habitat polygons with 33-66% development and unsuitable habitat were ranked at a moderate score, and anything less than 33% developed and unsuitable was scored at a high rank (Table3.7). Seven populations ranked in the high category, 3 in the moderate and 3 in the low (Table 3.9).
Herbaceous Ground Cover: Restoration of degraded PCC habitat will result and has resulted in increased cover and diversity of native herbaceous and woody vegetation typical of high-quality wet flatwoods within several conservation easements initially set aside for wetlands mitigation within the PCC’s range. Where prescribed fire is not a management option, mechanical treatment is used to maintain early successional herbaceous groundcover across the irregularly inundated wetland habitats that PCC prefer.
Since 2011, efforts have been made to restore parcels of degraded habitat to make them suitable for PCC. FWC staff has worked closely with FWS staff to identify conservation easements within PCC habitat, establish agreements with landowners, conduct habitat and faunal surveys, implement habitat management, and monitor the progress of such sites in supporting viable PCC populations. We have used the existence of conservation easements within each PCC population as an element of ranking importance because they provide the opportunity to maintain existing pine flatwoods and wet prairie communities or to restore these properties back to an early successional stage. Populations with no easements were ranked low because these habitats are rarely managed and become titi monocultures over time.
With the exception of Shriners, all populations managed on easements less than 15 acres in size were in the low to low-moderate inbreeding coefficient class. We therefore have ranked managed
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 63
(i.e., mowed or burned) easements or rights-of-way less than or equal to 15 acres in the moderate category for herbaceous ground cover. Land managed in timber was also given a moderate ranking. Post-timber harvest actions in wet flatwoods generally stimulate groundcover until new crops have canopy closure and eventual duff layers that suffocate the groundcover—so boom-or bust situations are given a moderate level, and areas with protected lands with greater than 15 acres of managed habitat such as Gulf Power’s rights-of-way are ranked at a high level. Using this break-out, 4 populations ranked high, 6 were moderate and 3 were low (Table 3.9).
Suitable Habitat: Landscape modeling discussed above supported the expert opinion-based hypotheses that urbanization decreases genetic connectivity in the PCC and that core (primary) and secondary soils predict patterns of increased connectivity, meaning the PCC likely does not move into or through other habitat types that don’t contain these soil types (Duncan et al. 2017). Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 above report the amount of core and secondary soils available within each population polygon. Protected areas must be large enough to support groups that can maintain genetic variability sufficient to prevent inbreeding depression and resist local population fluctuations. Multiple populations increase the likelihood there will always be a source of dispersing individuals to recolonize areas after local extinctions (Soulé and Terborgh 1999, pps 21-22). The three populations with the highest inbreeding coefficient, meaning less inbreeding is occurring, (Star Avenue, 231 south, and Deerpoint) all have at least 800 acres or more of suitable habitats. We therefore used 800 as the minimum acreage needed to get a “high” ranking (Table 3.7). All but two others (231-north and St Joe Mitigation) have lands less than 100 acres. We therefore used this as the cut-off. Lands with less than 100 acres of combined suitable soil types are ranked low, and those 100-800 acres in size as moderate (Table 3.7). Three populations ranked high, 3 ranked moderate, and 8 ranked low (Table 3.9).
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 64
Table 3.8. Population and habitat characteristics within each population used to create condition categories in Table 3.9.
Population Factors Habitat Elements Condition Population Herbaceous Ground Inbreeding Population category Isolation Freshwater Quality & Cover Suitable Habitat Coefficient Abundance Quantity easements or ROW >51 <33% developed and High >0.400 < 0.5 km with >15 acres that is >800 acres unsuitable managed
easements or ROW with 0.200-0.400 <15 acres suitable Moderate 0.5-2.0 km 21-50 100-800 acres 33-66% developed and habitat that is unsuitable managed; or timber lands no managed lands, < 0.200 >66% developed and habitat currently a titi Low > 2 km 1-20 <100 acres unsuitable monoculture
Population Isolation: least cost path distance to nearest population in kilometers Population Abundance: based on population sampling counts from all conducted surveys recorded Freshwater Quality & Quantity: Percentage of developed and unsuitable acres within the area supporting each population Herbaceous Ground Cover: Easements or not, and then size of easements: all have potential to manage. Timber lands during harvest, vegetation is stimulated and increased. Suitable Habitat: Acres of undeveloped core and secondary soils within the area supporting each population
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 65
Table 3.9. Current resiliency of Panama City crayfish populations. See Table 3.8 for condition descriptions.
Population Freshwater Habitat Overall Population Inbreeding Population Population Herbaceous Suitable Current Quality/ Current Current Name Coefficient Isolation Abundance Ground Cover Habitat Conditions & Quantity Conditions Condition Shriners Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Airport- Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Low Moderate Low north Moderate Airport- Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Moderate south Talkington Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Moderate City of Lynn Low Low * Low Low High Low Low Low Low Haven Industrial Moderate Low* Low Low Low Low Low Low Low St Joe Moderate Low High Moderate High High Moderate High High Mitigation College Low Low* Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Point Highpoint Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Deerpoint High Low High High High High High High High 231-north Moderate Low Low Low High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Star Avenue High Low High High High High High High High 231-south High Low High High High High High High High *Not part of official analysis but data approximated based on location of property and LCP proximity
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 66
Current Resiliency:
The overall current conditions were estimated to be high for 4 populations (St. Joe Mitigation, Deerpoint, Star Avenue, and 231-south), moderate for 5 populations (Shriners, Airport-south, Talkington, Highpoint, and 231-north), and low for 4 populations (Airport-north, City of Lynn Haven, Industrial, and College Point) (Table 3.9, Figure 3.6).
Looking at combined Population Factors alone, representing a combination of inbreeding coefficient, population isolation, and population abundance, 3 populations were high (Deerpoint, Star Avenue, and 231-south), 5 populations were moderate (Shriners, Airport-south, Talkington, St Joe Mitigation, and Highpoint), and 5 populations were low (Airport-north, City of Lynn Haven, Industrial, College Point, and 231-north) (Table 3.8).
Looking at combined Habitat Elements alone, representing a combination of freshwater quality & quantity, herbaceous ground cover, and suitable habitat, habitat conditions were high in 4 populations (St. Joe Mitigation, Deerpoint, Star Avenue, and 231-south), moderate in 5 populations (Shriners, Airport-north, Talkington, Highpoint, and 231-north) and low in 4 populations (Airport-south, City of Lynn Haven, Industrial, and College Point) (Table 3.9).
3.5.2. Current Representation
It is likely the PCC was formerly one metapopulation connected through core and secondary soils (Duncan et al. 2017). When urban growth came to Panama City (incorporated in 1909) the processes of fragmentation and genetic isolation began in the known 13 remaining localized populations.
Genetic analysis of population differentiation and clustering methods to assess population structure suggests that the 13 locations across the PCC’s range are strongly differentiated, with the largest differences occurring between the eastern and western portions of the range (Duncan et al. 2017). The differences between the east and the west likely correspond to patterns of fragmentation from urban development and not necessarily from selective pressures maintaining adaptive differences. Because of the lack of studies using genome wide loci analyses of population structure and genetic diversity, particularly in crayfish, we do not have comparisons for values we would expect to see for estimates of heterozygosity, inbreeding coefficients, and effective population sizes in the PCC (Tables 3.2 and 3.3). However, population genetic measures estimated across the range from 13 primary sampling locations (Figure 3.6) give us insight into current conditions and how strongly these locations will be affected by future environmental change. Generally, genetic variation is low and inbreeding is high across the range, which indicate a high degree of current population isolation. This pattern is generally more pronounced in sampling locations in the west (heavily urbanized areas). Additionally, the St Joe and Star Avenue populations are positioned in the core of the least cost paths corridor identified by the landscape genetic analyses and these core locations could be particularly important for maintaining gene flow and, thus, genetic variation. These two populations also had the highest effective population sizes (Duncan et al. 2017) which indicates some levels of stability compared to the other populations.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 67
3.5.2. Current Redundancy
Based on the recent genetic work of Duncan et al. (2017), PCC historically lacked redundancy in that its historic range consisted of one metapopulation based on interconnected habitats positioned on suitable soils throughout the 56 sq. mi. range. Currently, we see the range fragmented, and existing populations are broken into an eastern group of five populations and a western group of eight populations based on the genetics of PCC and its geographic distribution. Currently, only 9 resilient populations exist rangewide; 4 in the western group and 5 in the eastern group. Of these populations, only 1 highly resilient population persists in the west and 3 highly resilient populations in the east.
CHAPTER 4 – FACTORS INFLUENCING VIABILITY In this chapter, we evaluate the past, current, and future factors that are affecting what the Panama City crayfish needs for long term viability. Freshwater aquatic systems face a multitude of natural and anthropogenic threats and stressors (Neves et al. 1997). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission have identified multiple factors that have impacts on PCC populations and habitats, most of which are related to human activities (FWC 2017). Due to land uses within its natural habitats, the PCC is presently found primarily in man-altered habitats. These include roadside ditches, rights-of-way, clearings in silvicultural land, and residential property. Potential threats to PCC include habitat loss and degradation, habitat fragmentation, and subpopulation isolation due to residential development. We also consider other possible factors including direct mortality related to construction activities, inappropriate application of pesticides and other toxic substances, chemical spills, off- road vehicle use, illegal harvest, and direct competition with indigenous and/or nonindigenous species. Generally, these factors (Figure 4.1) can be categorized as either environmental stressors (orange boxes; e.g., residential and commercial development) or systematic changes (purple ovals; e.g., climate change). Current and potential future effects, along with current distribution and abundance help inform viability and, therefore, vulnerability to extinction.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 68
Figure 4.1. Influence diagram illustrating how stressors influence habitat, breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs of the species, and ultimately influence Panama City crayfish population viability. 4.1. Habitat Loss, Fragmentation, and Degradation
The PCC’s natural habitat (wet pine flatwoods) has been lost or degraded through residential, commercial, and industrial development and through conversion to intensive pine silviculture, ranching, and farming uses (Mansell 1994; Keppner 2001; Keppner and Keppner 2001, 2005; FWC 2006). It is likely that no unaltered natural pine flatwoods remain within the PCC’s current range (Keppner and Keppner 2001, 2005). Most known PCC occurrence points are in human-altered habitats and are vulnerable to loss or further alteration. Although artificial habitats such as roadside ditches and rights-of-way have allowed the PCC to persist in areas from which they would otherwise likely have been extirpated, human activities can alter the hydrology and configuration of these sites, making them unsuitable for long term PCC conservation. For example, roadside ditch maintenance and construction activities have resulted in the destruction of several crayfish sites (Keppner and Keppner 2001, 2005). While ditch maintenance activities may have temporary impacts, they may provide long-term habitat improvements that support PCC presence when conducted using Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 69
conservation management practices (CMPs) (see Appendix 6 in FWC 2017). The horizontal to vertical configuration of ditch slopes, i.e., the width of the ditch slope relative to the ditch’s height, helps determine whether the ditch can support PCC. Swales and ditches with herbaceous vegetation and a 3:1 or shallower slope are more likely to support PCC (FWC 2017). Infrastructure development has impacted, or is anticipated to impact, several other sites (Keppner and Keppner 2001, 2005). These projects can result in direct loss of habitat and additional issues such as fragmentation and isolation. For example, several proposed road construction or expansion projects may impact PCC habitat in the future.
Areas in silviculture adjacent to human-altered habitats may serve as refuges for PCC, and those who follow silvicultural BMPs minimize impacts to PCC (see Appendix 5 in FWC 2017). However, silvicultural practices such as ditching and bedding, roller chopping, installing fire breaks, and constructing roads can alter the hydrology of PCC sites, create physical barriers to PCC movement, and destroy underground burrows (Hobbs 2001; Keppner and Keppner 2001, 2005; FWC 2006). Fire suppression and high tree-density on silvicultural sites can reduce herbaceous groundcover necessary for suitable crayfish habitat (Keppner and Keppner 2001, 2005; FWC 2006). Similarly, removal of tree canopy cover, changes in ground cover vegetation, and possible associated changes in water quality and surface water availability are all possible changes associated with the effects of conversion to farming and ranching practices, such as cattle grazing (e.g., Jansen and Robertson 2001). Minimal changes are expected to occur in the area due to these two land uses, although conversion from silviculture to grazing use has occurred on the periphery of the PCC range. Use of BMPs for agriculture and grazing can help minimize impacts to aquatic species (e.g., FDACS 2008). Declines in water quality are known to present a significant threat to other species of crayfish (and presumably to PCC). These declines can range from oxygen-deficient conditions resulting from algal blooms or sewage spills to pollution originating from roadway runoff, pesticide applications, or chemical spills (Acosta and Perry 2001). The majority of known PCC occurrence points in the western part of the range are in roadside ditches and swales that are isolated from other PCC populations by roads, development, and land use changes. Fragmentation and isolation can increase vulnerability to local extinction due to adverse genetic, demographic, and environmental events. Further, when PCC have gone extinct from an area, the lack of habitat connections among sites can prevent PCC from recolonizing the newly vacant sites (Keppner 2001; Keppner and Keppner 2001, 2005; FWC 2006). Recent genetic work indicates the isolation in the western portion of the range has resulted in inbreeding and drift (Duncan et al. 2017).
In addition to the indirect effects described above, many of the activities contributing to habitat loss and degradation can also directly harm or kill PCC. Continuous loss of individuals can eventually lead to extinction of isolated populations (Gilpin and Soulé 1986). In particular, if done without appropriate safeguards, roadside maintenance, and infrastructure development in roadside ditches, silvicultural and farming activities in areas supporting PCC have the potential to kill, harm, or displace PCC as soil is removed from sites with heavy machinery. In addition, fill placed on sites in preparation for construction activities can entomb crayfish in their burrows.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 70
4.2. Potential Future Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development
To predict potential future changes related to urban growth, we used layers from the Southeast Regional Assessment Project (SERAP; from the Biodiversity and Spatial Analysis Center at North Carolina State University; 60m grain), a modification of the SLEUTH Projected Urban Growth model (Jantz et al. 2010; Terando et al. 2014). SERAP is a project that aims to identify the parameters in global and regional models that are most likely to affect the Southeast region’s climate and local landscape dynamics with the goal of providing decision makers with information about low-probability, high impact climate extremes through downscaled models and threats analysis. We used these products to map future predicted changes in urbanization in 2030, 2050, and 2070 (Figure 4.2). For example, suitable habitat (in terms of acres of core and secondary soils) within the range of PCC are predicted to be reduced from 17254 ac to 13607 ac by the year 2070 with at least 80% probability, an approximately 21% loss.
Figure 4.2. Projected future urban and suburban growth to the year 2070 with 80% probability.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 71
4.3. Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms "climate" and "climate change" are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Climate" refers to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2014, p. 557). The term "climate change" thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2014, p. 557). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation).
The likely impacts of climate change on aquatic systems include increases in water temperatures that may alter fundamental ecological processes, thermal suitability of aquatic habitats for prey species, as well as the geographic distribution of species (Poff et al. 2002). Changes and shifts in seasonal patterns of precipitation and runoff will alter the hydrology of stream systems, affecting species composition and ecosystem productivity. Aquatic organisms are sensitive to changes in frequency, duration, and timing of extreme precipitation events such as floods or droughts. Climate change is an additional stressor to sensitive freshwater systems, which are already adversely affected by a variety of human impacts, such as altered hydrological regimes and deterioration of water quality. Aquatic ecosystems have a limited ability to adapt to climate change. Reducing the likelihood of significant impacts will largely depend on human activities that reduce other sources of ecosystem stress to ultimately enhance adaptive capacity; these include maintaining riparian forests and forested wetlands, reducing nutrient loading, restoring damaged ecosystems, and minimizing groundwater and surface water withdrawal (Poff et al. 2002). For the Southeastern US, the range of the various models used predicts a 4oF to 8 oF increase in the annual mean temperature, with the coastal regions 1oF to 2oF less than the interior temperatures through 2100 (Carter et al. 2014). Coastal temperatures are often influenced by the winds off of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. Precipitation models for the region indicate small changes relative to natural variations due to the Southeast’s transitional location between a much drier southwest and a wetter north. Change is more likely to be in an increase in number of consecutive days without precipitation and an increase in Category 4 and 5 tropical storms intensified by higher temperatures (Carter et al. 2014). Panama City crayfish was included in a statewide vulnerability assessment for approximately 1000 species in Florida (Reese et al. 2013, Hocter et al. 2014) using Standardized Index of Vulnerability and Value Assessment (SIVVA; Reese and Noss 2014). Briefly, the thirty criteria are distributed across four modules in SIVVA: 1) Vulnerability, 2) Lack of Adaptive Capacity, 3) Conservation Value, and 4) Information Availability. For each species, they solicited experts who authored papers or conducted studies on the species or were directly involved in their management. Experts were given SIVVA in the form of an Excel Worksheet, maps of
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 72
projections of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0m of sea level rise (SLR), projected changes in temperature and precipitation. Climate changes were based on downscaled global projections for a ‘medium’ (A1B) Emission Scenario (ES), and an Ensemble Average General Circulation Model (GCM) following the IPCC Fourth Assessment. Based on the data through 2012 for PCC in Florida Natural Areas Inventory used in this assessment, PCC did not meet the vulnerability assessment criteria because the initial assessment using a 10 m digital elevation model “bathtub” projection of 2 m SLR indicated less than 50% of its element occurrences were each inundated by less than 50% according to the model. 4.4. Potential Future Sea Level Rise
To update and confirm this earlier work (Reese et al. 2013, Hocter 2014), we used two products to map predicted future changes due to sea level rise in 2025, 2050, and 2075 under a low (0.5 m) and high scenario (2.0 m) (Figure 4.2). We used the University of Florida digital elevation sea level rise model to predict habitat loss (Hocter 2014). This model predicts inundation changes based on elevation. We also used the Sea Level Rise Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) to predict changes in SLR that would affect habitat suitability inland from inundated areas (Clough et al. 2010). Using a 5-30 m pixel size, SLAMM simulates the dominant process involved in wetland conversions and shoreline modifications during long-term sea level rise. We assumed these vegetation changes would adequately represent the water quality changes from salt water intrusion that would affect crayfish persistence in affected areas. We looked at overall changes in habitat rangewide as well as within the suitable habitat supporting each individual population. Overall, little suitable habitat for PCC will be affected by SLR, which confirms the earlier work of Hocter et al. (2014). By the year 2075, suitable habitat (in terms of suitable acres of core and secondary soils) within the range of PCC is predicted to be reduced by 1.28 ac (0.01%) with 0.5 m SLR and 40.2 ac (0.26%) with 2.0 m SLR (Table 4.1). However, two known populations were affected by SLR, Deer Point and Airport North (Table 4.2; Figure 4.3, Figure 4.4), which respectively sustained a 21.02 and 5.89 ac loss of suitable habitat by the year 2075 with 2.0 m SLR.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 73
Figure 4.3. Projected future habitat change for the Panama City crayfish rangewide in the year 2075 with a 0.5m (dark red) and 2.0 m (green) sea level rise. Only two populations, Airport North and Deerpoint showed loss of habitat due to sea level rise.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 74
Table 4.1. Projected future suitable habitat (ac) supporting the Panama City crayfish rangewide as affected by sea level rise (SLR) based on SLAMM.
Predicted SLR Soils Base 2025 2050 2075 0.5 m Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 9682.74 9682.35 9682.35 9681.68 Undeveloped - Core Soils 5654.72 5654.67 5654.67 5654.50 Total 15337.46 15337.02 15337.02 15336.18 2.0 m Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 9682.74 9682.07 9670.51 9649.77 Undeveloped - Core Soils 5654.72 5654.56 5652.94 5647.49 Total 15337.46 15336.63 15323.45 15297.26
Table 4.2. Projected future suitable habitat (ac) supporting the two populations affected by sea level rise (SLR) based on SLAMM.
Predicted Site Soils Base 2025 2050 2075 SLR 0.5 m Deer Point Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 585.51 585.34 585.34 585.34 Undeveloped - Core Soils 258.09 258.09 258.09 258.09 Total 843.60 843.43 843.43 843.43 Airport Undeveloped - Secondary North Soils 9.51 9.17 9.17 9.17 Undeveloped - Core Soils 9.01 9.01 9.01 9.01 Total 18.51 18.18 18.18 18.18 2.0 m Deer Point Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 585.51 584.79 581.06 572.11 Undeveloped - Core Soils 258.09 258.03 256.25 250.47 Total 843.60 842.82 837.32 822.58 Airport Undeveloped - Secondary North Soils 9.51 8.90 8.56 7.12 Undeveloped - Core Soils 9.01 8.84 7.78 5.50 Total 18.51 17.74 16.35 12.62
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 75
Figure 4.4. Projected future habitat change in the year 2075 with a 0.5m (dark red) and 2.0 m (light red) sea level rise for the two affected populations.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 76
4.5. Other Possible Stressors
Pesticide Application, Toxic Substances, and Chemical Spills
All mosquitocides registered for use in Florida, when applied properly and in recommended concentrations, pose no known threats to water quality. The Bay County Mosquito Control District uses state-registered insecticides to treat both larval and adult mosquitoes. Only larvicides are applied directly to waters that may be inhabited by the PCC. The Bay County Mosquito Control District utilizes two larvicides, S-methoprene and Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bay County Mosquito Control Division, personal communication, 2007). Many substances commonly used around the home or business can be toxic to PCC and other wildlife if used or disposed of improperly. Since PCC often inhabit ditches and swales close or adjacent to private properties, landowners need to ensure that fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides are applied and disposed of per label directions. Potentially toxic substances such as petroleum products and paint should be properly disposed of at hazardous waste disposal facilities. Accidental spills of large volumes of toxic substances such as petroleum products and acids occasionally occur in urban areas. If spills overflow into ditches, swales, or other areas inhabited by PCC, substantial localized impacts to the population are possible. Ditching and draining urban areas is a common practice in efforts to control local flooding events and reduce mosquito outbreaks but could have accidental impacts, especially to populations with small amounts of available habitats by artificially draining or decreasing the amount of time that surface waters are available.
Batteries of all types should be disposed of at hazardous waste disposal facilities. Outreach efforts to remind landowners near PCC occupied sites how to safeguard downstream wildlife will be important to PCC conservation in the future. Accidental spills of toxic substances should be contained and neutralized as soon as possible to minimize damage to the PCC and other wildlife populations. Disease Disease agents and pests identified for freshwater crayfish include viruses, bacteria, rickettsia- like organisms, fungi, protistans, and metazoans (Evans et al. 2002, p. 1). The red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), has been introduced into many countries and into portions of the United States outside its native range. In many areas, it has had severe impacts on native crayfish, either by direct competition or through the spread of crayfish plague (Longshaw and Stebbing 2016; p. 16). Crayfish plague is a water mold that infects crayfish, which may die within weeks after contact. We have no knowledge of localized populations of P.clarkii nor crayfish plague. However, detailed information on most disease agents, disease conditions, and symbiont associations is lacking (Evans et al. 2002, p. 3), and there is no reported information on the presence of disease or parasites in the PCC to date. Several individuals of Procambarus apalachicolae, a sister species in near proximity to the PCC, have exhibited signs of plague-like infection (Paul Moler, FWC, personal communication, June 23, 2017).
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 77
Off-road Vehicle Use Off-road vehicles can adversely impact PCC. Indirect effects include altering local hydrology by rutting and breaking the hardpan, decreasing water quality, and reducing vegetation. ORV use is primarily a concern in the eastern portion of the range, specifically within Gulf Power right-of- way corridors. When problems have been identified, Gulf Power personnel have constructed gates to block access, thereby currently limiting public access to their lands for this form of recreation. Illegal Harvest and Overutilization Overutilization is a potential threat to imperiled species. In particular, the threat to crayfish species from overutilization is from the collection of individuals for bait or food. Harvesting PCC for fish bait or other uses may have long-term effects on populations if large numbers of adults are taken from single or adjacent locations. Several occurrence points in the range of the PCC are locally known as good sites to acquire crayfish for fish bait. Harvesting crayfish at those sites has been documented, but the magnitude of the impacts of recreational harvest on the PCC is unknown (Keppner and Keppner 2001, 2005). The species and its habitats are not known to be targeted for significant scientific or educational collections. Florida State Code 68A-9.002 authorizes the Director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to issue permits to collect any wildlife species for scientific or conservation purposes, which are required for activities that are otherwise prohibited. Direct Competition with and Predation by Other Species Nothing indicates that predation or competition by native or non-native predators is currently affecting PCC. Range expansion by two other crayfish species inhabiting the eastern (P. kilbyi) and northern (P. apalachicolae) boundaries of the PCC range could cause local displacement of the PCC along these boundaries, thereby reducing the number of PCC. These two species are superficially identical to PCC, but can be distinguished by close examination of the male reproductive structures. Some P. kilbyi and P. hubbelli have been recently found in small areas of the PCC range. The introduction of nonindigenous crayfish for bait purposes has contributed to declines of native crayfish populations in other areas (Holdich 1987, Hobbs et al. 1989). Introduced crayfish species, such as those of the genus Cherax (now present in Alabama), may outcompete native crayfish and thereby reduce the number of PCC (Keppner and Keppner 2001, 2005; F. Bingham, personal communication). Inadequate Regulatory Mechanisms The level of protection for the PCC is not expected to be reduced in the future and may increase. The species is currently listed as a Species of Special concern in Florida. The FWC has been petitioned to list the species as a Threatened Species, but that listing action is contingent upon finalization of the management plan (FWC 2016). The FWC has indicated that the current level of monitoring, including species distribution and population monitoring, will likely increase, as will management actions (FWC 2017; Steve Shea and Melissa Tucker, personal communication, June 16, 2017). Management actions proposed in the draft management plan include population
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 78
management, such as translocation and augmentation, as well as mitigation for habitat impacts. The FWC has worked in close coordination with the Service and plans to integrate the latest population and genetic work (Duncan et al. 2017) in subsequent revisions of the management plan (Steve Shea and Melissa Tucker, FWC, personal communication, June 16, 2017). 4.6. Summary
Of the past, current, and future influences on what the Panama City crayfish needs for long term viability, the largest threats to the future viability of the species relate to habitat loss and degradation from factors influencing water quality, water quantity and availability of suitable habitat. All of these factors are influenced by human actions and climate change. We did not assess overutilization for scientific purposes or disease, because these risks do not appear to be occurring at a level that affects Panama City crayfish populations. Because of the small changes in habitat due to climate change, we did not assess this further, and thus, habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation due to urban development are carried forward in the next chapter in our assessment of the future conditions of Panama City crayfish populations and the viability of the species overall.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 79
CHAPTER 5 – FUTURE CONDITIONS
In previous chapters, we have considered Panama City crayfish life history characteristics, identified the habitat and demographic requisites needed for viability, and estimated the current condition of those needs through the lens of the 3Rs (Chapters 2 and 3). Next, we reviewed the factors that may be driving the historical, current, and future conditions of the species (Chapter 4). In this chapter, we predict the species’ future conditions to inform us of the viability of the species. While our ability to predict this is limited due to limited demographic data, we use the genetic information about how isolation has influenced genetic health of each population to predict how populations respond to the stressors habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation from residential and commercial development. Our analysis is limited to three future scenarios on how these stressors to the species may drive changes from current conditions (Table 3.8 in Chapter 3). 5.1. Future Scenarios
This section explains how the stressors associated with habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation from residential and commercial development discussed in Chapter 4 will influence the 3Rs for the PCC throughout its current known range using an approximately 50 year time horizon. We describe three scenarios, a status quo (i.e., >80% probability of development), moderate (>30% probability of development), and high (any probability of development under SERAP), projecting possible future development using the SERAP model at three time points, 2030, 2050, and 2070 (Jantz et al. 2010; Terando et al. 2014). We describe the predicted effects of the development on loss and fragmentation of suitable habitat rangewide and on each of the known populations and draw inferences about the population health based on the work of Duncan et al. (2017) (Table 3.7 in Chapter 3). We excluded two populations (College Point and City of Lynn Haven) because we only had adequate data from the remaining 11 populations for our scenario analysis. 5.1.1. Predicting Population Factors
We used two factors, inbreeding and isolation, to represent the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on the PCC populations (Table 3.7 in Chapter 3). To predict future inbreeding, we developed the following relationship based on the history of development in Bay County to predict how future fragmentation and habitat loss may affect the genetic health of the known populations. We use a very simplified relationship to describe the genetic drift process with the understanding that drift may happen in much different ways (e.g., Sewall-Wright process; Futuyma 1998, p 303). However, these relationships require better understanding of the genetic and demographic processes operating in each population to be useful. We used historical aerial imagery and parcel data from Bay County to identify the approximate year that each of the four isolated populations in the western portion of the range were isolated and calculated the approximate time to 2016 when genetic samples were collected (Table 5.1). For example,
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 80
Airport North was isolated between 1953 and 1964, so the site has been isolated for approximately 56 years. We then used the FIS values from Duncan et al. (2017) to calculate a genetic drift value per 2-year generation for each population in the western portion of the range, assuming Star Ave population represented normal for PCC. We used the mean value (0.0101) to predict drift as future development isolated populations. When a population was predicted to move into the moderate or high category of developed and unsuitable habitat (>33% of area supporting that population in those two landcover types), then we began the drift calculation. Table 5.1. History of isolation and inbreeding of Panama City crayfish populations in the developed western portion of the species range.
Population Approximate Approximate Inbreeding Drift per isolation generations coefficient generation year isolated
Airport North 1960 28 0.214 0.0100 Airport South 1975 21 0.344 0.0073 Shriners 1982 17 0.359 0.0079 Talkington 1992 12 0.310 0.0153
To predict future isolation, we relied on the work of Duncan et al. (2017). They predicted the least cost path (LCP) between the centroids of all populations for the Status Quo scenario. Briefly, they updated the ‘developed’ classification within the lc6 resistance layer that was most supported from the models, such that we made two new resistance layers that reflected the current and future predicted distribution of urbanization based on SERAP for each time point in the future. They then determined new current and future predicted least cost distances between all of our sites given the new resistance layers. Finally, they used the new current least cost distances to obtain parameters that were then used to predict future genetic distances given the new future predicted least cost distances. Two sites, Airport North and Industrial were not included in this analysis. We estimated the LCP by hand as described in Chapter 3 and, because each site was in the low condition, we kept these sites in the low condition for all scenarios. Because of the computational intensity and time constraints, we used the status quo scenario as our prediction for all three scenarios. However, we realize it would represent the minimum change expected in LCP distances between populations and the Moderate and High Development scenarios may show more change in this population metric. 5.1.2. Predicting Habitat Elements
We used three habitat elements, water quality and quantity, herbaceous ground cover, and suitable habitat, to predict future changes in habitat for PCC (Table 3.7 in Chapter 3). For all habitat elements, we provide a rangewide assessment of change as well as change in the habitat supporting each of the 11 populations. As with current conditions, we used a proxy measure to predict landcover that would disrupt water quality and quantity. Based on the updated urbanization layer from SERAP for each point in time, we calculated the total acreage in the
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 81
developed and unsuitable habitat landcover types and the percent of the habitat in these two landcover types. To predict presence of herbaceous ground cover, we relied on the size of the protected area supporting the population (i.e. easement), if there was a management agreement in place for the protected area. For the moderate category, we also considered if the current landowner conducted canopy opening activities, such as timber harvesting. To be considered in high condition, the protected area had to be > 15 acres and have a management agreement. For suitable habitat, we calculated the total acres of primary and secondary soils in natural landcover types that remained. Based on the updated urbanization layer from SERAP for each point in time, we calculated the total acreage in natural landcover types with the appropriate soils just, as we did to calculate current conditions (Table 5.2). Table 65.2. Change in landcover across the range of the Panama City Crayfish under the three future scenarios.
Scenario Year Developed Suitable Habitat Remaining Status Quo 2030 22722.4 10304.4 2050 23920.1 9452.7 2070 25040.0 8609.5 Intermediate 2030 23950.7 9453.4 2050 25974.6 7977.2 2070 27332.3 6851.1 High 2030 25563.1 8272.8 2050 27632.0 6641.1 2070 28899.0 5575.9
Scenario 1 – Status Quo Development We considered the development most likely to occur as our status quo. Based on the SERAP model, this was development with a >80% probability of occurring (Figure 4.4). Rangewide PCC loses between 1401.1- and 3096.0 ac of habitat as developed land increases from 20220.6 currently to 22722.4 in 2030 and 25040.0 ac in 2070 under the Status Quo scenario. This loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat is predicted to reduce the number of resilient populations in high or moderate condition from nine currently to five by 2050 (Table 5.3). This loss of resiliency comes from both a reduction in habitat elements as well as the effects of isolation and drift on the populations themselves. For redundancy and representation, a reduction in redundancy by loss of all but one resilient population in the western group by 2050 is predicted. The St. Joe population would be the only remaining population representing the western group. In the eastern group, four resilient populations are predicted to persist through 2070.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 82
Scenario 2 – Intermediate Development We considered development with a moderate potential to occur as our intermediate scenario. Based on the SERAP model, this was development with a >30% probability of occurring (Figure 4.4). Rangewide PCC loses between 2252.1 and 4854.4 ac of habitat as developed land increases from 20220.6 currently to 23950.7 in 2030 and 27332.3 ac in 2070 under the Intermediate Development scenario. This loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat is predicted to reduce the number of resilient populations in high or moderate condition from nine currently to four by 2070 (Table 5.4). This loss of resiliency comes from both a reduction in habitat elements as well as the effects of isolation and drift on the populations themselves. For redundancy and representation, a reduction in redundancy by loss of all but one resilient population in the western group by 2050 is predicted. The St. Joe population would be the only remaining population representing the western group. In the eastern group, three resilient populations are predicted to persist through 2070.
Scenario 3 – High Development We considered the least likely development to occur as our worst case scenario. Based on the SERAP model, this was development with a >0% probability of occurring (Figure 4.4).
Rangewide PCC loses between 3232.8 and6129.6 ac of habitat as developed land increases from 20220.6 currently to 25563.1 in 2030 and 28899.0 ac in 2070 under the High Development scenario. This loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat is predicted to reduce the number of resilient populations in high or moderate condition from nine currently to three by 2070 (Table 5.5). This loss of resiliency comes from both a reduction in habitat elements as well as the effects of isolation and drift on the populations themselves. For redundancy and representation, a reduction in redundancy by loss of all resilient populations in the western group by 2050 is predicted; not a single resilient population would remain representing the western group. In the eastern group, three resilient populations are predicted to persist through 2070. Within this group for example, the 231-north population moves from moderate to low condition and even the large Star Avenue population moves from the high to moderate condition because of where development is predicted to occur (Figure 5.1).
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 83
Figure 5.1. Probability of future development in 2030, 2050, and 2070 showing growth under the status quo (purple), intermediate (orange), and high development (red) scenarios.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 84
Figure 5.2. Probability of future development in 2030, 2050, and 2070 showing growth under the status quo (purple), intermediate (orange), and high development (red) scenarios at two populations more susceptible to this factor.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 85
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 86
Table 5.3. Resiliency of Panama City crayfish populations under Future Scenario 1 – Status Quo. See Table 3.8 in Chapter 3 for condition descriptions. Changes from Current Conditions are highlighted in red.
Predicted Population Factors Predicted Habitat Elements Predicted Freshwater Herbaceous Predicted Predicted Population Inbreeding Population Population Quality & Ground Suitable Habitat Overall Name coefficient Isolation Conditions Quantity Cover Habitat Conditions Condition 2030 Shriners Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Airport- Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low north Airport- Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low south Talkington Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Industrial Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low St Joe Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Mitigation Highpoint Moderate Low Moderate High Low Low Low Low Deerpoint High Low Moderate High Low High High High 231-north Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Star Avenue High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High 231-south High Low Moderate High High High High High 2050 Shriners Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Airport- Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low north Airport- Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low south Talkington Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 87
Predicted Population Factors Predicted Habitat Elements Predicted Freshwater Herbaceous Predicted Predicted Population Inbreeding Population Population Quality & Ground Suitable Habitat Overall Name coefficient Isolation Conditions Quantity Cover Habitat Conditions Condition Industrial Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low St Joe Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Mitigation Highpoint Moderate Low Moderate High Low Low Low Low Deerpoint High Low Moderate High Low High High High 231-north Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Star Avenue High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High 231-south High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High 2070 Shriners Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Airport- Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low north Airport- Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low south Talkington Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Industrial Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low St Joe Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Mitigation Highpoint Moderate Low Moderate High Low Low Low Low Deerpoint High Low Moderate High Low High High High 231-north Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Star Avenue High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High 231-south High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 88
Table 5.4. Resiliency of Panama City crayfish populations under Future Scenario 2 – Intermediate Development. See Table 3.7 in Chapter 3 for condition descriptions. Changes from Current Conditions are highlighted in red.
Predicted Population Factors Predicted Habitat Elements Predicted Freshwater Herbaceous Predicted Predicted Population Inbreeding Population Suitable Population Quality & Ground Habitat Overall Name coefficient Isolation* Habitat Conditions Quantity Cover Conditions Condition 2030 Shriners Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Airport- Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low north Airport- Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low south Talkington Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Industrial Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low St Joe Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Mitigation Highpoint Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Deerpoint High Low Moderate High Low High High High 231-north Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Star Avenue High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High 231-south High Low Moderate High High High High High 2050 Shriners Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Airport- Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low north Airport- Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low south Talkington Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 89
Predicted Population Factors Predicted Habitat Elements Predicted Freshwater Herbaceous Predicted Predicted Population Inbreeding Population Suitable Population Quality & Ground Habitat Overall Name coefficient Isolation* Habitat Conditions Quantity Cover Conditions Condition Industrial Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low St Joe Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Mitigation Highpoint Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Deerpoint High Low Moderate High Low High High High 231-north Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Star Avenue High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High 231-south High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High 2070 Shriners Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Airport- Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low north Airport- Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low south Talkington Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Industrial Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low St Joe Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Mitigation Highpoint Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Deerpoint High Low Moderate High Low Moderate Moderate Moderate 231-north Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Star Avenue High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High 231-south High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 90
*Population isolation was predicted under the status quo scenario only and is assumed to be at least in this condition for the two higher development scenarios.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 91
Table 5.5. Resiliency of Panama City crayfish populations under Future Scenario 3 – High Development. See Table 3.8 in Chapter 3 for condition descriptions. Changes from Current Conditions are highlighted in red.
Predicted Population Factors Predicted Habitat Elements Predicted Freshwater Herbaceous Predicted Predicted Population Inbreeding Population Suitable Population Quality & Ground Habitat Overall Name coefficient Isolation* Habitat Conditions Quantity Cover Conditions Condition 2030 Shriners Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Airport- Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low north Airport- Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low south Talkington Moderate Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Industrial Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low St Joe Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate Moderate Mitigation Highpoint Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Deerpoint High Low Moderate High Low Moderate Moderate Moderate 231-north Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Star Avenue High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High 231-south High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High 2050 Shriners Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Airport- Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low north Airport- Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low south Talkington Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 92
Predicted Population Factors Predicted Habitat Elements Predicted Freshwater Herbaceous Predicted Predicted Population Inbreeding Population Suitable Population Quality & Ground Habitat Overall Name coefficient Isolation* Habitat Conditions Quantity Cover Conditions Condition Industrial Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low St Joe Low Low Low Low High Moderate Moderate Low Mitigation Highpoint Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Deerpoint High Low Moderate High Low Moderate Moderate Moderate 231-north Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Star Avenue High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High 231-south High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High 2070 Shriners Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Airport- Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low north Airport- Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low south Talkington Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Low Low Industrial Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low St Joe Low Low Low Low High Moderate Moderate Low Mitigation Highpoint Moderate Low Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low Deerpoint High Low Moderate High Low Moderate Moderate Moderate 231-north Low Low Low Low Moderate Low Low Low Star Avenue Moderate Low Moderate Low High High High Moderate 231-south High Low Moderate Moderate High High High High
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 93
*Population isolation was predicted under the status quo scenario only and is assumed to be at least in this condition for the two higher development scenarios.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report- draft June 2017 Page 94
5.2. Summary
This section is intended to synthesize the future scenarios and stressors analyses and discuss the future viability of PCC. As discussed, the limited demographic data and our lack of knowledge about how populations respond to stressors may hinder our ability to evaluate changes in PCC populations over time and to predict the species’ response to various stressors over the 50 year time frame. However, the recent genetic work coupled with historical and recent survey work allowed us to make inferences about the species’ resilience, redundancy, and representation. 5.2.1. Resiliency
At the population level, PCC now exists in 13 populations. Currently, four populations were estimated to be high, five were estimated to be moderate, and four were estimated to be low, including the two remaining populations that are in the low condition but were excluded from future scenario analysis because of inadequate data (Table 5.6). All of the future scenarios are predicted to have a negative impact on the species resiliency during the 50 year time horizon. In the worst case (i.e., High Development scenario), only one population remained in high condition in 2070 (231-south). Across all three scenarios, only the 231-south population remained unaffected by development and in high condition. Additionally, the Star Avenue population remained in high condition except under the High Development scenario and the Deerpoint population remained in high condition under the Status Quo scenario. This result is likely due to the large size of the area supporting these populations, and that all three of these populations are in the eastern part of the range. The Deerpoint population faces the added threat of sea level rise, losing an additional 21 acres of habitat to this threat, although this loss is not predicted to be large enough to change the high or moderate condition of the population. Talkington and St. Joe are the only populations not in low condition on the western portion of the range under all scenarios, due largely to the easements that support these populations. However, the surrounding development isolates even these populations under longer timeframes and the High Development scenario. The Airport-north population was the only other population affected by sea level rise, and the addition of this threat to this already low condition population would ensure it remains in low condition. Table 5.6. Summary of resiliency of Panama City crayfish populations under current conditions and future scenarios. See Table 3.8 Chapter 3 for condition descriptions.
Population Status Intermediate High Region Current Year Name Quo Development Development West 2030 Low Low Low Shriners Moderate 2050 Low Low Low 2070 Low Low Low 2030 Low Low Low Airport-north Low 2050 Low Low Low 2070 Low Low Low 2030 Low Low Low Airport-south Moderate 2050 Low Low Low
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 95
2070 Low Low Low 2030 Moderate Moderate Moderate Talkington Moderate 2050 Low Low Low 2070 Low Low Low 2030 Low Low Low City of Lynn Low 2050 Low Low Low Haven 2070 Low Low Low 2030 Low Low Low Industrial Low 2050 Low Low Low 2070 Low Low Low 2030 Moderate Moderate Moderate St Joe Mitigation High 2050 Moderate Moderate Low 2070 Moderate Moderate Low 2030 Low Low Low College Point Low 2050 Low Low Low 2070 Low Low Low East 2030 Low Low Low Highpoint Moderate 2050 Low Low Low 2070 Low Low Low 2030 High High Moderate Deerpoint High 2050 High High Moderate 2070 High Moderate Moderate 2030 Moderate Moderate Low 231-north Moderate 2050 Moderate Low Low 2070 Moderate Low Low 2030 High High High Star Avenue High 2050 High High High 2070 High High Moderate 2030 High High High 231-south High 2050 High High High 2070 High High High
5.2.2. Redundancy
At the species level, the PCC comprises 13 populations. These populations are broken into an eastern group of five populations and a western group of eight populations based on the genetics of PCC and its geographic distribution. Currently, four populations, all in the west, are in the low condition, including the two that were excluded from future condition analysis because of inadequate data. These populations represent 31% of the known populations overall and 50% of the western group, and, although still in existence, they may not contribute to the future
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 96
redundancy of PCC, because the populations are already experiencing genetic drift and the habitat that supports them is susceptible to the future development. All future scenarios are predicted to have a negative impact on the redundancy of PCC during the 50 year time horizon (Table 5.7). Under the Status Quo scenario, 62% of populations are in low condition by 2050; this percentage increases to 69% under the Intermediate Development scenario and, in the worst case, to 77% under the High Development scenario. The greatest loss of redundancy for PCC is predicted to occur in the western group. In this group, 100% of the populations are in low condition by 2050 under the High Development scenario and 88% under the other two scenarios. In the eastern group, three populations are predicted to remain strongholds for PCC, although this is only 60% of the eastern group remaining. Table 5.7. Change in redundancy of Panama City crayfish populations under the three future scenarios. See Table 3.7 in Chapter 3 for condition descriptions. Region Population Year Status Intermediate High Condition Quo Development Development Overall 2030 3 3 2 High 2050 3 3 2 2070 3 2 1 2030 3 3 3 Moderate 2050 2 1 1 2070 2 2 2 2030 7 7 8 Low 2050 8 9 10 2070 8 9 10 West 2030 0 0 0 High 2050 0 0 0 2070 0 0 0 2030 2 2 2 Moderate 2050 1 1 0 2070 1 1 0 2030 6 6 6 Low 2050 7 7 8 2070 7 7 8 East 2030 3 3 2 High 2050 3 3 2 2070 3 2 1 2030 1 1 1 Moderate 2050 1 0 1 2070 1 1 2 2030 1 1 2 Low 2050 1 2 2 2070 1 2 2
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 97
5.2.3. Representation
At the species level, we estimated that the PCC currently has low to moderate adaptive potential across its range due to its condition described in Chapter 3, and all of the future scenarios are predicted to have an impact on the species representation during the 50 year time horizon. Even though PCC has low representation in the western group, with only two of the eight populations not in low condition, these two populations likely will persist because of the protection afforded through conservation easements. The eastern group comprises a much larger area and contains the three populations currently in high condition (Table 5.6). However, two of these populations, Highpoint and 231-north, are predicted to be in low condition in the future. This is especially concerning given that the Highpoint population contains unique genetic diversity not found in other populations, although more work is needed to confirm this (Duncan et al. 2017).
5.2.4. Overall
Our estimates of current resiliency, representation, and redundancy for PCC are moderate to high (Table 3.9). However, while PCC faces a variety of threats, only one threat was considered an important factor in our assessment of the current and future viability of the PCC. Based on our future scenarios for urban development, we predict major losses of resiliency, representation, and redundancy for PCC in the future. Especially problematic is the complete loss of resilience and redundancy from the western group, which reduces half of the representation of PCC. These combined losses under even the status quo scenario make the ability of PCC to sustain its populations into the 50 year time horizon questionable assuming current levels of protection and management.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 98
LITERATURE CITED
Acosta, C.A., and S.A. Perry. 2001. Impact of hydropattern disturbance on crayfish population dynamics in the seasonal wetlands of Everglades National Park, USA. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 11:45-57. Bergman, D.A., and P.A Moore. 2003. Field observations of intraspecific agnostic behavior of two crayfish species. Orconectes rusticus and Orconectes virilis, in different habitats. Biol. Bull. 205: 26-35.
Breinholt, J.W., and P. Moler. 2016. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Procambarus apalachicolae genetic work. Unpublished. January 2016. Brown, P., and J. Gunderson, eds. 1997. Culture Potential of Selected Crayfishes in the North Central Region. Technical Bulletin Series #112. USDA Grant #93-38500-8392. pp. 31.
Butler, R.S., R.J. DiStefano, and G. A. Schuster. 2003. Crayfish: An Overlooked Fauna. Endangered Species Bulletin. VolumeXXVIII no. 2. 3pp.
Carroll, C., J.A. Vucetich, M.P. Nelson, D.J. Rohlf, and M.K. Phillips. 2010. Geography and recovery under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 24:395-403.
Carter, L.M., J.W. Jones, L. Berry, V. Burkett, J.F. Murley, J. Obeysekera, P.J. Schramm, and D. Wear, 2014: Ch. 17: Southeast and the Caribbean. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J.M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 396-417.
Clough, J.S., R.A. Park, and R. Fuller. 2010. SLAMM 6 beta Technical Documentation. Warren Pinnacle Consulting, Inc., Waitsfield, VT. 51 pp.
Cook, D., R. Franz, P. Kelly, D. Lawrence, and P. Moler. 2006. Biological Status Report, Panama City Crayfish (Procambarus econfinae). Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. 44. pp.
Crandall, K.A., and J.E. Buhay. 2008. Global diversity of crayfish (Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae-Decapoda) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595: 295-301.
Crooks, K.R., and M. Sanjayan. 2006. Connectivity conservation. Cambridge University Press.
Duncan, S.I., E. Robertson, J.R. Fletcher, and J.D. Austin. 2017. Genetic status and landscape genetic analysis of the Panama City crayfish (Procambarus econfinae). June 2017. Final Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, Florida. 61 pp. (see Appendix I).
Evans, L.H., B.F. Edgerton, F.J. Stephens, and R.M. Overstreet. 2002. Review of freshwater crayfish diseases and commensal organisms. AQUIS Review of Freshwater Crayfish Diseases, Pests, and Commodities. 140 pp.
[FCA] Florida Cattlemen’s Association. 1999. Water Quality Best Management Practices for Cow/Calf Operations. Florida Cattlemen’s Association, Kissimmee, FL, 112 pp.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 99
[FWC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2006. Biological status report, Panama City crayfish (Procambarus econfinae). Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida.
[FWC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011. Florida’s state wildlife action plan. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee. http://myfwc.com/media/2235922/ActionPlan.pdf.
[FWC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2016. Draft Panama City Crayfish Management Plan. February 2016. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL, 60 pp. Available at http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/listing- actions/panama-city-crayfish/
[FWC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2017. Draft Panama City Crayfish Management Plan. February 2017. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL, 60 pp.
[FWC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2017. 2000-2017 database of Panama City crayfish location information. Source?
Futuyma, D. 1998. Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Gherardi, F. 2002. Behaviour. Pp.258-290. In: D.M. Holdich,ed. Biology of Freshwater Crayfish. Blackwell Science. Oxford. Gherardi, F., and W.H. Daniels. 2004. Agonism and shelter competition between invasive and indigenous crayfish species. Can. J. Zool. 82L 1923-1932.
Gilpin, M.E., and M.E. Soulé. 1986. Minimum viable populations: the processes of species extinctions. Pp. 13-34 In M. Soulé, ed. Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1942. The Crayfishes of Florida. University of Florida, Committee on University Publications. St. Petersburg Printing Co., FL. 179 pp. and Appendices
Hobbs, H.H. Jr. 1942a. A generic revision of the crayfishes of the subfamily Cambarinae (Decapoda:Astacidea) with the description of a new genus and species. Amer. Midland Naturalist 28(2): 334-357.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1981. The Crayfishes of Georgia. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology No. 318. 549 pp.
Hobbs, H.H., III, J.P. Jass, and J.V. Huner. 1989. A review of global crayfish introductions with particular emphasis on two North American species (Decapoda, Cambaridae). Crustaceana 56:299-316.
Hobbs, H.H. III. 2001. Decapoda. In JH Thorp, AP Covich, eds. Ecology and classification of North American freshwater invertebrates, 2nd ed. Londan: Academic Press, pp. 955-1001.
Hocter, T. 2014. Predicting and mitigating the effects of sea level rise and land use changes on imperiled species and natural communities in Florida. Final Report submitted to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, FL, 85 pp.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 100
Holdich, D.M. 1987. The dangers of introducing alien animals with particular reference to crayfish. Pp. 15-30 In P.G. de Tiefenau, ed. Freshwater Crayfish 7.
Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 2017. Retrieved May 17, 2017, from the on-line database, http://www.itis.gov.
[IPPC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate change 2014 synthesis report. Available at http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/.
Jansen, A., and A.I. Robertson. 2001. Relationships between livestock management and the ecological condition of riparian habitats along an Australian floodplain river. Journal of Applied Ecology 22: 270-278
Jantz, C.A., S.J. Goetz, D. Donato, and P. Claggett. (2010). Designing and implementing a regional urban modeling system using the SLEUTH cellular urban model. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 34, 1-16. Jones, C.M., and I.M. Ruscoe. 2001. Assessment of five shelter types in production of redclaw crayfish. Cherax quadricarinatus (Decapoda: Parastacidae) under earthen pond conditions, J. World Aquacult. Soc.32: 41-52
Keppner, E.J. 2001. An emergency petition to reclassify the status of the Panama City crayfish [Procambarus (Leconticambarus) econfinae Hobbs, 1942] from a Species of Special Concern (68A-27.005 F.A.C.) to a Threatened species (68A-27.004 F.A.C.). Submitted to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida.
Keppner, E.J., and L.A. Keppner. 2000. A preliminary search for the Panama City crayfish (Procambarus (Leconticambarus) econfinae, Hobbs, 1942, in Bay County, Florida. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Panama City Field Office. Best Natural Resource Committee. pp. 21.
Keppner, E.J., and L.A. Keppner. 2001. A survey and conservation status of the Panama City crayfish. June 2001. Submitted to the Bay Environmental Study Team, Inc., and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, Florida.
Keppner, L.A., and E.J. Keppner. 2002. Final report, extended survey for the Panama City crayfish in Bay County, Florida. April 30, 2002. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Office, Panama City, Florida.
Keppner, E.J., and L.A. Keppner. 2004. A summary of the Panama City crayfish, Procambarus econfinae Hobbs, 1942. October 2004. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Office, Panama City, Florida.
Keppner, E.J., and L.A. Keppner. 2005. A summary of the Panama City Crayfish, Procambarus econfinae Hobbs, 1942. Prepared for the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances.
Keppner E.J., Ph.D., and L.A. Keppner (Bay County Conservancy). 2014. Procambarus (Leconticambarus) apalachicolae Hobbs, 1942 in the Panhandle of Florida with Notes on Other Species of Procambarus (Leconticambarus). Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL Field Office.
Longshaw, M., and P. Stebbing, eds. 2016. Biology and Ecology of Crayfish. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group. Boca Raton, FL. 374 pp.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 101
Mansell, B. 1994. Panama City crayfish. Pp. 187-189 in M.P. Deyrup and R. Franz, eds. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume IV. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida. Martin, A.L., III., and P.A. Moore. 2007. Field observations of agonism in the crayfish. Orconectes rusticus . Shelter use in a natural environment. Ethology 113:1192-1201.
Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of Aquatic Mollusks in the Southeastern United States: A Downward Spiral of Diversity; Chapter 3 (pp.44- 86) In Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective, G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins, eds. Special Publication 1. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute. Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 554pp.
Poff, N.L., M.M. Brinson, and J.W. Day, Jr. 2002. Aquatic Ecosystems & Global Climate Change:Potential Impacts on Inland Freshwater and Coastal Wetlands Ecosystems in the United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 56 pp.
Redford, K.H., G. Amato, J. Baillie, P. Beldomenico, E.L. Bennett, N. Clum, R. Cook, G. Fonseca, S.Hedges, F. Launay, S. Lieberman, G.M. Mace, A. Murayama, A. Putnam, J.G. Roberson, H. Rosenbaum, E.W. Sanderson, S.N. Stuart, P. Thomas, and J. Thorbjarnarson. 2011. What does it mean to successfully conserve a (vertebrate) species? Bioscience 61:39-48.
Reece, J.S., R.F. Noss, J. Oetting, T. Hoctor, and M. Volk.(2013) A Vulnerability Assessment of 300 in Florida: Threats from Sea Level Rise, Land Use, and Climate Change. PLoS ONE 8(11): e80658.
Reece, J.S., and R.F. Noss. 2014. Prioritizing species by conservation value and vulnerability: a new index applied to species threatened by sea level rise and other risks in Florida. Nat. Areas J. 34(1):31-45.
Smith, J.B., G.A. Schuster, C.A. Taylor, E.A. Wynn, and S.W. McGregor. 2011. A Preliminary Report on the Distribution and Conservation Status of the Alabama Crayfish Fauna. Open-File Report 1102, Geological Survey of Alabama, Ecosystems Investigations Program. Tuscaloosa, AL. 66pp.
Soulé, M.E., and J. Terborgh. 1999. Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. Island Press.
Sutherland, W.J. 2000. The Conservation Handbook. Blackwell Science Ltd. Oxford, London.
Taylor, C.A., G.A. Schuster, J.E. Cooper, R.J. DiStefano, A.G. Eversole, P. Hamr, H.H Hobbs III,H.W. Robison, C.E. Skelton, and R.F. Thoma. 2007. A reassessment of the conservation status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness. Fisheries 32(8): 372-389.
Terando, A.J., J. Costanza, C. Belyea, R.R. Dunn, A. McKerrow, and J.A. Collazo. 2014. The Southern Megalopolis: Using the Past to Predict the Future of Urban Sprawl in the Southeast U.S. PLoS ONE 9(7): e102261.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Redevelopment of the Old Panama City-Bay County International Airport City of Panama City, Bay County, Florida. Conference Opinion. pp. 42.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 102
APPENDIX I:
Duncan, S.I. Ph.d., E. Roberstson, Ph.d., R.J. Fletcher, Ph.d., J.D. Austin, Ph.d. 2017. Final Report: Genetic status and landscape genetic analysis of the Panama City crayfish (Procambarus econfinae). Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation. University of Florida.
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 103
APPENDIX II: CALCULATIONS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS AND POPULATION FACTORS
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 104
Calculation of future inbreeding coefficient
Annual 2030 2030 2050 2050 2070 2070 Population FIS Category drift Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted value FIS IC FIS IC FIS IC
Shriners 0.359 Moderate 0.0039 0.3038 Moderate 0.2250 Moderate 0.1462 Low Airport-north 0.214 Moderate 0.0050 0.1443 Low 0.0446 Low 0.0100 Low Airport-south 0.344 Moderate 0.0036 0.2931 Moderate 0.2204 Moderate 0.1478 Low Talkington 0.310 Moderate 0.0076 0.2033 Moderate 0.0508 Low 0.0100 Low Industrial 0.395 Moderate 0.0050 0.3244 Moderate 0.2234 Moderate 0.1225 Low St Joe Mitigation 0.348 Moderate 0.0050 0.2774 Moderate 0.1764 Low 0.0755 Low Highpoint 0.260 Moderate 0.0050 0.1894 Low 0.0884 Low 0.0100 Low Deerpoint 0.448 High 0.0050 0.3774 Moderate 0.2764 Moderate 0.1755 Low 231-north 0.396 Moderate 0.0050 0.3254 Moderate 0.2244 Moderate 0.1235 Low Star Avenue 0.493 High 0.0050 0.4224 High 0.3214 Moderate 0.2205 Moderate 231-south 0.460 High 0.0050 0.3894 Moderate 0.2884 Moderate 0.1875 Low
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 105
Least cost paths (meters) for all sites calculated by Duncan et al. 2017 site.i site.j LCP_current LCP_2030 LCP_2050 LCP2070 Geographic distance 231S AS 11763 12077 11865 11635 9541 231N AS 14685 14527 14315 15934 9963 231N DP 2404 2436 2436 2404 2244 231S DP 9164 9114 9184 9164 8246 AS DP 17089 16964 16821 11147 9562 DP HP 5270 4302 4168 3739 2860 231N HP 5316 5025 5130 5111 4445 231S HP 11828 11554 11624 11652 10819 AS HP 19753 19403 19261 20826 12031 DP SJ 4789 4794 4794 4704 4361 231S SJ 6145 6173 6313 6561 5630 AS SJ 7904 8885 8842 6442 5882 231N SJ 8489 8334 8474 8009 4134 SHR SJ 11060 12228 12024 10616 7722 HP SJ 13556 13210 13420 12901 7195 231N 231S 6760 6678 6678 6760 6387 AS SHR 2850 2847 2777 2780 2587 231S SHR 11057 11232 11247 11001 10051 231N SHR 15559 16183 16268 16398 11851 DP SHR 17963 18619 18774 18802 11775 HP SHR 20627 21059 21214 21290 14379 231N STAR 2549 2521 2676 2753 2365 DP STAR 4953 4957 5182 5157 4609 231S STAR 5126 5190 5190 5126 4768 HP STAR 7616 7397 7622 7645 6561 SJ STAR 7623 7141 7246 6670 5065
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 106 site.i site.j LCP_current LCP_2030 LCP_2050 LCP2070 Geographic distance AS STAR 13241 13335 13087 14349 10849 SHR STAR 14433 14710 14794 14814 12343 AS TALK 1910 1908 1908 1875 1817 SHR TALK 4725 4868 4649 4754 4319 SJ TALK 6283 7302 7258 4892 4404 231S TALK 10143 10494 10281 10084 8872 STAR TALK 11620 11751 11503 12798 9465 231N TALK 13065 12944 12731 14383 8353 DP TALK 15469 15380 15237 9596 7795 HP TALK 18132 17820 17677 19275 10220
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 107
Calculation of least cost paths (meters) for all sites based on pairwise modeling by Duncan et al. 2017. Cells in yellow were calculated based on current site conditions.
LCP 2030 2050 2070 Population i j Category Category Category Category Current LCP LCP LCP Shriners 2850 AS SHR Low 2847 Low 2777 Low 2780 Low Airport-north Low Low Low Low Airport-south 2850 AS SHR Low 2847 Low 2777 Low 2780 Low Talkington 1910 AS TALK Moderate 1908 Moderate 1908 Moderate 1875 Moderate Industrial Low Low Low Low St Joe Mitigation 4789 DP SJ Low 4794 Low 4794 Low 4704 Low Highpoint 5270 DP HP Low 4302 Low 4168 Low 3739 Low Deerpoint 2404 231N DP Low 2436 Low 2436 Low 2404 Low 231-north 2404 231N DP Low 2436 Low 2436 Low 2404 Low Star Avenue 2549 231N STAR Low 2521 Low 2676 Low 2753 Low 231-south 5126 231S STAR Low 5190 Low 5190 Low 5126 Low
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 108
APPENDIX III: CALCULATIONS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS AND HABITAT ELEMENTS Change in landcover types under SERAP rangewide in acres
Polygon SERAP 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 Current 2017 Landcover status status status Interm. Interm. Interm. high high high quo quo quo Developed 11689.9 20220.6 22722.4 23920.1 25040.0 23950.7 25974.6 27332.3 25563.1 27632.0 28899.0 Possibly 203.7 50.4 8.9 7.3 1.8 2.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 Suitable Undeveloped - 3190.6 2116.7 1673.7 1436.0 1305.4 1477.1 1123.5 982.4 1204.3 900.6 765.8 Other Soils Undeveloped - 9826.5 7355.7 6689.9 6328.4 5922.3 6135.4 5336.4 4662.2 5336.0 4410.5 3771.5 Primary Soils Undeveloped - 5812.0 4349.8 3614.4 3124.4 2687.2 3318.0 2640.8 2188.9 2936.7 2230.6 1804.4 Secondary Soils Unsuitable 4657.8 714.3 530.5 481.9 420.1 462.7 369.2 318.9 387.2 311.7 268.1 Urban Open 264.2 86.9 23.7 14.3 11.2 15.1 8.1 7.5 7.7 7.5 7.5 Land
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 109
Change in landcover types under SERAP by population for calculation of Water Quality & Quantity and Suitable Habitat
Status Quo Moderate High Population - Landcover Polygon SERAP 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 Type Current Current 231 North - Developed 8.6 102.6 148.1 176.0 208.5 201.1 250.0 288.6 246.4 306.4 323.2 231 North - Undeveloped - Other Soils 14.0 8.7 4.0 4.0 3.2 3.2 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.1 0.3 231 North - Undeveloped - Primary Soils 143.7 119.5 110.7 101.7 89.2 86.9 62.1 34.2 60.3 18.4 5.1 231 North - Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 134.0 89.5 60.9 43.6 26.2 34.8 14.2 5.7 18.9 3.8 1.0 231 North - Unsuitable 29.3 8.9 6.0 4.4 2.5 3.6 2.0 2.7 231 South - Developed 449.4 1074.2 1630.4 2075.6 2514.0 1917.5 2618.8 3219.7 2362.1 3209.2 3796.2 231 South - Possibly Suitable 23.1 3.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 231 South - Undeveloped - Other Soils 281.9 210.9 167.2 100.0 81.9 130.2 69.1 58.4 104.7 59.3 42.3 231 South - Undeveloped - Primary Soils 3008.0 2738.2 2535.7 2406.7 2270.4 2411.2 2132.9 1841.3 2182.0 1806.5 1489.7 231 South - Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 2301.2 2120.2 1877.8 1659.5 1399.7 1776.3 1449.3 1174.1 1609.3 1213.1 984.2 231 South - Unsuitable 328.7 161.3 137.6 119.9 101.9 128.0 100.8 81.5 111.9 86.4 65.2 231 South - Urban Open Land 3.5 0.3 City of Lynn Haven - Developed 11.8 21.7 51.1 54.0 62.4 66.3 78.6 86.8 86.0 90.4 91.5 City of Lynn Haven - Undeveloped - Other Soils 44.9 35.2 23.5 22.0 17.0 16.9 11.0 7.9 7.9 6.0 5.8 City of Lynn Haven - Undeveloped - Primary 43.7 41.8 38.8 38.7 37.6 36.9 32.7 28.8 29.6 27.6 26.7
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 110
Status Quo Moderate High Population - Landcover Polygon SERAP 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 Type Current Current Soils City of Lynn Haven - Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 15.6 12.0 4.5 3.9 3.3 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 City of Lynn Haven - Unsuitable 9.5 6.7 3.3 3.0 2.3 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 City of Lynn Haven - Urban Open Land 0.1 College Point - Developed 89.5 120.6 121.1 121.1 121.1 121.1 121.1 121.1 121.1 121.1 121.1 College Point - Undeveloped - Other Soils 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 College Point - Undeveloped - Primary Soils 3.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 College Point - Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 2.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 College Point - Unsuitable 29.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Deer Point Elementary - Developed 56.9 47.9 52.6 53.8 54.4 72.0 105.9 124.9 121.9 163.4 213.1 Deer Point Elementary - Undeveloped - Other Soils 213.1 201.8 199.1 199.0 198.5 195.1 187.4 184.4 184.4 177.1 168.8 Deer Point Elementary - Undeveloped - Primary Soils 585.4 578.5 576.9 576.4 576.4 573.6 565.0 555.8 559.3 542.8 521.3 Deer Point Elementary - Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 258.5 252.2 252.2 251.9 251.9 246.8 241.0 238.9 239.2 231.7 221.8
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 111
Status Quo Moderate High Population - Landcover Polygon SERAP 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 Type Current Current Deer Point Elementary - Unsuitable 84.7 76.3 75.9 75.5 75.5 72.4 68.2 66.4 65.7 61.1 56.8 High Point - Developed 48.2 56.1 58.0 58.0 59.3 68.8 72.5 80.2 77.0 87.4 100.3 High Point - Undeveloped - Other Soils 70.1 67.3 66.9 66.9 66.9 65.2 64.5 63.1 63.1 61.1 53.5 High Point - Undeveloped - Primary Soils 76.1 74.5 74.5 74.5 73.9 71.3 70.6 65.8 68.2 61.3 56.8 High Point - Unsuitable 16.7 5.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 3.1 2.9 2.4 2.6 2.2 1.4 High Point - Urban Open Land 2.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 Old Airport - Developed 0.0 0.0 48.0 116.1 118.0 61.1 122.0 128.0 89.4 129.8 132.5 Old Airport - Undeveloped - Other Soils 8.7 8.7 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.8 6.0 4.0 5.3 3.4 1.3 Old Airport - Undeveloped - Primary Soils 9.9 9.9 7.5 7.2 7.2 7.2 5.5 5.1 6.3 5.1 5.1 Old Airport - Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 9.2 9.2 7.7 6.0 6.0 7.2 5.8 5.5 5.9 4.7 4.1 Old Airport - Unsuitable 83.5 83.5 59.0 7.9 6.9 52.5 6.5 3.3 34.8 3.0 3.0 Old Airport - Urban Open Land 37.0 37.0 18.2 3.3 2.5 12.5 2.5 2.4 6.6 2.4 2.4 Old Airport/Baldwin - Developed 82.4 189.6 194.8 194.8 194.8 194.8 194.8 194.8 194.8 194.8 194.8 Old Airport/Baldwin - Undeveloped - Other Soils 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Old Airport/Baldwin - Undeveloped - Primary Soils 6.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Old Airport/Baldwin - 11.9 2.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 112
Status Quo Moderate High Population - Landcover Polygon SERAP 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 Type Current Current Undeveloped - Secondary Soils Old Airport/Baldwin - Unsuitable 58.7 3.6 Old Airport/Baldwin - Urban Open Land 38.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 SE of mall - Developed 74.8 152.7 164.6 166.3 166.3 166.3 166.3 166.3 166.3 166.3 166.3 SE of mall - Undeveloped - Other Soils 0.1 SE of mall - Undeveloped - Primary Soils 13.2 5.4 1.7 SE of mall - Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 5.5 1.5 0.1 SE of mall - Unsuitable 63.9 2.8 SE of mall - Urban Open Land 8.8 Shriners - Developed 58.5 128.7 128.7 129.6 129.6 129.6 129.6 129.6 129.6 129.6 129.6 Shriners - Possibly Suitable 15.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Shriners - Undeveloped - Other Soils 12.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Shriners - Undeveloped - Primary Soils 21.0 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 Shriners - Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 8.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Shriners - Unsuitable 26.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 St Joe LH Wetland Mitigation Site - 70.1 65.2 150.2 178.7 193.0 194.3 241.9 272.6 250.7 291.3 316.0
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 113
Status Quo Moderate High Population - Landcover Polygon SERAP 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 Type Current Current Developed St Joe LH Wetland Mitigation Site - Undeveloped - Other Soils 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 3.9 5.1 5.1 3.9 5.1 3.9 3.0 St Joe LH Wetland Mitigation Site - Undeveloped - Primary Soils 232.1 220.9 209.8 199.0 189.6 181.4 152.9 125.2 141.0 108.2 88.5 St Joe LH Wetland Mitigation Site - Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 99.6 88.5 55.1 37.8 35.1 41.7 24.0 22.2 27.0 20.6 17.2 St Joe LH Wetland Mitigation Site - Unsuitable 21.7 12.9 6.7 6.4 6.0 5.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.1 St Joe LH Wetland Mitigation Site - Urban Open Land 0.7 Star - Developed 729.7 1336.7 1855.6 2225.0 2446.5 2044.7 2544.0 2829.0 2326.0 2813.2 3102.0 Star - Possibly Suitable 2.0 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Star - Undeveloped - Other Soils 336.9 212.6 99.1 74.1 68.0 76.8 52.9 40.5 56.9 35.9 27.3 Star - Undeveloped - Primary Soils 1754.1 1558.3 1392.8 1268.4 1190.8 1316.6 1117.1 993.0 1173.7 971.9 848.5 Star - Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 1344.6 1171.2 1032.5 839.8 737.3 961.7 735.9 610.8 860.4 641.6 506.1 Star - Unsuitable 355.7 119.8 90.3 80.3 68.2 81.8 62.6 53.1 72.1 55.7 44.0 Star - Urban Open Land 9.3 3.5 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 114
Status Quo Moderate High Population - Landcover Polygon SERAP 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 2030 2050 2070 Type Current Current Talkington - Developed 69.0 123.4 144.6 146.0 152.2 155.8 166.3 171.6 169.9 173.4 174.3 Talkington - Undeveloped - Other Soils 16.1 6.9 3.1 3.1 2.7 2.5 0.6 0.1 Talkington - Undeveloped - Primary Soils 61.3 43.3 37.9 37.0 32.7 30.1 23.0 19.5 19.9 17.7 16.8 Talkington - Undeveloped - Secondary Soils 24.8 9.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 Talkington - Unsuitable 26.6 4.1 3.3 3.3 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 115
Easement size and notes on management by population for calculation of Herbaceous Ground Cover
Herbaceous Population Easement acreages & notes on management Cover Category Shriners Moderate 0.20 mowed by RR, Great vegetation Airport north Moderate 0.45 acres, partially mowed, rest required to be managed but not yet occurring. Airport south Moderate 1.25, mowed, required by permit Talkington Moderate 10 acres Talkington Preserve managed by FWS and FWC; 6.2 acres under gulf power ROW management City of Lynn Low 32 ac, 6 approved for mgt if FWC and FWS find money or do work. Haven Industrial Moderate No easements, but mowed by owner St Joe High 86 in easement, currently managed, not sure how long must be mange Mitigation College Point Low 2.99 acres under easement, ditch area mowed, that’s all, some grass Highpoint Low 11 acres MMM-SSS Preserve, of which, 6 suitable in easement and managed by FWS and FWC Deerpoint Low 24 managed by FWC, FWS--71 more acres that have potential to be managed 231-north Moderate 0 easements Star Avenue High ~120 acres of Gulf Power ROW managed (mowed) 231 south High ~220 acres of Gulf Power ROW managed (mowed)
Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft June 2017 Page 116