Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program Highlands County, Florida
LG2ES Project Number 2016-049
Prepared for:
United States Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District
Prepared by:
LG2 Environmental Solutions, Inc. 10475 Fortune Parkway, Suite 201 Jacksonville, Florida 32258 (904) 363-1686 www.lg2es.com
December 15, 2017
Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 CONSERVATION PLANNING ...... 1
2.0 Introduction ...... 2
2.1 General Location ...... 2
2.2 Site Description ...... 2
2.3 Restoration Goals and Objectives ...... 3
2.4 Historical and Proposed Ecological Communities ...... 4
2.5 Current Site Conditions ...... 4
2.6 Regional Conservation Perspective ...... 5
3.0 Soils ...... 6
4.0 Existing Communities ...... 10
5.0 Proposed Communities ...... 17
6.0 Resource Concerns ...... 18
6.1 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 18
6.2 Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council Category I Species ...... 21
6.3 Soil and Water ...... 21
6.4 Existing Infrastructure ...... 22
6.4.1 South Marsh ...... 22
6.4.2 East Marsh ...... 22
7.0 Habitat Management Recommendations ...... 22
7.1 Conservation Practices ...... 22
8.0 Exotic and Nuisance Species ...... 28
8.1 Invasive Species Management Plan ...... 28
8.2 Invasive Plant Management Tools ...... 29
8.2.1 Biological Control ...... 29
8.2.2 Chemical Controls ...... 30
8.2.3 Herbicide Application Methods ...... 31
8.2.4 Herbicide Toxicity to Wildlife ...... 31
1 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
8.2.5 Manual and Mechanical Removal ...... 32
8.2.6 Cultural Practices ...... 32
8.2.7 Prescribed Burning ...... 33
8.2.8 Water Level Manipulation ...... 33
8.2.9 Re-establishment of Native Plant Species ...... 34
8.3 Species Specific Treatment Methods ...... 34
8.3.1 Air Potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) ...... 34
8.3.2 Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) ...... 36
8.3.3 Caesar Weed (Urena lobata) ...... 38
8.3.4 Chinaberry (Melia azedarach)...... 40
8.3.5 Chinese Tallow (Triadica sebifera) ...... 41
8.3.6 Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) ...... 42
8.3.7 Common Guava (Psidium guajava) ...... 44
8.3.8 Lantana (Lantana camera) ...... 46
8.3.9 Napier Grass (Pennisetum purpureum) ...... 47
8.3.10 Old World Climbing Fern (Lygodium microphyllum) ...... 48
8.3.11 Paragrass (Urochloa mutica) ...... 49
8.3.12 Primrose Willow (Ludwigia peruviana) ...... 51
8.3.13 Rosary Pea (Abrus precatorius) ...... 52
8.3.14 Shoebutton Ardisia (Ardisia elliptica)...... 53
8.3.15 Torpedograss (Panicum repens) ...... 54
8.3.16 Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum) ...... 56
8.3.17 Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) ...... 57
8.3.18 Water Lettuce (Pistia statiotes) ...... 59
8.3.19 West Indian Marsh Grass (Hymenachne amplexicaulis) ...... 60
8.3.20 Wild Taro (Colocasia esculenta) ...... 61
9.0 Wildlife and Threatened/Endangered Species Concerns...... 62
10.0 Summary of Recommended Conservation Practices ...... 62
2 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
11.0 References ...... 65
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Figures 1 to 23 Appendix B – Site Photographs
3 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
1.0 CONSERVATION PLANNING The NRCS Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) was originally authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. In 2014, the program was replaced by the Wetlands Reserve Easement (WRE), a component of the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). The ACEP replaces the WRP with the WRE, but does not affect the validity or terms of any WRP contract, agreement or easement entered into prior to the date of enactment (February 7, 2014) or any associated payments required to be made in connection with an existing WRP contract, agreement or easement.
The ACEP is a voluntary program to help farmers and ranchers preserve their agricultural land and restore, protect, and enhance wetlands on eligible lands. Under the WRE programs, NRCS protects wetlands by purchasing directly from landowners a reserved interest in eligible land, and providing for the restoration, enhancement, and protection of wetlands and associated lands.
Both the WRP and WRE have been used on Buck Island Ranch. Existing WRP and WRE areas will remain intact through the development and implementation of the current Wetland Reserve Plan of Operation (WRPO). However, some changes in the vegetative coverage are expected as these areas adapt to modified hydrology resulting from recommended plan components, discussed in Section 5.
The WRPO identifies how ecological functions and values will be restored, enhanced, protected and managed to accomplish the objectives identified for the NRCS easement. In the context of the WRPO, functions are defined as the ecological processes or attributes of a wetland without regard for their importance to society. These attributes include food chain support, ecosystem diversity, fish and wildlife habitat, flood flow alteration, groundwater recharge and discharge, and soil stabilization. Values are defined as wetland processes or attributes that are valuable or beneficial to society. Examples of values may include support of wildlife species; water quality improvement; groundwater recharge; and recreation, education and aesthetic enhancement.
The WRPO describes proposed modifications to enhance the restoration of historical vegetative communities. A Conceptual Plan was prepared by NRCS in consultation with the land owner, without benefit of hydrologic or hydraulic modeling. This plan was then furnished to Stanley Consultants to assess the hydrologic and hydraulic impacts, both long term and during extreme flood events. As part of the assessment, Stanley Consultants was asked to investigate alternative measures that could improve performance or cost of the project. The WRPO presents the results of hydrologic and hydraulic modeling for four separate conditions: Existing Conditions, Conceptual Plan, Alternative Plan, and final Recommended Plan, as agreed upon by the land
1 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
owner and NRCS. This Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) applies to only the Recommended Plan.
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 General Location The property is in Highlands County, Florida in Township 38 South, Range 31 East. The Buck Island Ranch easement contains two non‐contiguous parcels within the larger Buck Island Ranch property; the South Marsh and the East Marsh. The South Marsh is in Sections 21, 28 and 33 and the East Marsh is in Section 13. The Harney Pond Canal (C‐41) divides the Buck Island Ranch property and the Highlands County ‐ Glades County line borders the south and east sides of the property. The Harney Pond Canal is the most dominant drainage feature in the area and has played a major role in changing regional hydrology, and restoration efforts must take in to consideration its effect. All HRMP figures depicting the South and East Marsh areas are provided in Appendix A. Figure 1 depicts the general locations of the South and East Marsh areas.
2.2 Site Description The 2,677‐acre South Marsh easement is bordered on the north by the Harney Pond Canal (also known as the C‐41 Canal). An unnamed drainage ditch borders the west side, and the Highlands‐ Glades county line borders the parcel on the south. The Hickory Branch Canal enters the property from the west and divides the parcel into two separate drainage basins. In this WRPO, those basins are referred to as the North Area of South Marsh and South Area of South Marsh.
The 1,095‐acre East Marsh easement lies 1½ miles north of the C‐41 canal, along the east boundary of the Buck Island Ranch property. A privately-owned drainage canal borders the entire eastern boundary.
Drainage ditches are prominent in the South Marsh and exist to a lesser extent in the East Marsh. There are three existing WRP sites, established in 2005, within the boundaries of the current Buck Island project. Their outlines are depicted on Figure 1.1 of the Buck Island WRPO document, labeled Site A, Site B and Site C. These sites have a combined area of 825 acres.
• Site A: 461 acres within the North Area of the South Marsh is generally classified as Semi- native pasture, but a mixture of shallow freshwater marsh and bahia grass dominated Semi-native pasture with scattered swamp trees can be found. This site was historically a bayhead swamp community, dominated by sweetbay magnolia, but the swamp trees were removed at various stages between 1940 and 1980. • Site B: 75 acres within the South Area of the South Marsh has similar characteristics as Site A for most of its area but extends into upland oak/cabbage palm hammocks in its southern extent.
2 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
• Site C: 289 acres within the East Marsh consists of a mosaic of native and semi-native communities, including semi-native pasture, sawgrass and other freshwater marshes, upland oak/cabbage palm hammock, calcareous wet prairie, and a willow shrub swamp with widespread deep freshwater marsh vegetation such as sawgrass. The proposed project will support the restorative measures and increase water levels. A berm that was constructed at the southern boundary of Site A, adjacent to the Hickory Branch Canal, as part of the 2005 WRP, would be removed under the Conceptual and Alternative Plans. This change would increase hydration of Site A when water levels are high in the Hickory Branch.
The existing WRP sites will be impacted by the resulting change in hydrological conditions and are expected to undergo a shift in species type and coverage as adaptive changes take place.
Figure 1 presents the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map of the project area. Most of the land in both sites is very level – less than a foot of fall per mile. There are higher areas in the northwest corner of the East Marsh (13 feet higher than the majority of the easement), and in the southwest and southeast corners of the South Marsh (15 feet higher than the rest of the easement). Water that flows into the central portion of the East Marsh, and water that flows into the south-central portion of the South Marsh, does not drain except by constructed drainage channels.
The historical drainage pattern was from the northwest to the southeast, towards Lake Okeechobee. Due to construction of the onsite drainage ditches and the large C‐41 canal, the local drainage now is generally toward the C‐41 canal, which conveys the water to Lake Okeechobee through the S‐70 and S‐71 water control structures. Figure 2 is a vicinity map that shows the location of some of these features relative to the project site.
2.3 Restoration Goals and Objectives The goal of the WRPO is to develop a plan for the Buck Island WRP easement to restore it, to the extent practicable, to its historical, ecological condition prior to agricultural activity. Restoration of wetland functions and values will emphasize improvement of habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife including wading and migratory birds, waterfowl and threatened and endangered species. The primary effort will be directed toward restoring pre-agricultural hydrologic conditions, i.e., rehydration, to promote natural succession thereby restoring the site’s native, wetland plant communities.
The WRPO and associated HRMP will provide management guidelines needed to accomplish and sustain the restoration effort. The plan and associated design will be developed to meet the stated restoration goals while having no adverse impacts to cultural resources, state and federal
3 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
protected species, off-site properties, or other special environmental features. Where possible, existing drainage infrastructure (structures, dikes, ditches, etc.) may be incorporated into the easement restoration plan, if consistent with restoration goals and objectives identified for the property. No pumps will be used in the restoration plan.
2.4 Historical and Proposed Ecological Communities The goal for post-restoration ecological communities is to mimic historical site conditions, to the extent practicable. Historical communities were determined by evaluating historical aerial photographs, soil maps, community associations, scientific literature and topographic data. Historical aerial photographs were used to determine the location and extent of communities targeted for restoration and rehydration. Figure 2 depicts the project site overlain on a 2015 aerial photograph. Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 depict the South Marsh and East Marsh boundaries overlain on various historical aerial photographs from 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
Based on a review of the aforementioned data sources, historical vegetative communities on the property were mostly shallow freshwater marshes, with some deep freshwater marshes in the low- lying areas. In these marsh communities, the dominant vegetation included a diverse assemblage of herbaceous plants adapted to variable levels and durations of inundation.
Shallow freshwater marshes were found in the seasonal flow-ways and transitional slopes between the lower-elevation deep freshwater marshes and higher-elevation uplands. Shallow freshwater marshes dominated the sites before the drainage channels were constructed, more than they do today. Vegetation that would have been observed includes herbaceous groundcover plants like sand cordgrass, soft needlerush, and St. John’s wort; and a diverse community of graminoids and forbs. Wet prairie may have existed around depression marshes in the northwest area of Site C within the East Marsh. Live oak and cabbage palm dominated hammocks were found in the higher, drier areas. A shrub bog-bay swamp and slough extended from the northwest corner to the center of the South Marsh. The shrub bog-bay swamp wetland had a canopy dominated by sweetbay magnolia and loblolly bay, along with an understory composed of shrub species, such as fetterbush, swamp bay, wax myrtle and Virginia willow.
As the Buck Island sites were ditched, drained and cleared for pasture, the wetland communities decreased in extent.
2.5 Current Site Conditions LG2ES personnel conducted a site assessment of the Buck Island Ranch WRP Easement on April 24 through April 26, 2016, to document the current conditions of the subject property. During
4 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
this site assessment, LG2ES collected information on habitat types, wildlife, hydrologic indicators, and vegetation. Figures 8 and 9 depict the current land use and ecological community maps based on the 26 Ecological Communities of Florida classification system and site-specific classification where necessary (i.e. Semi-native pasture). Utilization of the site by wildlife including threatened and endangered species was documented during the site assessment. This documentation included direct observation and indirect observations (e.g., scat, tracks, calls, nests and evidence of foraging). Photographs of the existing communities are included in Appendix B, and photo location maps are provided in Figures 10 and 11. Descriptions of the land uses and ecological communities at the site are presented in Section 4.0.
The primary land use on the Buck Island Ranch WRP easement is cattle ranching. The alteration of drainage due to construction of canals and ditches over the past 70 years has allowed for the conversion of freshwater marshes to semi-native pastures interspersed with historical cabbage palm and live oak hammocks. The ranch operates existing water control structures to hydrate pasture land and to provide storm-water retention for the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Archbold Biological Station (ABS) leases Buck Island Ranch at no cost from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The ranch is run at full commercial scale to provide researchers the opportunity to investigate ecological and economic challenges in working landscapes. The presence of threatened and endangered species of wildlife were observed, including Audubon’s crested caracara (Caracara polyborus plancus audobonii), Florida snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus).
2.6 Regional Conservation Perspective The Buck Island Ranch WRP represents a unique restoration opportunity with regional effects. The two noncontiguous marshes that make up the project area totaling 3,772 acres represent a large area compared with other WRP projects (such as Site C within East Marsh at 289 acres). Historical records indicate that the property once had a substantial hydroperiod and contributed significant wetland functions to the regional surface water and wetland networks. The site currently lies completely modified and drained due to the construction of onsite drainage ditches and the large C-41 canal. Restoration of the degraded wetlands to the intended degree will contribute water quality, hydrologic storage, and wildlife values that would benefit the surrounding landscapes and the entire Lake Okeechobee system.
5 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
3.0 SOILS The soils data were acquired from the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2009). There are 18 unique soil types present within the East and South Marshes (Figures 12 and 13). The East Marsh has 13 soil types. The South Marsh also has 13 soil types, 8 of which are present in the East Marsh.
Five major soil types cover about 84% of the two easements. Felda Fine Sand covers 1255 acres, or one-third of the combined East and South Marsh sites. Pineda Sand soils make up 709 acres, or nineteen percent of the landscape, concentrated in the southwest area of the South Marsh. Gator muck soils are present on 524 acres of the South Marsh. Malabar Fine Sand soils are distributed through both sites, covering 342 acres. Bradenton Fine Sands dominate the western portion of the East Marsh, spanning a total of 332 acres over both easements.
NRCS assigns each of the soils a hydrologic soil group (HSG) rating of A through D, representing its ability to transmit water, or stated conversely, the degree to which stormwater will run off rather than infiltrate. Soils in HSG A have low runoff potential; HSG B soils have moderately low runoff potential; soils in HSG C have moderately high runoff potential; and HSG D soils have high runoff potential. Almost all the soils on Buck Island fall within the HSG range A/D or B/D. The onsite soils are assigned dual HSG designations. Dual HSG correlates to certain wet soils with D designation based solely on the presence of a water table within 24 inches of the surface. If these soils can be adequately drained then they are assigned to dual HSG’s (A/D, B/D and C/D). The first letter applies to the drained condition and the second letter to the undrained condition. A brief descriptive summary of the predominant soils is provided as follows:
Felda Fine Sand is a poorly drained, predominantly hydric soil when hydrology is not altered. The HSG of Felda fine sand is A/D. Slopes range from 0-2 percent with very little chance of flooding or ponding. Vegetative communities typically associated with Felda fine sand include Sloughs.
Pineda Sand is poorly drained soil occurring on marine terraces or drainage ways with slopes from 0-2 percent. The HSG of Pineda Sands is C/D. Pineda sand soils are derived of sandy and loamy marine deposits and are poorly drained with very little chance of flooding or ponding. Pineda Sand soils usually support vegetative communities such as Slough and hydric flats or Mesic Lowlands.
Gator Muck is a very poorly drained, predominantly hydric soil when hydrology is not altered. The HGS of Gator Muck soil is C/D. Slopes range from 0-1 percent and under natural
6 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
conditions, the seasonal high water table is above lands surface. Vegetative communities typically associated with Gator Muck soils are Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Depressions, and Floodplains.
Malabar Fine Sand is poorly drained, predominantly hydric soil when hydrology is not altered. The HSG of the Malabar Fine Sand is A/D. Slopes range from 0-2 percent with very little chance of flooding or ponding. Vegetative communities typically associated with Malabar Fine Sand soils are Sloughs and Mesic or Hydric Lowlands.
Bradenton Fine Sand is a poorly drained, predominantly hydric soil when hydrology is not altered. The HSG of Bradenton Fine Sand is B/D. Slopes range from 0-2 percent with very little chance of flooding or ponding. Vegetative communities typically associated with Bradenton Fine Sand include South Florida Flatwoods, Wetland Hardwood Hammock, and Hydric or Mesic Lowlands.
A summary table including the remaining minor soil map units is provided in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Soil Map Unit Summary Table for 9 Non-Dominant Site Soils Hydrolo Hydric Site Soil Map gic Soil Soil Cover Associated Vegetative Community Unit Group Compone (Acres) (HSG) nt Felda fine A/D 100% 1255.2 Sloughs, Hydric or Mesic Lowlands Pineda sa nd C/D 100% 708.6 Sloughs, Hydric or Mesic Lowlands Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Floodplains, and Gator muck C/D 100% 523.8 Depressions Malabar fine A/D 100% 341.8 Sloughs sand Bradenton fine Wetland Hardwood Hammock, Hydric or Mesic B/D 100% 331.7 sand Lowlands Tequesta Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Floodplains, and A/D 100% 212.8 muck Depressions Chobee fine Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Stream Terraces, C/D 100% 162.6 sandy loam Floodplains, and Depressions Hicoria mucky Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Stream Terraces, C/D 100% 121.1 sand Floodplains, and Depressions Placid fine Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Stream Terraces, A/D 100% 76.4 sand Floodplains, and Depressions
7 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Hydrologi Hydric Soil Site Cover c Soil Soil Map Unit Componen Associated Vegetative Community Group t (Acres) (HSG) Basinger fine Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Floodplains, and A/D 100% 13.7 sand Depressions Valkaria fine A/D 100% 6.6 Sloughs, Hydric or Mesic Lowlands sand Oldsmar fine South Florida Flatwoods, Hydric or Mesic A/D 0% 5.2 sand Lowlands Myakka fine South Florida Flatwoods, Hydric or Mesic A/D 100% 4.3 sand Lowlands Pineda fine A/D 100% 4.2 Sloughs, Hydric or Mesic Lowlands sand Chobee loamy C/D 100% 3.3 Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Stream Terraces fine sand Immokalee South Florida Flatwoods, Hydric or Mesic B/D 0% 1.5 sand Lowlands Pople fine Wetland Hardwood Hammock, Hydric or Mesic C/D 0% 0.8 sand Lowlands Arents A 0% 0.7 None Specified
Felda fine sand A/D 100% 1255.2 Sloughs, Hydric or Mesic Lowlands Pineda sand C/D 100% 708.6 Sloughs, Hydric or Mesic Lowlands Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Gator muck C/D 100% 523.8 Floodplains, and Depressions
Malabar fine sand A/D 100% 341.8 Sloughs
Wetland Hardwood Hammock, Hydric or Bradenton fine sand B/D 100% 331.7 Mesic Lowlands Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Tequesta muck A/D 100% 212.8 Floodplains, and Depressions Chobee fine sandy Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Stream C/D 100% 162.6 loam Terraces, Floodplains, and Depressions Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Stream Hicoria mucky sand C/D 100% 121.1 Terraces, Floodplains, and Depressions Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Stream Placid fine sand A/D 100% 76.4 Terraces, Floodplains, and Depressions Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Basinger fine sand A/D 100% 13.7 Floodplains, and Depressions
8 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Hydrologi Hydric Soil Site Cover c Soil Soil Map Unit Componen Associated Vegetative Community Group t (Acres) (HSG)
Valkaria fine sand A/D 100% 6.6 Sloughs, Hydric or Mesic Lowlands
South Florida Flatwoods, Hydric or Mesic Oldsmar fine sand A/D 0% 5.2 Lowlands South Florida Flatwoods, Hydric or Mesic Myakka fine sand A/D 100% 4.3 Lowlands
Pineda fine sand A/D 100% 4.2 Sloughs, Hydric or Mesic Lowlands
Chobee loamy fine Freshwater Marshes and Ponds, Stream C/D 100% 3.3 sand Terraces South Florida Flatwoods, Hydric or Mesic Immokalee sand B/D 0% 1.5 Lowlands Wetland Hardwood Hammock, Hydric or Pople fine sand C/D 0% 0.8 Mesic Lowlands Arents A 0% 0.7 None Specified
Nearly all the soils within the easement are designated by NRCS as hydric soils. Hydric soils are formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding at a sufficient duration during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions and support hydrophytic vegetation.
The NRCS soil maps document conditions at the time of the soil survey; they do not represent pre-drainage or pre-development conditions. Agricultural or anthropomorphic drainage lowers the groundwater table, which causes losses of organic carbon and other hydric soil indicators of anaerobic conditions. Lack of anaerobic conditions can eventually convert hydric soils to non- hydric soils dominated by aerobic conditions. This process has been occurring to various extents across East and South Marshes, due to the extensive agricultural drainage systems in place.
9 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
4.0 EXISTING COMMUNITIES The existing plant community types on the Buck Island Ranch are dominated by the following native plant species:
Pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata) Beaksedge (Rynchospora spp.) Bahia (Paspalum notatum) Water lily (Nymphaea odorata) Bulltongue (Saggitaria lancifolia) Cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) Groundsel tree (Baccharis hamifolia) Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) St. John’s wort (Hypericum fasciculatum, Hypericum spp.) Blackberry vine (Rubus pensilvanicus) Maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) Sand cordgrass (Spartina bakeri) Primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana, L. Live oak (Quercus virginiana) Octovalvis) Soft needlerush (Juncus effusus) Broomsedge bluestem (Andropogon Willow (Salix carolinia) virginicus, A. glomeratus) Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
Overall, the existing drained and undrained Semi-Native pastureland is used for cattle ranching. Table 4.1 presents a summary of the existing vegetative communities, with acreages for each, and several dominant plant species. Table 4.1 includes the areas of the previous WRP Sites A, B and C. The vegetative communities are classified using the NRCS 26 Ecological Communities of Florida classification system.
Table 4-1 Existing Community Summary Acreage Percent Cover Vegetative NRCS Dominant Plant Community Code East South Total East South Total Species
Paspalum notatum Panicum spp. Semi-Native None 615 2060 2675 56% 77% 67% Paspalum spp. Pasture Andropogon spp. Axonopus spp. South Florida Serenoa repens 6 0 13 13 0 0.5% 0.25% Flatwoods Ilex glabra
10 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Acreage Percent Cover Vegetative NRCS Dominant Plant Community Code East South Total East South Total Species
Quercus virginiana Sabal palmetto Oak Callicarpa americana Hammocks/ Oplismenus hirtellus Cabbage 13, 15 156 239 395 14% 9% 10% Paspalum Palm conjugatum Panicum Hammocks anceps, Dichanthelium commutatum Juncus effuses Ditches and None 55 138 193 5% 5% 5% Nymphaea aquatica Canals Panicum hemitomon Pontederia cordata Cladium jamaicense Freshwater 25 249 227 476 23% 8% 13% Sagittaria lancifolia Marsh Spartina bakeri Juncus effusus Muhlenbergia sericea Schizachrium Wet Prairie None 7 0 7 1% 0% 0.19% rhizomatum Rhynchospora spp. Roads 814 12 0 12 1% 0.0% 0.3%
Total 1,095 2,677 3,772 100% 100% 100%
This HRMP follows the standard NRCS 26 Ecological Communities of Florida classification system for describing and mapping the existing and proposed vegetative communities in the current Buck Island WRPO. This system maintains consistency between the Buck Island vegetation descriptions and previous NRCS studies in the Okeechobee area. FNAI natural community descriptions have also been referenced with each NRCS community described in this WRPO. Vegetated portions of the Buck Island WRPO that were not consistent with NRCS or FNAI natural community classifications, such as Semi-Native Pasture, were described using site-specific information.
Archbold Biological Station (ABS) provided the map of the existing wetland communities for this WRPO (bir_Wetlands2004). Two wet prairie communities in the East Marsh, previously mapped by Bridges and Orzell in 2013, were added to the WRPO vegetative community mapping. These
11 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
two wet prairie communities in the East Marsh Site C were identified by Bridges and Orzell as rare plant communities, worthy of special protection. (Bridges and Orzell, 2013).
The Bridges and Orzell Report provides detailed descriptions and mapping of the vegetative communities within the previous Wetland Reserve Sites A, B and C (see Appendix I and Figures 3 through 8). The information in the Bridges and Orzell Report is utilized in this WRPO, in addition to our own site investigation, to describe baseline conditions. Future monitoring should also follow the methods utilized by Bridges and Orzell, in order to collect data that are consistent and comparable.
Semi-Native Pasture
A large portion of the WRE sites are active and historical cattle grazing pastures. Several experimental pastures (for research) exist within the central portion of the South Marsh. The vegetative species composition and percent cover within these pastures varies, depending on position in the landscape, current grazing patterns, drainage, and historical agricultural. The Bridges and Orzell Report describes four (4) pasture vegetation mapping units in the former WRP, Sites A, B and C:
• “Tame” or mostly tame grass pastures, including Bahia grass, carpet grasses (Axonopus spp.), torpedo grass (Panicum repens), and other planted pasture species. • Bahia grass dominated pastures, • Bahia grass – mixed grass pastures, dominated by Bahia grass, broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus var. virginicus and A. glomeratus var. glaucopsis), panic grass (Panicum longifolium), carpet grass (Axonopus compressus), and smut grass (Sporobolus indicus) • Bahia grass pasture with scattered oak canopy; generally, 50 percent or greater cover of Bahia grass mixed with other pasture grasses and native grasses and forbs, under a live oak canopy cover of 20 to 50 percent. Apparently, these are not natural oak hammocks, but pasture colonized by oaks.
The tame/mostly tame grass pasture and Bahia grass – mixed grass pastures may contain scattered shrubs or trees, such as wax myrtle, groundsel tree and live oak.
Within this Semi-Native Pasture vegetative classification, there is a mosaic of plant communities, including hundreds of marshes, savannas and ditches. There are extensive hardwood-palm mesic hammocks, occasional hydric hammocks, and to a much lesser extent slough/shrub swamp, depression marsh and wet prairie. Complex mosaics of plant communities can be difficult to define and draw definitive boundaries between, as they tend to gradually blend together or form zones of gradual transformation from wetland to upland communities.
12 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
South Florida Flatwoods (NRCS #6)
Located in the southwest corner of the South Marsh, this community is open and dominated by saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). Common associates of saw palmetto in this community are fetterbush (Lyonia spp.), gallberry (Ilex glabra), wiregrass (Aristida spp.) and broomsedge. This is a treeless flatwoods community, without the typical presence of slash pine (Pinus elliottii) trees. This treeless, palmetto-wiregrass, prairie-like, upland plant community has also been described by FNAI as Dry Prairie.
Oak Hammocks (NRCS #15)/Cabbage Palm Hammocks (NRCS #13) NRCS describes the Oak Hammocks community as occurring through central Florida in scattered locations, south to the Everglades and west to about Tallahassee. It is readily identified on the Buck Island WRP site by the dense canopy of live oak, either exclusive or mixed with less-dense cabbage palm, over a sparse understory and groundcover. Communities where cabbage palm dominates the canopy, NRCS classifies them as Cabbage Palm Hammocks. These two communities on the Buck Island WRP can be difficult to distinguish between wetland or upland communities. They generally occur on nearly level to rolling or slightly elevated topography. Historical site drainage constructions caused them to experience less frequent inundation and lower groundwater levels, which may have allowed the hammocks to expand into lower elevation savannahs and upper marsh edges. Comparison of historical and current aerial photography shows expanding coverage in portions of the South Marsh and East Marsh.
The Bridges and Orzell Report generally classifies this community as “Hardwood-palm mesic and hydric hammocks”, sites with an apparent closed canopy (more than 50% canopy cover) of oaks and/or cabbage palm (Bridges and Orzell, 2013). The understory and groundcover vegetation typically consists of more shade tolerant species, such as American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), and grass species, such as Oplismenus hirtellus, Paspalum conjugatum, Panicum anceps, and Dichanthelium commutatum. Bridges and Orzell further break down this classification into three associations: Quercus virginiana-Sabal palmetto drained hydric hammock; Quercus virginiana-Sabal palmetto drained mesic hammock; and, Sabal palmetto low wet hydric hammock.
Canals and Ditches
Soft needle rush, water lily, maidencane and primrose willow are common in and along the ditches and canals that convey surface water through the property. Invasive species, such as water lettuce and primrose willow, were also observed and described in detail by Bridges and Orzell.
13 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Sloughs (NRCS #26)
There is a large willow-dominated Slough community embedded within the center of a larger freshwater marsh complex within Site C (previous Wetland Reserve project) of the East Marsh. It can be described as mixed sawgrass, willow dominated community. Other shrubs such as wax myrtle, buttonbush (Cephananthus occidentalis), and herbs such as bulltongue and pickerelweed are also present to much lesser extents.
The NRCS 26 Ecological Communities of Florida describes Sloughs as occurring throughout central and south Florida, variable in size, and serving as drainageways during periods of heavy and prolonged rainfall. According to NRCS, grasses and grass-like plants are the most common vegetation, followed by herbaceous plants and occasional shrubs, such as St Peter’s wort. The FNAI natural community description “Slough Marsh” provides a broader range of plant species, which better fits with the species occurring within this community at Buck Island. Carolina willow has greater coverage than indicated by either NRCS (none), or FNAI (patchy, often scattered in deeper pockets of peat).
The Bridges and Orzell Repot classifies this community, as it occurs within the Buck Island WRP Site C, as Salix caroliniana shrub swamp (Bridges and Orzell, 2013). The vegetation is at least 50% cover of Carolina willow and a few other shrubs, with the remaining cover of mostly deep marsh species, including sawgrass, bulltongue, fire flag (Thalia geniculata), and primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana). They characterize this community as occurring in areas with deep inundation in an undrained state. Bridges and Orzell map the contiguous wetlands of the larger marsh complex surrounding this Slough as several types of “Sawgrass and mixed sawgrass marshes and savannas.” These marshes are described further in the Freshwater Marsh section below.
Freshwater Marsh (NRCS #25)
Numerous freshwater marshes and marshy savannas are found throughout the Buck Island Ranch East Marsh and South Marsh easement. These marshes can typically be described as topographic low areas with poorly drained, hydric soils, which result in extended hydroperiods. These extended hydroperiods can be permanent, semi-permanent, seasonal or ephemeral; and are subject to significant variation, depending upon position in the landscape, site drainage, and cycles of drought and flood. The vegetation within these marshes varies from deep to shallow zones, but is generally dominated by grasses, sedges, rushes and aquatic emergent vegetation, such as pickerel weed, bulltongue arrowhead and sawgrass. Some of the marshes are fringed by sand cordgrass (Spartina bakeri).
14 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
NRCS 26 Ecological Communities of Florida describes Freshwater Marshes (#25) as occurring throughout Florida, widely variable in size, with larger communities occurring in southeast Florida. It is an open expanse of grasses, sedges, and rushes, and other herbaceous plants in an area where the soil is usually saturated or covered with surface water for two or more months during the year. They indicate eight major types of freshwater marshes: Flag marsh - dominated by pickerelweed, Sawgrass marsh, Arrowhead marsh, Fire flag and other non-grass herb marsh, Cattail marsh, Spike-rush marsh, Bulrush marsh, and Maidencane marsh. Plants that characterize this community and its variations include numerous grasses and grasslike plants, such as sawgrass, maidencane, rushes, sedges, as well as herbaceous plants, such as arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.), blue flag (Iris hexagona savannarum), cattail, fire flag, pickerelweed, and smartweed (Polygonum spp.). Scattered low density shrubs may include St John’s wort (Hypericum spp.), primrose willow (Ludwigia spp.) and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).
The FNAI natural community description “Basin Marsh” describes most of the marshes occurring within the East and South Marsh easements.
The Bridges and Orzell report describes three categories of marshes, two of which have five variations each (Bridges and Orzell, 2013):
1. Shallow mixed grass marshes, which are areas with over 50% native grasses, sedges, and forbs, with or without a low cover of scattered shrubs, and less than 10% sawgrass cover.
a. Panicum longifolium – Andropogon spp. disturbed mixed grass shallow marshes
b. Diverse shallow mixed grass/sedge marshes
c. Juncus effusus – mixed herb shallow marshes
d. Mixed grass – Juncus shallow old drainageway
e. Spartina bakeri shallow marshes or Cabbage palm/Spartina bakeri open savannas
2. Sawgrass and mixed sawgrass marshes and savannas, where sawgrass is at least 50% of total cover, and often over 90% cover. Scattered cabbage palm canopy or Carolina willow shrub layer present in some areas.
a. Sawgrass depression marsh
b. Cabbage palm/sawgrass marshy wet savanna
c. Sawgrass – mixed grass marshes
d. Fringing sawgrass marshes
15 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
e. Sagittaria – Pontederia broadleaf marshes
3. Depression Marshes – Areas of diverse, often strongly zoned, depression marsh species in elliptic depressions on upland landscapes.
a. Depression marsh with wet prairie margin – only one example of this type was in the previous study area, in the northwest corner of Site C East Marsh.
“Depression Marsh” has been applied by Bridges and Orzell to describe only one marsh that they mapped in the northwest corner of Site C East Marsh.
The three categories and their variants are lumped into the overall classification “Freshwater Marsh” in this Buck Island WRPO.
Wet Prairie (No NRCS #)
This community type is currently known to occur in only two locations within Site C East Marsh, as previously identified in the Bridges and Orzell Report. True wet prairie is apparently rare in this region. It was not identified within the current Buck Island WRPO East Marsh site.
NRCS 26 Ecological Communities of Florida does not include a community type that clearly describes Wet Prairie. The FNAI natural community description of Wet Prairie describes a variant called Calcareous Wet Prairie as a common variant found in central and south-central peninsular Florida.
The Bridges and Orzell Report describes Wet Prairies as – grass and sedge dominated communities which are only seasonally inundated, and to only a shallow depth, with shorter hydroperiods than the shallow marshes. The only Wet Prairie type specifically described for the Buck Island Site C area is Calcareous fringing wet prairies – diverse seasonally wet prairies usually occurring as a narrow fringe between dry prairie or hardwood hammocks and deeper depression marshes or basin marshes. They exhibit very high plant species diversity, are co-dominated by grasses and sedges rare in central Florida and are only mapped in two locations within the northwest portion of Site C, north and south of the only mapped Depression Marsh (Bridges and Orzell, 2013). The Bridges and Orzell Report provides a description of this community in Appendix I, as well as their locations on Figure 6.
16 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
5.0 PROPOSED COMMUNITIES The proposed restoration plan (Recommended Plan) comprises re-establishment of wetland communities that once existed on the property prior to agricultural modification. Climax wetland communities are dependent on many factors; however, the dominant driver of community type is topography and hydrology. Lake Okeechobee lies to the southeast of the Buck Island Ranch WRP. Prior to drainage modifications, inflow from across the watershed to the Lake occurred in a northwest to southeast direction across the current project area. Hydrology was largely a function of rainfall, overflow from the surrounding marshes to Lake Okeechobee and the associated evaporation and evapotranspiration rates (Davis, 1943). Shallow aquifer groundwater seepage from the adjacent Lake Wales Ridge, also contributes to hydrology in the South and East Marshes. Hickory Branch Canal, also a prominent source of inflow to the South Marsh, flows in from its western boundary and conveys water through the center of the marsh and towards the larger, C-41 Harney Canal. Water is carried south from the Hickory Branch Canal to other areas of the marsh through a series of ditches which were constructed in the 1940’s. Due to these multiple alterations, a 100% restoration to the original hydrologic regime is not possible but a desirable and predictable hydrologic regime can be established by adding structures and ditch plugs at predetermined locations. The Recommended Plan will allow water to flow into currently dry areas and remain in those areas for a longer period of time which will more closely mimic historical hydroperiods. The goal is to rehabilitate and extend the existing WRPO improvements from previous projects. The Recommended Plan introduces new sources of water to the project sites and provide raised control structures at key discharge locations to hold water onsite longer and at higher elevation. Stage and flow on the marshes will be largely rain-driven, but will also be groundwater and surface water driven.
Through this restoration plan, it is predicted that the major historical wetland community (shallow and deep water freshwater marsh) can be re-established and that the resulting hydrologic regime will suit the proposed wetland type. It is also the objective of this concept that the restoration alternatives also sustain the drier communities, such as the semi-native pasture, south Florida flatwoods and live oak and cabbage palm hammocks.
A description of the proposed ecological communities is provided in the Buck Island Ranch WRPO. Maps showing the locations of the proposed ecological communities within the East Marsh and South Marsh site are provided in this HRMP as Figures 14, 15. A summary of the potential post- restoration communities and target hydro-periods is included in Table 5-1.
17 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Table 5-1 Proposed Post-Restoration Community and Target Hydro-period NRCS Community Surface Water Min Average Frequency Community Type Code Depth (in.)* of Inundation (Days/Yr) Freshwater Marsh 25 -12-36 14 Oak Hammocks/Cabbage Palm 13/15 -48-0 7 Semi-native Pasture NA -48-(-12) 0 Canals and Ditches NA NA NA South Florida Flatwoods 6 -48-(-12) 0 *Negative value indicates water table depth below ground surface
6.0 RESOURCE CONCERNS 6.1 Threatened and Endangered Species Based on the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) biodiversity matrix database, there are several federal and state listed species that are likely to occur on the site, including: • Crested caracara (Polyborus plancus audobonii) • Wood stork (Mycteria americana) • Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi) • Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi)
Although there have been no documented sightings in the last twenty years, the Florida panther has been historically documented as occurring on the site.
Species listed as having the potential to occur based on the FNAI biodiversity matrix database include: • Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana) • Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) • Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi) • Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) • Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) • Gopher frog (Lithobates capito) • Florida long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata peninsulae) • Bachman’s sparrow (Peucaea aestivalis) • Sherman's fox squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) • Florida grasshoper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum floridanus) • Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) • Swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus) • Everglades Snail Kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis) • Southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus) • Short-tailed snake (Lampropeltis extenuata) • Round-tailed muskrat (Neofiber alleni)
18 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
• Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) • Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus)
Listed species observed during the field visits and their regulatory status, in addition to other wildlife species observed, are included in Table 6-1.
19 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Table 6-1 Wildlife Species Observed Onsite State and Federal Common Name Scientific Name Status
Mammals
Marsh Rabbit Sylvilagus palustris
White-tailed Deer Odocoileus virginianus
Birds
Black Vulture Coragyps atratus
Boat-tailed Grackle Quiscalus major
Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis
Great Egret Ardea alba
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
Crested Caracara Polyborus plancus audobonii FT
Limpkin Aramus guarauna SSC
Osprey Pandion haliaetus SSC
Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus
Everglades Snail Kite Rostrhamus sociabilis FE
Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea SSC
Yellow-crowned Night Heron Nyctanassa violacea
Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
Reptiles
American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis FT (S/A)
Gopher Tortoise Gohperus polyphemus ST
Notes: SE = State population listed as Endangered by the FFWCC. SSC = Listed as Species of Special Concern by the FFWCC. FT = Federally Threatened. FE = Federally Endangered. FT(S/A) = Treated as threatened due to similarity of appearance to a federally listed species.
20 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
6.2 Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council Category I Species During the site visit of East and South Marsh very few Category I species (Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council 2013 List of Invasive Plant Species) were observed. Those that were noted were not densely represented but did include: Brazilian pepper tree, Chinaberry, Chinese tallow, para grass, Napier grass, primrose willow, torpedo grass, lantana, wild taro, Caesar’s weed, ardisia, West Indian marsh grass and tropical soda apple. Potential invasive plants that can occur and which have been identified and treated previously include: rosary pea, cogon grass, air potato, flame vine and Strophanthus. Primarily aquatic invasive species have been identified within the canals and ditches of the South Marsh and these include Cuban bulrush, water lettuce and water hyacinth (Figure 17). On the western side of the East Marsh, the presence of Chinese tallow has been documented throughout the forested areas and old world climbing fern has also been documented in the center WRPO easement (Figure 16). There is an active and effective invasive species management plan in place as part of Buck Island Ranch’s overall land management plan. (Archbold Biological Station, 2016). Overall, invasive and exotic species coverages were noted as random occurrences and minimal throughout the site.
Invasive species that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following plant species:
Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus Caesar’s weed (Urena lobata) terebinthifolia) Ardisia (Ardesia elliptica) Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) West indian marsh grass (Hymenachne Para grass (Brachiaria mutica) amplexicaulis) Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) Tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) Primrose willow (Ludwigia) Rosary pea (Abrus precatorius) Torpedo grass (Panicum repens) Cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica) Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) Water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) (Native Flame vine (Pyrostegia venusta) but listed Exotic Pest Plant Council Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) Category I) Cuban bulrush (Oxycaryum cubense) Lantana (Lantana camara) Old world climbing fern (Lygodium Wild taro (Colocasia esculenta) microphyllum) 6.3 Soil and Water A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and follow-up soil and groundwater sampling was performed on the property in 2013. No soil or groundwater contamination was found. Excess surface water is somewhat affected currently by drainage modifications, ranching practices and
21 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
sod production and harvesting. There is also to be expected some significant loss of soils over time due to compaction and subsidence from the removal of pore water following long term drainage modifications. Some changes in elevation could have occurred also due to additional loss of surface soils above the water table from oxidation processes as a result of shortened hydroperiods (Davis, 1943). With the return of an appropriate hydrologic regime to these areas and the restoration of wetlands on the Buck Island Ranch site, soil and water properties and other natural communities are expected to improve.
6.4 Existing Infrastructure In addition to the overall drainage infrastructure which consists of dikes, canals and ditches, the Buck Island Ranch project area also includes several structures for maintaining cattle and sod farming activities. These include but are not limited to water and feeding troughs, windmill, metal shelters, pump stations, and fences.
6.4.1 South Marsh The existing hydraulic infrastructure within South Marsh is comprised of system of canals and 32 culverts ranging in diameter from 24” to 72”. The canals range from approximately 2 feet to 15 feet in depth and 5 to 30 feet in width. The culverts are in generally good condition; however, they are overgrown by vegetation in most cases. The canals generally originate in the south central and southwest portion and discharge to the northeast into Harney Pond Canal.
6.4.2 East Marsh The existing hydraulic infrastructure within East Marsh is comprised of system of canals and culverts. The canals range from approximately 2 feet to 15 feet in depth and 1 to 5 feet in width. The culverts vary in diameter from 20” to 48”. The culverts are in generally good condition; however, they are overgrown by vegetation in most cases. The canals generally originate in the northwest portion and discharge to the east and southeast.
7.0 HABITAT MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Conservation Practices NRCS conservation practices will be implemented at the site to establish and maintain the desired post-restoration ecological communities to meet restoration goals (NRCS 2011-2014). Short-term conservation practices planned for the East Marsh and South Marsh are shown on Figures 18 and 19, respectively. Long term conservation practices planned for the East Marsh and South Marsh are shown on Figures 20 and 21, respectively. A summary of the ecological conservation practices is provided in Table 7-1. A description of the proposed conservation practices is presented below.
22 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
314 Brush Management
Brush management includes removing woody (non-herbaceous or succulent) plants including those that are invasive and noxious (NRCS 2013). This land management practice will be applied by removing woody vegetation and maintaining the appropriate community assemblage to create and maintain the desired freshwater marsh vegetative communities in an early successional condition (i.e. dominated by diverse, herbaceous vegetation). Brush management will also be conducted within the upland Semi-native Pasture, Oak/Cabbage Palm Hammock, South Florida Flatwoods vegetative communities to control invasive species such as Brazilian pepper tree, Chinaberry, ardisia, and Chinese tallow.
This activity will include herbicide and mechanical treatment of unwanted shrubs and trees. If brush is relatively small with scattered distribution, treatment can include direct foliar and trunk treatment by herbicide, and can include hand cutting and herbicide treatment of stumps. If brush is allowed to become dense with large specimen growth, then mechanical treatment by bushhog or mulchers would be required. The key to effective brush management is a regular and consistent treatment schedule to treat areas while brush is young and scattered in distribution.
A site such as Buck Island Ranch, while not overrun with invasive species, is very susceptible to the spread of invasive species, especially if earthwork with bare ground is proposed. Certain areas have a sufficient seed source from past infestations and current assemblages, as well as a continual dispersal of seeds from wind, water, birds and other wildlife, such that invasive species will be an ongoing problem especially during the early establishment and recovery periods. Therefore, an invasive and exotic species control plan should include a consistent and frequent monitoring and treatment program to control species that will dominate the vegetative communities and divert the succession in an undesirable direction. Some common species of concern will be Brazilian pepper, Peruvian primrose willow, Chinese tallow and Old World Climbing Fern. Until the expanded freshwater marshes become stable vegetative communities, the program should include an annual brush management program.
315 Herbaceous Weed Control
Herbaceous weed control is removing or controlling herbaceous weeds including invasive, noxious and prohibited plants (NRCS 2013). This land management practice works to restore desired native vegetative communities and wildlife habitats (NRCS 2013). This conservation practice is typically performed in conjunction with Brush Management (Code 314). Some common species of concern will be Old World Climbing Fern in the Oak/Cabbage Palm Hammocks, cogon grass in
23 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
the semi-native pasture and South Florida flatwoods, as well as invasive aquatics such as water hyacinth and water lettuce in the ditches and canals of the South Marsh.
338 Prescribed Burning
Prescribed burning includes the application of controlled fire to determined areas (NRCS 2013). This land management practice controls undesirable plant species, helps maintain early successional habitat, enhances seed and seedling production, and improves wildlife habitat. Prescribed burning will be necessary to establish and maintain the structure and diversity of vegetation in the proposed post restoration freshwater marsh vegetative communities, as well as all other remaining vegetative communities listed in the conservation practice summary table below (Table 7-1). Without periodic fires, tree and shrub species invade freshwater marsh vegetative communities resulting in a transition to alternate vegetative communities (such as Carolina willow). Maps depicting suggested Prescribed Fire Burn Units over the entire East Marsh and South Marsh are provided in Figure 22 and Figure 23.
The desired frequency of fire for freshwater marsh vegetative communities is every 1 to 3 years (FNAI 2010). Such fire return intervals may not be achievable during wetter years, but should be the target frequency. The desired frequency of fire for wet prairie (northwest East Marsh only) is every 2 to 3 years (FNAI 2010). Fire may also be helpful for maintaining the structure and the species composition of the semi-native pasture community. The desired frequency of fire for semi-native pasture vegetative communities is similar to freshwater marsh, every 1 to 3 years. Prescribed grazing (528) by cattle may also be used as an alternative or supplement to prescribed fire in semi-native pastures. Prescribed grazing is described later in this section.
Low frequency of fire (5 to 10 years) is suggested within the Live Oak/Cabbage Palm hammocks (NRCS Ecological Community Codes 13 and 15) to open up the understory and improve access to find and control invasive exotic plants such as Brazilian pepper and Old World Climbing Fern. Intense fires in hammock vegetative communities can cause oak tree mortality, so care should be taken to reduce fire intensity or to completely avoid burning within oak dominated hammocks.
394 Firebreaks
Firebreaks are a permanent or temporary strip of bare or vegetated land that work to reduce the spread of wildfire and contain prescribed burns (NRCS 2013). Common firebreaks in Florida include access roads, vegetated firebreaks, plowed or disked firebreaks, and natural barriers. Firebreaks are used to prevent controlled burns from entering non-target vegetative communities, or off-site properties. Firebreaks will need to be carefully considered by land managers and
24 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017 implemented per an approved burn plan. Implementation of the burn plan must be conducted by a certified burn boss and experienced burn crew.
528 Prescribed Grazing
Prescribed grazing is the controlled harvest of vegetation with grazing animals managed with the intent to achieve a specific objective. This practice may be applied on all lands where grazing and/or browsing animals are managed. Removal of herbage by the grazing animals is in accordance with production limitations, plant sensitivities and management goals. In all cases enough vegetation is left to prevent accelerated soil erosion.
This conservation practice is a natural fit for the Buck Island sites, where cattle management is a science. Vegetative communities best suited for prescribed grazing are semi-native pasture and freshwater marsh. Cattle grazing already occurs in these communities, but could be adjusted to provide specific ecological benefits for planned vegetative communities. Numerous criteria for consideration are provided in the Conservation Practice Standard for Prescribed Grazing (NRCS, NHCP September 2010). The cost of Prescribed Grazing varies significantly between ranches, and is interwoven with the cost of other operations. We have not included an estimate in this WRPO.
550 Range Planting
Range planting is defined as the establishment of adapted perennial or self-sustaining vegetation such as grasses, forbs, legumes, shrubs and trees. It can be done for several purposes, including: 1) restore a plant community similar to the Ecological Site Description reference state for the site or the desired plant community; 2) provide or improve forages for livestock; 3) provide or improve forage, browse or cover for wildlife; 4) reduce erosion by wind and/or water; 5) improve water quality; 6) increase carbon sequestration. The NRCS Conservation Practice Standard for range planting (Code 550) provides detailed information on this practice and should be used as a guideline by the land owners prior to and during implementation of range planting. Range planting is listed here for reference at the request of the land owner/managers. It is to be planned, costed and implemented as a long-term management practice, if desired by and at the discretion of the land owner/managers. The cost of Range Planting is highly dependent upon the type of seeding, which can vary from under one hundred to tens of thousands of dollars per acre. Range Planting has not been included in other WRPs or WREs in this region, and is not included in the cost estimate for this one.
25 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
644 Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management
Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management is retaining, developing, or managing wetland habitat for wetland wildlife (NRCS 2012). This conservation practice will be used to maintain, develop, and improve wetland habitat for wetland dependent flora and fauna (NRCS 2012). The nature of the restoration from bahia sod production and cattle ranching to a natural wetland system will in itself improve habitat for wildlife nesting and foraging of all types; however some specific activities can be considered to provide more opportunity for nesting and foraging for specific species. The site is optimal for large mammals that need significant range and areas where wildlife corridors are present. Opportunities offered also to avian and aquatic species will be improved through invasive species management, return of normal fire intervals, and restored hydroperiods to freshwater marshes.
A very active Florida Snail Kite foraging and probable nesting marsh was identified in the east- central portion of the East Marsh. Snail kites breed from December to August and lay an average of three eggs in bulky nests built in a variety of wetland trees, shrubs and emergent vegetation. During the nesting season, the birds are usually found singly or in pairs; in winter, they often roost together in communal groups. Careful monitoring of marshes in this area should be conducted during the breeding season to identify any nests. This will help land managers make informed decisions when conservation management practices such as prescribed fire, brush management, and invasive species control can be conducted so as not disturb nesting kites.
657 Wetland Restoration
Wetland restoration is the return of a wetland and its functions to a close approximation of its original condition as it existed prior to disturbance on a former or degraded wetland site (NRCS 2011). The purpose is to restore wetland function, value, habitat, diversity, and capacity to a close approximation of the pre-disturbance conditions by restoring wetland hydrology and native hydrophytic vegetation (NRCS 2011). This conservation practice will be applied to return wetlands as near to their original conditions as possible.
Freshwater marsh is the primary wetland type to be restored within the Buck Island easements. This restoration aims to convert, as much as possible, the former (drained for pasture) shallow and deep freshwater marshes back to healthy, functioning freshwater marshes. Partially drained marshes that exist in a degraded condition will be enhanced by increased water levels and hydroperiods.
26 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Table 7-1 Conservation Practice Summary (Recommended Plan East and South Marshes)
i Term Initial Annual Acreage Practices Proposed Long Community Restoration Management Estimated Cost Conceptual Plan Estimated Cost Freshwater Marsh 2,037 314 $375,000 314 $300,000 315 $150,000 315 $112,500 644 $22,500 644 $22,500 657 * 338 $150,000 Oak Hammocks/Cabbage 356 314 $144,000 314 $71,000 Palm Hammocks 338 $49,500 Semi-native Pasture 1,154 314 $180,000 314 $150,000 315 $120,000 315 $90,000
394 $51,000
338 $60,000 Canals and Ditches 193 315 $55,000 315 $27,500 South Florida Flatwoods 13 314 $3,000 314 $1,500 315 $2,000 315 $1,000 338 $5,000
Notes: * included in construction and management costs
27 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
8.0 EXOTIC AND NUISANCE SPECIES A key prerequisite to ecological restoration on this easement is to address all Category 1 invasive species designated by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (see the NRCS FOTG Section 1 (E)) where their presence or overpopulation jeopardizes the success of the restoration (NRCS 2011- 2014). This often requires the recurrent use of practices such as Brush Management (Code 314), Herbaceous Weed Control (Code 315), Prescribed Burning (Code 338), and/or the manipulation of water levels. However, the program should be careful to include frequent monitoring and assessment of invasive species occurrence. Treatments should be regular and frequent during the early successional stages of site development. Bare ground and transitioning vegetative communities are very susceptible to dominance by invasive species and care should be taken to prevent that dominance. The University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants provides invasive plant information and herbicide recommendations for chemical treatment options, as well as all other invasive plant control options (IFAS CAIP online resources). Herbicide specimen labels must be followed at all times, as required by law.
8.1 Invasive Species Management Plan As a component of the Buck Island Ranch WRP conservation practices, an invasive species management plan has been developed for the specific invasive species known to occur within the 3,056 -acre site. Invasive plant species have increasingly become a more important priority to land managers due to their ability to out-compete native vegetation for resources including sun, water, nutrients, and space. Invasive species that may occur include, but are not limited to, the following plant species:
Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolia) Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) para grass (Brachiaria mutica) Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana) torpedo grass (Panicum repens) water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) lantana (Lantana camara) wild taro (Colocasia esculenta) Caesar’s weed (Urena lobata) ardisia (Ardesia elliptica) West Indian marsh grass (Hymenachne amplexicaulis) tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) rosary pea (Abrus precatorius) cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica) air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) flame vine (Pyrostegia venusta) Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) cuban bulrush (Oxycaryum cubense)
28 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Old world climbing fern (Lygodium macrophyllum)
Several Category I species, listed on the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council 2013 List of Invasive Plant Species, were observed on the site (FLEPPC 2013). Category I invasive species observed were Brazilian pepper tree, Chinaberry, Chinese tallow, para grass, Napier grass, primrose willow, torpedo grass, lantana, wild taro, Caesar’s weed, ardisia, West Indian marsh grass and tropical soda apple. Potential invasive plants that can occur and which have been identified and treated previously include: rosary pea, cogon grass, air potato, flame vine and Strophanthus. Primarily aquatic invasive species have been identified within the canals and ditches of the South Marsh (Figure 17) and these include Cuban bulrush, water lettuce and water hyacinth. On the western side of the East Marsh, the presence of Chinese tallow has been documented throughout the forested areas and old world climbing fern has also been documented in the center WRPO easement (Figure 16) At the time of this report, it was reported that there is an active and effective invasive species management plan in place as part of Buck Island Ranch’s overall land management plan (Archbold Biological Station, 2016). In addition, the presence of invasive and exotic species overall was documented to be random and minimal coverage throughout the site.
8.2 Invasive Plant Management Tools Many different techniques are used to control exotic invasive plants. Biological, chemical, manual and mechanical, and cultural controls are used separately or in conjunction to manage invasive plant species. Below are descriptions of each of these methods. Specific species-level controls are discussed in the Specific Species Treatment Methods Section. This information was obtained and adapted from the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s Invasive Species Management Plans, University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS) Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, invasive plant management plans, and Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant Manual (2003).
8.2.1 Biological Control Plants are often prevented from becoming seriously overgrown in their native range by a complex assortment of insects and other herbivorous organisms. When a plant is brought into the United States, the associated pests are thoroughly screened by government regulations on plant pest importation. Favorable growing conditions and the absence of these associated pest species have allowed some plants to become overgrown outside their native range.
Classical biological control seeks to locate such insects and import host-specific species to attack and control the plant in regions where it has become a weed. This approach has a proven safety
29 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017 record (none of the approximately 300 insect species imported specifically for this purpose have become pests) and has been effective in controlling almost 50 species of weeds.
The following are the steps of a classical biological control investigation:
• Identify the target pest and prepare a report outlining the problem conflicts, potential for a successful program, etc. • Survey and identify the pest’s native range for a list of herbivores that attack the pest plant. • Identify the best potential biocontrol agents based on field observations, preliminary lab tests, and information from local scientists. • Conduct preliminary host-range tests on the most promising candidate in the native country to obtain permission to import to U.S. quarantine. • Complete host-range tests in U.S. quarantine to ensure the safety of the organism relative to local native plants, agricultural crops, and ornamentals. • Petition the Technical Advisory Group of the USDA for permission to release into the United States; also, obtain permission from necessary state agencies. • Culture agents that are approved to have sufficient numbers to release at field sites; test release strategies to determine the best method. • Monitor field populations of pest plants to: o Determine if biocontrol agent establishes self-perpetuating field populations. o Understand plant population dynamics to have a baseline to measure bioagent effects, especially if they are sublethal and subtle, and to know what portions of life history to watch. o Study effectiveness of the agents for controlling the target plant; monitor plant populations with and without the agent to determine impacts of the agent. o Study means of integrating biocontrol into overall management plans for the target plant
Introduction of animals such as cattle, sheep, goats, or weed-eating fish may also be used to control certain invasive plants. However, environmental impacts of using such non-selective herbivores in natural areas should be carefully considered before implementation.
8.2.2 Chemical Controls Herbicides are a vital component of most control programs and are used extensively for invasive plant species management. Some herbicide use is classified as restricted if it could cause harm to humans or to the environment unless it is applied by certified applicators who have the knowledge to use the pesticide safely and effectively. The basic knowledge of herbicide
30 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017 technology and application techniques that are needed for safe handling and effective use of any herbicides can be obtained from restricted-use pesticide certification training.
8.2.3 Herbicide Application Methods Foliar applications: the herbicide is diluted in water and applied to the leaves with aerial or ground equipment. Foliar applications can be either directed, to minimize damage to non-target vegetation or broadcast. Broadcast applications are used where damage to non-target vegetation is not a concern or where a selective herbicide is used.
Basal bark applications: the herbicide is applied, commonly with a backpack sprayer, directly to the bark around the circumference of each stem/tree up to 15 inches above the ground.
Frill or girdle (hack-and-squirt) applications: Cuts into the cambium are made completely around the circumference of the tree, with no more than 3-inch intervals between cut edges. Continuous cuts (girdle) are sometimes used for difficult-to-control species and for large trees. Herbicide is applied to each cut until the exposed area is thoroughly wet. Frill or girdle treatments are slow and labor intensive, but they are sometimes necessary in mixed communities to kill target vegetation and to minimize impact to desirable vegetation.
Stump treatments: after cutting and removing large trees or brush, the herbicide (concentrated or diluted) is sprayed or painted onto the cut surface. The herbicide is usually concentrated on the cambium layer on large stumps, especially when using concentrated herbicide solutions. The cambium is next to the bark around the entire circumference of the stump. When using dilute solutions, the entire stump is sometimes flooded (depending on label instructions) with herbicide solution.
Soil applications: granular herbicide formulations are applied by handheld spreaders, specially designed blowers, or aerially.
8.2.4 Herbicide Toxicity to Wildlife Invasive plant management is often conducted in natural areas to maintain or restore wildlife habitat. Therefore, it is essential that the herbicides are not toxic to wildlife. Herbicides used for invasive plant control have resulted in negligible toxicity effects to wildlife on those which have been tested. One exception lies with relatively low LC50 (Lethal Concentration, 50%) of triclopyr ester (0.87 parts per million, or ppm) and fluazifop (0.57 ppm) which can be toxic for fish. Neither of these pesticides are to be applied directly to water. Ester formulations are toxic to fish because of irritation to fishes’ gill surfaces. However, because triclopyr ester and fluazifop are not applied
31 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
directly to water but are adsorbed by soil particles, chemical persistence and exposure are low, which result in low risk when properly used.
8.2.5 Manual and Mechanical Removal Manual removal is time consuming, but it is often a major component of effective invasive plant control. Seedlings and small saplings can sometimes be pulled from the ground, but even small seedlings of some plants have tenacious roots that will prevent extraction or cause them to break at the root collar. Plants that break off at the ground will often re-sprout, and even small root fragments left in the ground may sprout. Repeated hand pulling or follow-up with herbicide applications are often necessary. Removal of uprooted plant material is important. Stems and branches of certain species that are left on the ground can sprout roots, and attached seeds can germinate. If material cannot be destroyed by methods such as burning, then it should be piled in a secure area that can be monitored, and new plants should be killed as they appear.
Mechanical removal involves the use of bulldozers, bush hogs, mulching/grinding equipment and/or specialized logging equipment (to remove woody plants). Intense follow-up with other control methods is essential after the use of heavy equipment, because disturbance of the soil creates favorable conditions for re-growth from seeds and root fragments as well as recolonization by invasive nonnative plants. Mechanical removal may not be appropriate in natural areas because of the disturbance to soils and non-target vegetation caused by the heavy equipment. Mechanical removal alone is typically an insufficient control measure due to re-growth from stumps, roots, or seed bank remaining in the soil. Mechanical treatments are often performed in conjunction with herbicide application. Some very extreme treatments include the removal of soil, which is burned to kill seeds and roots, then soil replacement. In aquatic environments, mechanical controls include self-propelled harvesting machines, draglines, cutting boats, and other machines, most of which remove vegetation from the water body. These systems generally are used for clearing boat trails, high-use areas, or locations where immediate control is required, such as for flood control canals and around water control structures.
8.2.6 Cultural Practices Prescribed burning and water level manipulation are cultural practices that are used in management of pastures, rangeland, and commercial forests. In some situations, they may be appropriate for vegetation management in natural areas. Land use history is critical in understanding the effects of fire and flooding on the resulting plant species composition. Past practices may have affected the soil structure, organic content, seed bank of both native and invasive exotic species and species composition. While there is evidence that past farming and timber management practices will greatly influence the outcome of cultural management, very
32 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017 little is known about the effects of specific historical practices. Similar management practices conducted in areas with dissimilar histories may achieve very different results. Even less is known about the effects of invasive species entering these communities or about the subsequent management effects of fire on the altered communities.
Understanding the reproductive biology of the target and non-target plant species is critical to effective use of any control methods, but it is particularly true with methods such as fire management, which often require significant preparation time. Important opportunities exist when management tools can be applied to habitats where non-native invasive species flower or set seed at different times than the native species.
8.2.7 Prescribed Burning Fire is a normal part of most central Florida ecosystems, and as a result native species have evolved varying degrees of fire tolerance. In many areas, suppression of fire has altered historical plant communities. Within these communities, the fire-tolerant woody species have lingered in smaller numbers, and less fire-tolerant species have replaced ephemeral herbs. Little is known about the amount, frequency, timing, and intensity of fire that would best enhance the historically fire-tolerant plant species. Even less is known about how such a fire management regime could be best used to suppress invasive species. Single fires in areas with many years of fire suppression are unlikely to restore historical species composition. Periodic fires in frequently burned areas do little to alter native species composition.
Invasion of tree stands by exotic vines and other climbing plants, such as old world climbing fern, has greatly increased the danger of canopy fires and the resulting death to mature trees. The added biomass by invasive plants can result in hotter fires and can greatly increase the risk of fires spreading to inhabited areas. In these situations, use of fire to reduce standing biomass of invasive species may better protect the remaining plant populations than by doing nothing, even though impacts to non-target native species will occur.
8.2.8 Water Level Manipulation Some success has been achieved by regulating water levels to reduce invasive plant species in aquatic and wetland habitats. Dewatering aquatic sites reduces standing biomass, but little else is usually achieved unless the site is rendered less susceptible to repeated invasion when re- watered. Planting native species may reduce the susceptibility of aquatic and wetland sites in some cases. In most situations, water level manipulation in reservoirs has not provided the level of invasive plant control that was once thought achievable. Ponds and reservoirs can be constructed with steep sides to reduce invaded habitat, and levels can be avoided that promote
33 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017 invasive species, but rarely are these management options adaptable to natural areas. Carefully timed water level increases following herbicide treatments, mechanical removal, or fire management of invasive species can sometimes control subsequent germination, and with some exotic species, re-sprouting.
8.2.9 Re-establishment of Native Plant Species Planting native species can be an effective, though expensive, way to reduce the likelihood of exotic species re-invasion following removal of non-native species. Commercial plant nurseries currently offer seeds and plants of several wetland and upland species. Because some species cover a wide range of habitats and latitudes, care should be taken to obtain plant material suitable to the habitat under consideration. Seed collected from plants growing in more northern latitudes may do poorly in southern climates. Introduction of seeds, plant parts, or whole plants should include thorough screening for any unwanted pests.
It often takes several years for plantings to become thoroughly established, and extra care (water, nutrients) and protection (from fire and pests) may be necessary. Also during this establishment phase, past management practices may have to be altered to avoid injury to the plantings. If periodic burning or flooding, for example, is part of the current management practice, it may be necessary to reduce the intensity or duration until the plantings are able to exhibit their typical resistance to injury. Unfortunately, little is known about requirements for successful establishment of many native species, and less is known about their tolerances to cultural invasive plant management techniques. Even when tolerances are better known, responses may be affected by historical site effects, traits of particular genetic strains, site-specific nutrition and light conditions, and interactions of soil type, hydroperiod and microclimate.
8.3 Species Specific Treatment Methods The following section outlines the invasive species LG2ES field biologist observed while conducting the General Invasive Plan Survey, and details the current methods used to treat each species. This information was obtained and adapted from the Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant Manual (2003), Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC), UF-IFAS Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, and USDA Plants National Database (1997).
8.3.1 Air Potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) Appearance: herbaceous twining vine, growing 70 feet or more in length.
34 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Foliage: leaves are broadly cordate (heart shaped) and alternately arranged on stems. A distinguishing characteristic of air potato is that all leaf veins arise from the leaf base, unlike other herbaceous vines such as smilax and morning glories. Flowers: inconspicuous, arising from leaf axils in panicles 4 inches long, and are fairly uncommon in Florida.
Fruit: vegetative reproduction is the primary mechanism of spreading through the formation of aerial tubers, or bulbils, which are formed in leaf axils. These vary in roundish shapes and sizes. In addition, large tubers are formed underground, some reaching over 6 inches in diameter.
Ecological Threat: Air potato can grow extremely quickly, roughly 8 inches per day. It typically climbs to the tops of trees and has a tendency to take over native plants. New plants develop from bulbils that form on the plant, and these bulbils serve as a means of dispersal. The aerial stems of air potato die back in winter, but re-sprouting occurs from bulbils and underground tubers. The primary means of spread and reproduction are via bulbils. The smallest bulbils make control of air potato difficult due to their ability to sprout at a very small stage.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Weeds such as air potato generally invade open or disturbed areas following a burn, clearing mowing, etc., so these areas are particularly vulnerable to invasion. Therefore, a healthy ecosystem with good species diversity will help to deter infestation. In addition to collecting and removing aboveground bulbils, digging up and removing below ground tubers will help. This may be particularly useful to eliminate isolated plants/small populations, especially in areas that cannot be easily accessed or chemically treated. One of the most important control measures for air potato is the removal of bulbils and tubers.
Prescribed burning: Burning is not recommended because it results in excessive damage to the native vegetation, as the fire follows the vines into the tree canopy.
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: Mechanical methods are limited for air potato, as control of the vines generally results in damage to the vegetation being climbed by the air potato. Mowing can help to suppress air potato, but this may increase the overall problem due to spreading of the bulbils.
Biological Controls Air Potato Beetle: A leaf feeding beetle from Asia, Lilioceris cheni Gressit and Kimoto (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), was released in Florida as a biological control agent of air potato in
35 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
late 2011. Since then the beetles have continued to be released and are naturally spreading throughout Florida. If the beetles are not already present, then they can be obtained from IFAS for release on private and public lands.
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: The best time to apply an herbicide is in the spring and summer when air potato is actively growing. Be sure to allow adequate time for the plant to regrow from the winter to ensure movement of the herbicide back into the underground tuber. (As plants grow and mature, they begin to move sugars back into the roots and below-ground tubers). However, treat before the plants begin to form new bulbils. • Glyphosate: Application of a 2 to 3% solution of glyphosate (Roundup, etc.) can be effective. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 teaspoons per gallon of spray solution). • Triclopyr: A dilution of triclopyr (Garlon 3A at 1 to 2% solution or Garlon 4 at 0.5 to 2% solution) in water can be an effective control for air potato when applied as a foliar application. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 teaspoons per gallon of spray solution).
8.3.2 Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) Appearance: a broadleaved, evergreen shrub or small tree that invades natural and disturbed areas in Hawaii, Florida, Texas and California. Plants can grow to 30 feet tall.
Foliage: alternate, dark green leaves are pinnately compound and slightly toothed along leaflet margins. Leaflets are opposite along a (usually) winged rachis and 1-2 inches long. Leaves smell strongly of pepper or turpentine when crushed.
Flowers: dioecious with clusters of small, white, 5-petaled flowers developing in the leaf axils of young stems. Trees flower year-round, but flowers are most concentrated in the fall.
Fruit: small, bright red berries. Seeds are spread by birds.
Ecological Threat: invades a variety of habitats including old fields, forests, hammocks, ditches, and wetlands. It forms dense thickets that displace native vegetation. Brazilian pepper is native to South America and was first introduced into the United States in the 1840s as an ornamental.
Cultural Controls
36 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Preventative measures: A well-established native cover or plant community is a way to suppress Brazilian pepper, however, the rapid growth and high germination rates make Brazilian pepper difficult to suppress from a cultural weed management standpoint. Prescribed burning: Seeds cannot tolerate heat and will not germinate following a fire, but the plant has the potential to re-sprout after a fire from roots. Smoke from burning pepper trees is toxic, so care must be taken not to allow inhalation by workers or nearby populations.
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: When utilizing aggressive mechanical methods, the entire plant, particularly the root system, should be removed. Roots ¼ inch in diameter and larger are able to resprout and produce new plants, so follow-up from this type of control method will be necessary. Cutting must be integrated with chemical control because of its proclivity to re-sprout.
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: • Glyphosate: Application of a 2 to 3% solution of glyphosate (Roundup, etc.) can be fairly effective on trees less than 10 feet tall. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution). • Triclopyr: a dilution of Garlon 3A at 2 to 3% solution or Garlon 4 at 0.5 to 2% solution in water can be fairly effective on trees less than 10 feet tall. Be sure to include a non- ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution).
Basal Bark Method: • Triclopyr: applied in a 4 to 8-in band near the base of the trunk in a 15% solution (Garlon 4) in an oil carrier has also been shown to be an effective treatment. Basal bark treatments are most effective in the fall when Brazilian pepper are flowering. This is due to the high level of translocation occurring within the tree.
Cut Stump Method: • Triclopyr: an 8% treatment is almost completely effective in eliminating Brazilian pepper.
Fruiting occurs during winter, and Brazilian pepper that has been controlled using a foliar or basal bark treatment may retain their fruit. This situation will require that the treatment areas be checked for seedlings on a regular basis.
37 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
8.3.3 Caesar Weed (Urena lobata) Appearance: an erect shrub that grows up to 10 feet in height. The plant is single stalked, with free-branching stems that comprise a bushy appearance. It grows as an annual species in many areas of Florida but may perennate in south Florida.
Foliage: leaves are palmately lobed, pubescent with stellate hairs, and 1-3 inches long.
Flowers: borne in axillary clusters, pinkish-violet, about ½ inch across.
Fruit: pubescent with hooked bristles or barbs that cling to clothing or fur.
Ecological Threat: invades disturbed areas, pastures, eroded areas, and perennial crop plantations. The species does not compete well in tall grass and brush lands and does not grow under forest canopies. Caesar weed tolerates salt spray but does not grow in saturated soils. Having an aggressive habit, Caesar weed grows rapidly and can reach 2 to 7 feet by the end of the first year.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Control trees along fencerows and neighboring hedges, limiting seed introduction. Control is best accomplished when trees are very young, prior to seed production. Care should be taken to prevent seed spread into ‘clean areas’. The seed of Caesar weed clings to clothing, therefore treat plants before seed set. Avoid treating areas of this species and then travel to other areas. Also avoid driving vehicles through areas of Caesar weed. Shade will help to deter growth and limit seedling establishment. Mulches or other ground cover will also prevent seed germination.
Prescribed burning: May be susceptible to fire, but more research must be done to validate this claim.
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: Shade will help to deter growth and limit seedling establishment. Mulches or other ground cover will also prevent seed germination.
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method:
38 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
• Limited research in this area, but triclopyr (Remedy or Garlon 3A) will probably be more effective than glyphosate (based on research with cotton). Use 1-2% solution with surfactant at 0.25%.
39 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
8.3.4 Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) Appearance: deciduous tree up to 50 feet in height and 2 feet in diameter.
Foliage: leaves alternate, bi-pinnately compound, 1-2 feet in length and turn golden-yellow in fall.
Flowers: occur in spring, showy, lavender, 5-petaled flowers in panicles.
Fruit: hard, yellow, marble-sized, stalked berries that can be dangerous on sidewalks and other walkways. Seeds are spread by birds.
Ecological Threat: invades disturbed areas, commonly found along roads and forest edges with the potential to grow in dense thickets, restricting the growth of native vegetation. Native to Southeast Asia and northern Australia, introduced into the United States in the 1800s for ornamental purposes.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Control trees along fencerows and neighboring hedges, limiting seed introduction. Control is best accomplished when trees are very young, prior to seed production. The seed is very hard and may remain dormant in the soil for several months to years. Seeds may be hand-picked from trees and discarded properly, however this may not be a realistic or cost effective tactic for larger infestations.
Prescribed burning: May be susceptible to fire, but more research must be done to validate this claim.
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: Limit to cutting, although mowing prevents seedling establishment in pasture and rangeland settings. Cutting must be integrated with chemical control because of its proclivity to re-sprout.
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: • Glyphosate: Application of a 2 to 3% solution of glyphosate (Roundup, etc.) can be fairly effective on trees less than 10 feet tall.
40 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
• Triclopyr: A dilution of Garlon 3A at 2 to 3% solution or Garlon 4 at 0.5 to 2% solution in water can be fairly effective on trees less than 10 feet tall. Be sure to include a non- ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution).
Basal Bark Method: • Triclopyr: Applied in a 4 to 8-inch band near the base of the trunk in a 15% solution (Garlon 4) has also been shown to be an effective treatment.
Cut Stump Method: • Triclopyr: An 8% treatment is almost completely effective in eliminating Chinaberry. Repeat applications may also be necessary for complete control. This control method should be considered when treating individual bushes or where the presence of desirable species precludes foliar application.
8.3.5 Chinese Tallow (Triadica sebifera) Appearance: Chinese tallow is a small to medium-sized tree that grows to about 20 feet tall, but some specimens can reach 40-50 feet. It is freely branching with heart-shaped leaves arranged alternately on branches. It is a fast grower and has beautiful fall color.
Foliage: The leaves have acuminate tips and entire margins, with broadly ovate leaf blades and rounded bases.
Flowers: The flowers of Chinese tallow are attractive to bees and other insects and are borne in spikes roughly 8 inches long.
Fruit: The fruit is a three-lobed capsule (0.5 inches) and seeds are covered with vegetable tallow, a white waxy coating. Fruit ripens from August to November. The leaves and fruit are toxic to cattle and cause nausea and vomiting in humans.
Ecological Threat: Chinese tallow has become naturalized in over half of Florida counties and across most of the southern coastal plain. The species display vigorous growth capabilities in sun or shade. It is disease resistant and seeds dispersal is facilitated through wind, birds, moving water, etc. Regrowth can occur from stumps or roots. These characteristics allow this Category I species to displace native vegetative communities rapidly once established.
41 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Education to homeowners on the identification and management of Chinese tallow is critical. Seedlings should be continually pulled by hand before they reach seed- bearing maturity. Native or noninvasive non-native trees can be planted in areas previously occupied by Chinese tallow.
Prescribed burning: Burning is very effective for both small and larger trees.
Mechanical Controls: Mature trees should be cut down with a chain saw. The final cut should be made as close to the ground as possible and as level as possible. This will make an herbicide application easier as well as prevent resprouting from the cut. Seedling trees can be mowed or disked when small.
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: For foliar applications, fall treatments before seed shed is the optimum timing – this coincides with downward translocation of carbohydrates. However, basal bark or cut stump treatments can be performed at any time of the year. Control can be achieved with the use of triclopyr-ester applied in an oil diluent.
Basal Bark Method: Apply an herbicide/oil mixture directly to the bark around the circumference of the tree up to 15 inches above the ground. For trees with stems less than 6 inches in basal diameter, a solution of 5% triclopyr with oil can be used. For trees over 6 inches in basal diameter a 15-20% triclopyr and oil solution should be used. To control resprouting of freshly cut stumps, a 20% solution of triclopyr is very effective. The root collar area, sides of the stump, and the outer portion of the cut surface should be sprayed until thoroughly wet, but not to the point of runoff. No more than 1/2 hour should elapse between cutting and applying herbicide. Do not attempt a cut stump or basal bark treatment during seed production (August to early September). This can increase the chance of spreading viable seed
8.3.6 Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) Appearance: Cogongrass is a perennial grass that varies greatly in appearance. Cogongrass grows in loose to compact bunches, each ‘bunch’ containing several leaves arising from a central area along a rhizome.
Foliage: The leaf margins are finely serrated; contributing to the undesirable forage qualities of this grass. The leaves appear light green, with older leaves becoming orange-brown in color. In areas with killing frosts, the leaves will turn light brown during winter months and present a
42 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017 substantial fire hazard. The leaves originate directly from ground level and range from one to four feet in length. Each leaf is 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch wide with a prominent, off-center, white mid-rib.
Flowers: Seed production predominately occurs in the spring, with long, fluffy-white seedheads.
Fruit: Mowing, burning or fertilization can also induce sporadic seedhead formation. Seeds are extremely small and attached to a plume of long hairs. Although the seeds can be carried long distances by wind and animals, the spread of cogongrass by seed is questionable and still under investigation.
Ecological Threat: Cogongrass was intentionally introduced from the Philippines into Mississippi as a possible forage in 1921. Cogongrass was introduced into Florida in the 1930s and 1940s as a potential forage and for soil stabilization purposes. Rhizomes are responsible for the survival and short-distance spread of cogongrass. Established stands may produce over 3 tons of rhizomes per acre. In Florida, this species is prevalent in ditch banks, pastures, road sides and right-of- ways, golf courses, and forests. In central Florida, monocultures of cogongrass have become established on hundreds of acres of reclaimed phosphate mining areas. There have also been reports of cogongrass invading old growth forests competing out other native midstory and ground cover vegetation severely impacting species composition.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Various methods including mechanical and chemical have been used with varying degrees of success. To eliminate cogongrass, the rhizomes must be destroyed to avoid regrowth. Cultivation and herbicides have been the two control strategies used most often. One of the oldest and most successful methods is to deep plow or disk several times during the dry season to desiccate the rhizomes and exhaust the food reserves. It is essential to cut to a depth of at least 6 inches to ensure that most, if not all the rhizomes have been cut.
Prescribed burning: It has been shown that an integrated approach that combines burning, tillage (mechanical disturbance) and chemical applications provide the best solution for cogongrass management. Initially, cogongrass should be burned or mowed to remove excess thatch and older leaves. This initiates regrowth from the rhizomes, thereby reducing rhizome biomass. It also allows herbicides to be applied to only actively growing leaves, maximizing herbicide absorption into the plant. Ideally, burning should take place in the summer.
43 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: Limit to cutting, although mowing prevents seedling establishment in pasture and rangeland settings. Cutting must be integrated with chemical control because of its proclivity to re-sprout. If disking, follow with burning and then treat regrowth chemically.
Chemical Controls In non-crop areas such as rights-of-way and fence rows, the so-called soil sterilants such as prometon (Pramitol), tebuthiuron (Spike), and imazapyr (Arsenal) will give excellent control; however, areas treated with these materials will be free of any vegetation for 6 months to a year. Often these conditions promote erosion and are unacceptable. A 1 to 4-month regrowth period has been shown to provide a sufficient level of leaf biomass for herbicide treatment. This targets herbicide applications to be made in the late summer/early fall – approximately 1 month prior to the average killing frost, depending on area.
Foliar Spray Method: Glyphosate (Roundup, etc.) applied at 3-4 qts per Acre will substantially reduce cogongrass stands but multiple applications are needed. However, this herbicide is a non- selective herbicide and will control/injure all vegetation present at the time of treatment. Subsequent to application, crops can be planted immediately because glyphosate has little or no residual soil activity. If high rates (4-5 qt) of Roundup are used, slight soil residual may exist in Florida soils; therefore, a 10-14 day waiting period should be observed before revegetating with tender seeds or seedlings. Fluazifop (Fusilade DX) provides moderate suppression of cogongrass. Fusilade is a selective grass herbicide that provides more flexibility when desirable broadleaf species are present for revegetation. For exact rates and times of herbicide application, consult the herbicide label for most current legal information.
8.3.7 Common Guava (Psidium guajava) Appearance: can grow into small trees to heights of 30 feet with smooth, thin, copper-colored bark that flakes off, showing the greenish layer beneath.
Foliage: evergreen, and the oval or oblong leaves will grow in pairs with short leaf stalks (petioles), leaves give off a distinctive odor when crushed.
Flowers: faintly fragrant white flowers grow singly or in small clusters between the leaves and stems, flowers are about 1 inch wide, with 4 or 5 white petals.
Fruit: give off a strong, sweet, musky odor when ripe. They may be round, oval or pear- shaped. When immature, the fruit is green, hard, and gummy with a very astringent
44 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
flavor. When ripe, fruit measure 2 to 4 inches long and have 4 or 5 protruding bumps at the blossom end.
Ecological Threat: can overrun pastures, fields and roadsides with the potential to grow in dense thickets, restricting the growth of native vegetation. Native to Southeast Asia, introduced into the United States in the 1800s for ornamental purposes.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Control plants along fencerows and neighboring hedges, limiting seed introduction. Control is best accomplished when plants are very young, prior to seed production. Fruit and/or seeds may be hand-picked from plants and discarded properly, however this may not be a realistic or cost effective tactic for larger infestations.
Prescribed burning: May be susceptible to fire, but more research must be done to validate this claim.
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: Limit to cutting, although mowing prevents seedling establishment in pasture and rangeland settings. Cutting must be integrated with chemical control because of its proclivity to re-sprout.
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: • Glyphosate: Application of a 2 to 3% solution of glyphosate (Roundup, etc.) can be fairly effective on shrubs/trees less than 10 feet tall. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution). • Triclopyr: a dilution of Garlon 3A at 2 to 3% solution or Garlon 4 at 0.5 to 2% solution in water can be fairly effective on trees less than 10 feet tall. Be sure to include a non- ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution).
Basal Bark Method: • Triclopyr: applied in a 4 to 8-in band near the base of the trunk in a 18% solution (Garlon 4) in an oil carrier has also been shown to be an effective treatment.
Cut Stump Method: • Triclopyr: an 18% treatment is effective in eliminating Common guava. Repeat applications may also be necessary for complete control. This control method should be
45 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
considered when treating individual bushes or where the presence of desirable species precludes foliar application.
8.3.8 Lantana (Lantana camera) Appearance: perennial, erect or prostrate shrub growing to 6 feet or more in height.
Foliage: ovate in shape, oppositely arranged, commonly 6 inches long and 2.5 inches wide. Leaves feel like fine sandpaper or a cat’s tongue, blades are serrate and have an aroma when crushed or rubbed.
Flowers: clustered at the tip of stems. Small, multicolored flowers change color over time from white to pink or lavender, or yellow to orange or red.
Fruit: tiny (0.2 inches in diameter) and round, initially green, the seeds will change to a deep purple and eventually black color. Seeds can be dispersed by birds.
Ecological Threat: invades disturbed areas, commonly found along roads and forest edges with the potential to grow in dense thickets, restricting the growth of native vegetation. Native to the West Indies, introduced into the United States in the 1800s for ornamental purposes.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Control trees along fencerows and neighboring hedges, limiting seed introduction. Control is best accomplished when plants are young, prior to seed production. Preventing seed production is a very important step in lantana management. Removing flower heads prior to seed set will greatly reduce the number of seeds released into the seed bank, as well as reduces the number of seeds available for spread by birds or other animals, however this may not be a realistic or cost effective tactic for larger infestations.
Prescribed burning: Part of a management plan to control dense infestations can include the use of fire. Follow-up controls after each burn, with spot spraying or mechanical methods, are essential for the next few years. Burning without follow-up treatments is ineffective and may increase populations.
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: Dozing or stick-raking, and slashing or cutting can reduce dense infestations. These tactics can make spot treatments with chemicals more economically effective. Follow up spot treatments with chemicals is recommended for controlling re-sprouts.
46 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: • Glyphosate: Marginally effective as a foliar spray and regrowth is common. • Fluroxypyr (Vista) plus aminopyralid (Milestone VM): at rates of 2.6 pint and 7 oz/acre, respectively, applied twice within 6 months is effective, but costly.
Basal Bark Method: • Fluroxypyr or imazapyr: Applied as a basal application is consistently effective.
Cut Stump Method: • Fluroxypry or imazapyr: Mowing or hand cutting and spraying the freshly cut stumps is the easiest application technique and requires the least amount of herbicide. Follow herbicide specimen label recommendations for specific dilution mixtures to effectively control woody brush using cut stump applications.
8.3.9 Napier Grass (Pennisetum purpureum) Appearance: perennial species, clump forming, napiergrass propagates vegetatively from root crown divisions or rhizome and stem fragments, especially after mechanical control such as tilling, can reach up to 12 feet in height.
Foliage: blades are 4 to 12 inches long and ½ an inch wide.
Flowers: panicle is up to 12 inches long, with numerous spreading branches. Spikelets are roughly 0.12 inches long, elliptic, with a purplish rachis.
Fruit: many flower heads produced, seed production is very poor with poor seed viability.
Ecological Threat: found most often in disturbed areas, especially along canal banks. Emergent grass found along shorelines. Hinders flood control by blocking access to canals and impeding water flow. Aggressive in nature, can form large monocultures through fast growth and high productivity. Native to Africa. Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Do not allow seed set to occur and prevent movement of plant material into uninfested areas.
Grazing: Cattle grazing on napiergrass seems to keep this invasive in check and is used extensively by many producers as a forage.
47 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Drawdown/Desiccation/Burning: Waterbodies with water levels that can be controlled can be drawn down and napiergrass allowed to desiccate in place and/or burned.
Prescribed fire: Burning can be very useful in removing excess biomass, allowing for more effective chemical control.
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: Infestations can be removed with repeated, aggressive mowing and follow up chemical spot treatments. Floating mats can be harvested or shredded mechanically using a water harvester or other machinery.
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: Glyphosate: Application of a 2 to 3% solution of aquatic labeled glyphosate (Rodeo, etc.) can be fairly effective on napiergrass stands, 2 to 4 lbs-ai/acre can be used for broadcast applications to larger areas. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution).
Imazapyr: An application of 0.5 to 3% solution of imazapyr (Habitat, aquatic formulation) can also be effective on napiergrass stands. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution). Imazapyr (Habitat, aquatic formulation) can also be very effective at 0.5 to 1 lbs-ai/acre, but adhere strictly to irrigation restricts on the label (Habitat) if applied to plants within or near water. Imazapyr can also cause non-target damage due to soil residual properties.
8.3.10 Old World Climbing Fern (Lygodium microphyllum) Appearance: Old world climbing fern is an invasive vine with leafy branches that climbs into trees creating a dense growth which shades out other plants and eventually kills growing branches. Foliage: Leafy branches off the main stem are 2-5 inches long. There are two types of leaflets: a simple unlobed and a more convoluted leaflet which has sporangia along its margin. The sporangia produces spores which lead to the development of gametophytes. These gametophytes are actually separate small plants which unite to form entirely new climbing ferns. This type of growth is typical of most ferns.
Flowering/Fruiting: Spore production occurs year-round.
48 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Ecological Threat: The old world climbing fern is a critical threat to natural areas in south Florida as it is well-adapted to types of habitats with wet soils. The species can spread and colonize in undisturbed habitat without human intervention and it thrives in low-light environments, such as under forested communities. The fern suppresses understory plant growth and recruitment of native vegetation by forming a dense canopy and can resprout following herbicidal treatments, fire or frost.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Frequent monitoring and immediate removal of new establishments may be the best strategy for mitigation of the fern spreading.
Prescribed fire: Climbing ferns alter the behavior of fire by providing ladder fuels which lead to great incidence of crown fires in communities that are not adapted to crown fire.
Mechanical: Repeated pulling and/or cutting can control small infestations; cutting kills fronds about the cut site but fronds can regrow from below the cut site and after pulling. Removing dead material following fern control activities may be desirable to reduce fuel loads and promote native plant recovery. On-site disposal of dead climbing fern material such as by burning can reduce spore dispersal.
Chemical: The most common method for herbicide treatment of old world climbing fern has been the application of glyphosate and metsulfuron, either individually or in combination. When plants have grown into the canopy, stems may be cut and herbicide applied to the rooted portion of the plant.
Foliar spray method: Foliar spraying of glyphosate can control the fern but repeated applications are necessary. Descriptive results from several "demonstration trials" in southeastern Florida suggest that glyphosate, triclopyr, and 2,4-D can be used to at least top-kill Old World climbing fern, and that triclopyr ester (vs. triclopyr amine) may be "translocated" within the plant following application.
8.3.11 Paragrass (Urochloa mutica) Appearance: perennial species, paragrass spreads via creeping stolons, cuttings, and seed. Stems will often root at the base, and can reach up to 8 feet in height, having hairy nodes and sheaths.
49 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Foliage: blades are 4 to 12 inches long and ½ an inch wide.
Flowers: panicle is up to 12 inches long, with numerous spreading branches. Spikelets are roughly 0.12 inches long, elliptic, with a purplish rachis.
Fruit: many flower heads produced but seed production is very poor with poor seeds viability.
Ecological Threat: can form floating mats in drainage ditches or irrigation canals, resulting in the impediment of water flow. This impediment on water flow can also restrict navigation of water vessels in shallow water and prevent recreational use of waterways. Aggressive in nature, can form large monocultures through fast growth and high productivity. Paragrass is even thought to have allelopathic activity on other plants, ensuring its success. Native to Africa.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Do not allow seed set to occur and prevent movement of plant material into uninfested areas.
Grazing: Cattle grazing on paragrass seems to keep this invasive in check and is used extensively by many producers as a forage.
Prescribed fire: Burning can be very useful in removing excess biomass, allowing for more effective chemical control.
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: Small infestations can be removed with repeated, aggressive tillage.
50 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: Glyphosate: Application of a 2 to 3% solution of aquatic labeled glyphosate (Rodeo, etc.) can be fairly effective on paragrass stands, 2 to 4 lbs-ai/acre can be used for broadcast applications to larger areas. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution).
Imazapyr: An application of 0.5 to 3% solution of imazapyr (Habitat, aquatic formulation) can also be effective on paragrass stands. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution). Imazapyr (Habitat, aquatic formulation) can also be very effective at 0.5 to 1 lbs-ai/acre, but adhere strictly to irrigation restricts on the label (Habitat) if applied to plants within or near water. Imazapyr can also cause non-target damage due to soil residual properties.
8.3.12 Primrose Willow (Ludwigia peruviana) Appearance: shrubby weed with showy yellow flowers that grows in or near water. Stems are erect.
Foliage: alternate, lanceolate to broadly ovate, and pointed, 2-6 in long, 0.5-1.25 in wide; with fuzzy tan hairs.
Flowers: bright yellow with 4 wide, oval, veined petals.
Fruit: 4-angled capsule
Ecological Threat: forms dense colonies along shorelines, then grows out into the water, where it clogs waterways, damages structures, and out-competes native vegetation. Native to South America.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Control plants along fencerows and connecting watercourses, limiting seed introduction. Control is best accomplished when plants are very young, prior to seed production. Fruit and/or seeds may be hand-picked from plants and discarded properly, however this may not be a realistic or cost effective tactic for larger infestations.
Prescribed burning: May be susceptible to fire, but more research must be done to validate this claim.
51 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: Limit to cutting, although mowing prevents seedling establishment in pasture and rangeland settings. Cutting must be integrated with chemical control because of its proclivity to re-sprout.
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: • Glyphosate: Application of a 2 to 3% solution of glyphosate (Rodeo, etc.) can be fairly effective on seedlings to mature shrubs. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution). • Triclopyr-TEA: a dilution of Renovate3 at 2 to 3% solution in water can be fairly effective on seedlings to mature shrubs. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution).
Cut Stump Method: • Triclopyr-TEA: a 15% treatment (Renovate3 15% solution in water) is effective in eliminating mature primrose willow shrubs. Repeat applications may also be necessary for complete control. This control method should be considered when treating individual bushes or where the presence of desirable species precludes foliar application.
8.3.13 Rosary Pea (Abrus precatorius) Appearance: A widely used ornamental plant, rosary pea is a high-climbing, twining or trailing woody vine with slender herbaceous branches and small light green leaflets.
Foliage: Leaves are alternate, petioled, and even-pinnately compound, 2-5 inches long, with 5 to 15 pairs of oval to oblong leaflets less than 1″ long.
Flowers: The flowers are small, pale, and white to violet to pink, densely clustered in leaf axils.
Fruit: The seed pod is oblong, flat and truncate shaped, roughly 1 1/2 – 2 inches long and curls back when it opens, revealing 3 to 8 shiny, hard, brilliant red seeds. Seeds are less than one-inch long and have a black spot, giving the plant another common name of crab’s eyes. A single seed is highly toxic and cause fatality in a human but have no effect on birds.
Ecological Threat: rosary pea is identified as a Category I species due to its ability to invade and displace native plant communities. The plant can grow over small trees and shrubs and the
52 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017 roots which grow deeply into the ground are very difficult to remove. Twenty-seven counties in Florida have reported occurrences of rosary pea.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Regular monitoring and roughing of plants can prevent the spread and establishment of rosary pea. Educational program for homeowners on proper identification and management is also effective.
Prescribed fire: Burning will encourage the growth of this plant.
Chemical: Foliar spray method: To be most effective, applications of Triclopyr are highly encouraged in the Fall prior to the seed set. Triclopyr is effective as a cut-stump treatment on large woody vines immediately after the vines are cut down. Triclopyr amine or glyphosate can be applied to the foliage at 3-5% or 1-3%, respectively.
8.3.14 Shoebutton Ardisia (Ardisia elliptica) Appearance: a tall shrub or small tree that can reach heights of 20 feet.
Foliage: leathery leaves are 3-6 inches long, 1 inch wide, elliptical and entire.
Flowers: most flowering occurs in the summer, but flowering can continue year-round. The flowers are small, pink, star-shaped and hang in clusters from the axils of the leaves.
Fruit: hard, yellow, marble-sized, stalked berries that can be dangerous on sidewalks and other walkways. Seeds are spread by birds.
Ecological Threat: grows well in low, wet areas and in old fields; invades disturbed areas, with the potential to grow in dense thickets, restricting the growth of native vegetation. Native to Southeast Asia, introduced into the United States in the 1800s for ornamental purposes.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Control plants along fencerows and neighboring hedges, limiting seed introduction. Control is best accomplished when plants are very young, prior to seed production. The seed is very hard and may remain dormant in the soil for several months to years. Seeds may be hand-picked from plants and discarded properly, however this may not be a realistic or cost effective tactic for larger infestations.
53 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Prescribed burning: May be susceptible to fire, but more research must be done to validate this claim.
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: Limit to cutting, although mowing prevents seedling establishment in pasture and rangeland settings. Cutting must be integrated with chemical control because of its proclivity to re-sprout.
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: • Glyphosate: Application of a 2 to 3% solution of glyphosate (Roundup, etc.) can be fairly effective on shrubs/trees less than 10 feet tall. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution). • Triclopyr: A dilution of Garlon 3A at 2 to 3% solution or Garlon 4 at 0.5 to 2% solution in water can be fairly effective on trees less than 10 feet tall. Be sure to include a non- ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution).
Basal Bark Method: • Triclopyr: Applied in a 4 to 8-in band near the base of the trunk in a 18% solution (Garlon 4) in an oil carrier has also been shown to be an effective treatment.
Cut Stump Method: • Triclopyr: An 18% treatment is effective in eliminating shoebutton ardisia. Repeat applications may also be necessary for complete control. This control method should be considered when treating individual bushes or where the presence of desirable species precludes foliar application.
8.3.15 Torpedograss (Panicum repens) Appearance: Grassy monoculture which can grow up to 3 feet tall infesting areas in or near waterways.
Foliage: leaves are sharply pointed with a panicle-type cluster formation of leaves which look like torpedos at the tips; leaf blades are still, linear, flat or folder with hair on the sheaths and upper margins of the leaves. The surface is often waxy or has a whitish coating.
54 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Ecological Threat: It has been documented that torpedograss had taken over 70% of Florida’s waterways by 1992 (IFAS). The largest infestations can be found in Lake Okeechobee where it has outcompeted and displaced over 7000 acres of native marsh vegetation. Torpedograss management costs approximately $2 million a year in flood control systems and is also poses a significant problem in the citrus and golf course industries. Torpedograss forms dense mats which clog ditches and canals restricting flow in natural streams and limiting recreational use of ponds and lakes.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: The best defense against infestations of torpedograss is maintaining a healthy ecosystem. Torpedo grass generally invades open and disturbed areas following a burn, mowing, or construction.
Prescribed burning: May be susceptible to fire, but more research must be done to validate this claim.
Biological: There are limited agents being studied for biological control of torpedograss, although Dr. Charudattan at the University of Florida has been evaluating a species of fungus. Torpedograss is very palatable for cows and goats, and grazing may be integrated in an overall management scheme.
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: Continuous tillage may help to maintain control of torpedo grass but a single tillage or mowing operation may increase infestation levels through rhizome fragmentation.
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: Torpedograss is most difficult to control when partially submersed in water. Regardless of habitat conditions, multiple resprays may be required for complete control. • Glyphosate: Application of a 2 to 3% solution of glyphosate (Roundup, etc.) can be fairly effective on torpedograss. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution).
Imazapyr (Arsenal or Chopper) Application is also very effective at 0.5 to 1% solution. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution). These herbicides are systemic (move throughout plant tissue) so care must be exercised to minimize
55 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
off-target damage. In addition, imazapyr has soil activity, so care must be taken around sensitive species such as oaks (Quercus spp.).
8.3.16 Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum) Appearance: from 3 to 6 feet tall at maturity. Stems, leaves, flower-stalks, and calyxes have broad-based white to yellowish prickles.
Foliage: pubescent (contain hairs), 4 to 8 inches long and 2 to 6 inches wide, and are moderately to deeply divided into broad pointed lobes.
Flowers: white or green; petals lanceolate, about ½ inch and velvety as on calyx.
Fruit: immature fruit is green with white mottling like a watermelon and serves as a distinguishing characteristic. Seeds are moderately flattened and covered in a mucilaginous layer which contains a glyco-alkaloid called solasodine.
Ecological Threat: Typically invades improved pastures, where it reduces livestock carrying capacity. Foliage and stems are unpalatable to cattle; dense stands of the prickly shrub prevent cattle access to shaded areas, which results in summer heat stress. Native to South America.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Do not allow seed set to occur and prevent movement of plant material into uninfested areas.
Prescribed fire: Burning can be very useful in removing excess biomass, allowing for more effective chemical control.
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: Stands can be mowed to allow for more efficient/economical chemical control. However, great care must be made to prevent spread of fruit and/or seeds by equipment.
Biological Controls Tropical soda apple beetle: A leaf feeding beetle from South America, Gratiana boliviana can reduce the density of tropical soda apple after one year from the time of release. They have been released in Florida since at least 2003 as a biological control agent and are naturally spreading throughout Florida. If the beetles are not already present, then they can be obtained from IFAS for release on private and public lands.
56 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: Glyphosate: Application of a 2 to 3% solution of aquatic labeled glyphosate (Rodeo, etc.) can be fairly effective on stands. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution).
Imazapyr: An application of 0.5 to 3% solution of imazapyr (Habitat, aquatic formulation) can also be effective on stands. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution).
8.3.17 Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) Appearance: free floating aquatic plant that has invaded aquatic areas throughout the eastern and southern portions of the United States, can grow to 3 feet in height.
Foliage: densely veined leaves are suborbicular, ovate or elliptic. They are thick, glossy and waxy, 0.5 to 5.5 inches long and 0.5 to 4 inches wide with erect petioles, thick and spongy up to 18 inches long. Leaves curve inward at the edges.
Flowers: very showy blue-purple flowers on upright spikes, each has six petals with the uppermost having a yellow patch.
Fruit: fruit capsule containing up to 450 seeds, oval at the base with a tapering apex.
Ecological Threat: invades lakes, ponds, rivers, marshes, and other types of wetland habitats. Can quickly form dense floating mats of vegetation that restrict light to the underwater environment, reduce the light availability for submersed plants and aquatic invertebrates, and deplete the oxygen levels. Native to South America, first introduced as an ornamental into the United States in 1884 at the Cotton States Exposition in New Orleans.
Biological Controls Triploid Grass Carp: Sterile grass carp or white amur (Ctenopharyngodon idella) may be an option in areas with adequate control structures to ensure retention of released fish. Grass carp will eat a variety of vegetation including native species. Grass carp are an option only in areas where impact to all of the vegetation is acceptable. The stocking rates for grass carp have not been established. Local and state laws should be checked before release. Some experts do not recommend grass carp for water hyacinth.
57 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Water hyacinth weevils: (Neochetina bruchi, Neochetina eichhorniae) and the water hyacinth moth (Niphograpta albiguttalis). N. bruchi is native to Argentina, was released in 1974 and is now established in Florida, California, Texas and Louisiana. N. eichhorniae, also native to Argentina, was released in 1972 and is now established throughout the southeastern U. S. where water hyacinth is present. N. albiguttalis was released in 1977 and is now established in Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana. All of these species have been successful at reducing water hyacinth populations to some degree. N. eichhorniae is considered to be the most successful of the three introductions. Other control measures are usually necessary.
Water hyacinth moth: (Niphograpta albiguttalis) was first released in 1977. The larvae feed by tunneling into the petioles of the younger, bulbous form of water hyacinth. The moth has been less successful as a biological control agent because it disperses rapidly, has patchy distribution, and may be completely excluded by the weevils on the older, non-bulbous plants.
Water hyacinth planthopper: (Megamalus scutellaris) was released in Florida in 2010. Both the nymphs and adults feed on the sap of water hyacinth, and the females deposit eggs into the leaf tissue. The insect's population increases rapidly, which will enable it to quickly impact water hyacinth. Nymphs are active and readily hop off the plant if disturbed. Because of its mobility, this insect may integrate better with existing maintenance control programs utilizing herbicides.
Water hyacinth mite: (Orthogalumna terebrantis) is an arachnid native to the U.S. In high numbers, these mites can desiccate water hyacinth foliage and cause leaves to turn brown. Severe damage may occur in small areas, but rarely does this mite attain high enough populations to provide area wide control of water hyacinth.
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: Glyphosate: If water hyacinth covers a large area, a foliar spray can be applied using a 2% glyphosate solution or at a rate of 2 kg per ha plus 1% non-ionic surfactant, use a formulation labeled for aquatic use. Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide, and extreme care must be taken to avoid contact with non-target plant species. Refer to manufacturer's label for specific information and restrictions regarding use.
Mechanical Controls Harvesting: Harvesting may control small initial populations. Where possible, hand pull all of the plant parts from the water. Plants should be bagged and disposed of. Since plant fragments
58 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
can potentially start a new infestation, care must be taken not to break plants. Consistent monitoring for several growing seasons is required to control new or missed plants.
8.3.18 Water Lettuce (Pistia statiotes) Appearance: forms dense floating mats, with many rosettes of fuzzy-soft, pale-green leaves. New leaf clusters form readily from stolons (runner stems) offset from the larger rosettes.
Foliage: in rosettes occurring singly or connected to others by short stolons. Leaves often spongy near base, densely soft pubescent with obvious parallel veins; blades slightly broader than long, widest at apex, up to 6 inches long.
Flowers: inconspicuous, clustered on small fleshy stalk nearly hidden in leaf axils, with single female flower below and whorl of male flowers above.
Fruit: arising from female flower as a many-seeded green berry.
Ecological Threat: invades lakes, ponds, rivers, marshes, and other types of wetland habitats. Can quickly form dense floating mats of vegetation that restrict light to the underwater environment, reduce the light availability for submersed plants and aquatic invertebrates, and deplete the oxygen levels. Native origin uncertain, thought to be pantropical.
Biological Controls Water lettuce leaf weevil: (Neohydronomus affinis) was imported from South America after showing promising results as a biological control agent in Australia and South Africa. It was imported to the U.S. in 1986 and 1988. It is now established and distributed widely throughout the state, but rarely suppresses water lettuce growth. The weevil has not contributed to long- term suppression of the plant in the US, but has provided successful biological control of water lettuce in other countries. It is thought that the weevil is heavily preyed upon by imported fire ants in Florida. If true, this provides an interesting example of an exotic insect providing a valuable potential biological control agent.
Water lettuce leaf moth: (Spodoptera pectinicornis) is native to Southeast Asia and was imported from Thailand. The caterpillar was first released in Florida in 1990, but failed to establish. Fire ant predation also may have prevented establishment of the moth. In its native range, augmentive releases of the moth have been successfully used to control water lettuce in rice paddies.
59 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Biocontrol fish which are able to control submersed plants are ineffective against floating water lettuce.
Mechanical Controls Harvesting: Harvesting may control small initial populations. Where possible, hand pull all of the plant parts from the water. Plants should be bagged and disposed of. Since plant fragments can potentially start a new infestation, care must be taken not to break plants. Consistent monitoring for several growing seasons is required to control new or missed plants.
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: Flumioxazin: Valent® Clipper™ Aquatic Herbicide is formed into quick-dissolve granules that mix effortlessly in water eliminating messy and difficult applications. It is a broad spectrum, contact herbicide containing the active ingredient Flumioxazin. Flumioxazin should be applied to actively growing plants and a non-ionic surfactant will be needed if the herbicide is applied foliage of floating or emergent plants.
8.3.19 West Indian Marsh Grass (Hymenachne amplexicaulis) Appearance: West Indian marsh grass is a robust perennial grass with stolons that floats, creeps or ascends to a height of 3 feet or more. It can be intermixed with native grasses or form monotypic stands in wet pastures. This species can be differentiated from the native cupgrass by the presence of white pith filling the stem.
Foliage: Sheaths are glabrous but have hairs on the upper margins; leaf blades are flat and about 14 inches long, 1.5 inches wide and cordate and the base. There are long hairs on the lower margins.
Flowers: flowers occurring from September – December, are a spike-like, densely flowered panicle, up to 10 inches long and approximately 0.4 inches wide; spikelets are short-stalked. Fruit: Size of fruit is less than ¼ inches long.
Ecological Threat: West Indian marsh grass displaces native maidencane communities, colonizing and becoming difficult to control along drainage canals in south Florida. Stems that are submerged quickly produce roots from nodes and anchor to the wetland floor. This species can smother river banks and completely change plant recruitment, nutrient recycling and survival of riparian forests.
60 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: The best defense against infestations of wet Indian marsh grass is maintaining a healthy ecosystem.
Biological: A potential biocontrol agent is being investigated for future use in management of in management of Hymenachne. It is an insect in the true bug family Blissidae (Order Hemiptera) and is known only by its Latin name Ischnodemus variegatus. It was first collected in 2000 in Florida on West Indian marsh grass and has a distinctive black and white color pattern on its wings. This insect is native to South America where it has been reported feeding on the West Indian marsh grass. Researchers observed that feeding damage of I. variegatus reduced the photosynthetic capacity and growth rate of West Indian marsh grass under greenhouse conditions. Field sampling has shown that I. variegatus is distributed across central and south Florida and large infestations produce severe seasonal damage to West Indian marsh grass.
Mechanical Controls Mowing/Cutting: Continuous tillage may help to maintain control of torpedo grass but a single tillage or mowing operation may increase infestation levels through rhizome fragmentation.
Chemical Controls Several control methods are available and integrated pest management approach is recommended. Registered systemic herbicides which are aquatic safe have been successful in controlling west indian marsh grass but most strategies for management must be determined on a case by case basis.
8.3.20 Wild Taro (Colocasia esculenta) Appearance: erect, perennial herb that grows up to 4 feet tall.
Foliage: blades are peltate (attached to stalk near the center of leaf), and arrowhead in shape, and can grow up to 2 feet long. The leaves are dark green with wavy (undulate) margins and repel water.
Flowers: grow on a fleshy stalk; partially enveloped by a long yellow spathe. Flowers occur in small fingerlike spikes.
Fruit: small berry that grows in clusters on the stalk
61 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
Ecological Threat: found in swamps and along stream banks. The leaves may shade and prevent regeneration of desired species. Wide spread and can frequently be observed along the shorelines of many central Florida lakes. Native to Central and South America.
Cultural Controls Preventative measures: Limit planting and removal of existing plants within the landscape.
Revegetation: Plant native or non-invasive alternatives.
Mechanical Controls Manual Removal: Dig out corms from the soil. Take care when cutting, as the leaves contain oxalic acid, which may cause irritation to exposed skin.
Chemical Controls Foliar Spray Method: Glyphosate: Application of a 2 to 3% solution of aquatic labeled glyphosate (Rodeo, etc.) can be fairly effective on stands. Be sure to include a non-ionic surfactant at 0.25% (10 mLs or 2 tsp per gal of spray solution). Retreatments will likely be necessary and more effective in conjunction with other control methods, such as mechanical removal.
9.0 WILDLIFE AND THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES CONCERNS Listed wildlife species documented or likely to occur on the Buck Island Ranch WRP easement are listed in Section 6.1, along with other observed wildlife species (Table 2-2). During site visits by LG2ES one gopher tortoise burrow was observed on site on the South Marsh. The Florida panther, Florida bonneted bat, Sherman’s fox squirrel, Florida grasshopper sparrow, red-cockaded woodpecker, ivory-billed woodpecker, Florida scrub-jay and least tern are not anticipated to occur on the Buck Island Ranch WRP easement due to the lack of suitable habitat. A brief description of listed species observed on site or anticipated to utilize the site post-restoration are discussed in Section 2.4 of the Buck Island Ranch WRPO along with potential impacts and/or benefits from the proposed alternatives. The site landscape position, surrounded by undeveloped ranch lands, is potentially conducive to large mammals or other species that require large ranges and wildlife corridors.
10.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION PRACTICES The Recommended Plan will substantially increase the extent of wetland freshwater marshes, improve wetland quality via rehydration, enhance historical habitats, and benefit wetland dependent wildlife and listed species through increased availability and quality of nesting and
62 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
foraging habitat. Creation of additional freshwater marsh will create conditions where inundation depths, durations, and frequencies are more consistent with historical, undisturbed communities and appropriate to sustain these communities into the future. The deeper depths of inundation and increase in water table elevation will also create an improved hydrologic regime that supports a variety of vegetative communities and wildlife, including protected species. Enhanced hydroperiods will also provide a buffer against extreme dry conditions.
Overall, there will be a great improvement of both the function and value of wetland habitats on- site, resulting in a benefit to wetland-dependent wildlife and listed species. Management practices will be focused on Brush Management (Code 314) and Herbaceous Weed Control (Code 315) to remove successional woody species and invasive exotic plants, which have become established over time due to drainage practices and fire suppression. There is an active invasive exotic plant species management program in place currently by the land owner. These practices will need to be expanded to meet restoration community goals, because of the large area of the site and due to recruitment of undesirable vegetation that already exists. Long term fire management should be employed under Prescribed Burning (Code 338) for all the communities (upland and wetland) as indicated in Table 7-1.
The East Marsh and the South Marsh have been divided into fire management units. Figures 22 and 23 show the suggested prescribed fire burn units for both the East Marsh and the South Marsh. These units can be scheduled for fire, per the recommended fire interval per community type, as indicated on Figures 18, 19, 20 and 21. There is an established and maintained network of roads and trails throughout both the East and South Marsh which can easily be used as fire breaks (Code 394) without incurring additional cost. These “fire breaks” should be identified and incorporated into a site-specific prescribed fire plan by a certified burn contractor. An emphasis should be placed on the use of existing roads, canals and other natural fire breaks, to minimize unnecessary disturbance to established vegetation and to mimic a natural fire regime. However, an estimated 54,800 linear feet of plowed fire breaks may be needed where natural or manmade fire breaks cannot be utilized.
Buck Island Ranch WRP naturally provides unrestricted space for wildlife, corridors for protected wildlife movement and existing opportunities for nesting species. Therefore, practices associated with the Wildlife Management Code (644) will involve no major interventions, aside from recommended Florida Snail Kite nest marsh monitoring to prevent disruption by implementation of conservation practices such as prescribed fire, herbaceous weed control or brush management. The ongoing conservation practices described above, i.e., fire, brush management and weed control, along with the return of historical drainage patterns to this area will naturally optimize
63 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017 habitat utilization for wildlife on Buck Island Ranch. Recommendations for continued management include the following for the Recommended Plan (Table 10-1):
Table 10-1 Recommended Plan Management Recommendations Conservation Short Term1 Long Term2 Treatment Notes Practice Acres Acres Timeframe Regular and frequent monitoring and treatment to control brush Brush Management 3,560 3,560 May-November and invasive species in all (314) vegetation communities, except canals and ditches. Regular and frequent monitoring
and treatment to control invasive Herbaceous Weed 3,3975 3,397 Year-round plants in freshwater marsh, Semi- Control (315) native prairie, canals and ditches,
and south Florida flatwoods
Prescribed Burning Prescribed fire as necessary in all 0 3,560 April-June (338) vegetation communities
Estimated linear feet of plowed firebreak needed along burn unit 54,800 linear Prior to Prescribed boundaries. Does not include Firebreak (394) 0 feet Burning burn unit boundaries where man- made features (ditches, roads) can be used as firebreaks. Florida Snail Kite nest marsh monitoring, mainly in marsh Wetland Wildlife habitat within eastern East Marsh Habitat 50 50 December-August where kites have been observed Management (644) and are likely to nest. Purpose to prevent other conservation practices from disrupting nesting.
Wetland 2,037 2,037 Year-round Wetland restoration of freshwater Restoration (657) marshes resulting from initial construction and long-term rehydration of wetlands Notes: 1 Short Term = 1 year 2 Long Term = 2 to 35 years
64 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
11.0 REFERENCES Archbold Biological Station Website information accessed on 5/06/2016 from http://www.archbold-station.org/html
Bridges, Edwin L. and Orzell, Steve L., 2013. Vegetation Monitoring for USDA-NRCS Wetland Reserve Program Sites, at MacArthur Agro-Ecology Research Center, Highlands County, Florida.
Davis, J.H., Jr., 1943, The Natural Features of Southern Florida, Especially The Vegetation, And The Everglades. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin 25, 311 p.
Florida Department of Transpotation (FDOT) 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Handbook; Surveying and Mapping Geographic Mapping Section.
Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC). List of Non-native Invasive Plant Species. 2013. Internet: http://www.fleppc.org/list/list.htm. Accessed May 11, 2016.
Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) 2013. Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species, or Species of Special Concern, updated January 2013. http://myfwc.com/media/1515251/threatened_endangered_species.pdf
Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) 2014. Wildlife Technology Services in the Division of Habitat and Species Conservation, Eagles Nest Locator by County, modified December 12. http://myfwc.com/eagle/eaglenests/Default.asp
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) and Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDEP). 2010. A Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) & Florida Department Of Natural Resources (FDNR) 2012. Field Guide to the Rare Animals of Florida. Online flora & fauna search at http://www.fnai.org/FieldGuide/search_001.cfm
(FFWCC 2003) Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2003, January 6. Florida's Breeding Bird Atlas: A Collaborative Study Of Florida's Birdlife. http://myfwc.com/bba (Date accessed 3/7/2016).
65 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
(FWS 1999) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 2172 pp.
Miller, James H. 2003. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests: A Field Guide for Identification and Control.
(NRCS 2011-2014) USDA NRCS Okeechobee County Field Office Technical Guides (FOTGs). Section IV Conservation Practices. https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/treemenuFS.aspx
PLANTS National Database, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. http://plants.usda.gov
Southeast Exotic Pest Plant Council Invasive Plant Manual. The Bugwood Network - The University of Georgia. College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences and Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources. http://www.se-eppc.org/manual/index.html
South Florida Environmental Report. 2005. Chapter 9: Invasive Exotic Species in the South Florida Environment. Amy Ferriter, Dan Thayer, Carole Goodyear, Bob Doren, Ken Langeland and Jon Lane. Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources. College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, Tifton, Georgia USA http://www.invasive.org
(USFWS 2006) Draft Snail Kite Management Guidelines. February 2006.
UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) 2012. Threatened & Endangered Species System (TESS); listings by state and territory as of April 2014. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StartTESS.do.
University of Florida Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants (CAIP); online: http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/. Accessed 9/1/2016.
USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey. Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Available online. Accessed 8/1/2016.
66 Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Buck Island Ranch Reserve Program December 15, 2017
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]. 2009. Web Soil Survey, Okeechobee County. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed 3/2011.
Wetlands Reserve Program. Federal Register (FR) 61 FR 42137. Accessed through: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/FR-1996-08-14/96-20623
Wunderlin, R. P., B. F. Hansen, A. R. Franck, and F. B. Essig. 2016. Atlas of Florida Plants (http://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/). [S. M. Landry and K. N. Campbell (application development), USF Water Institute.] Institute for Systematic Botany, University of South Florida, Tampa.
67 Appendix A Figure 1 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 475,500 476,000 476,500 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 483,500 484,000 3,006,500 3,006,500 USGS Topographic Map
3,006,000 3,006,000 East and South Marshes
3,005,500 3,005,500 Legend
Buck Island WRP Site C
3,005,000 3,005,000 WRPO Boundary
East 3,004,500 3,004,500 Marsh 3,004,000 3,004,000 3,003,500 3,003,500 3,003,000 3,003,000 3,002,500 3,002,500 3,002,000 3,002,000
0 1,550 3,100 6,200 Feet 3,001,500 3,001,500 ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model South domain description and modeling assumptions. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 3,001,000 Marsh 3,001,000 Units: Meter 3,000,500 3,000,500
3,000,000 3,000,000 USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 01_BuckIsland_USGS_TopographicMap.mxd
475,500 476,000 476,500 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 483,500 484,000 2/16/2017 Figure 2 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 475,500 476,000 476,500 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 483,500 484,000 3,006,500 3,006,500 Aerial Image Overview
3,006,000 3,006,000 East and South Marshes
3,005,500 3,005,500 Legend
Buck Island WRP Site C
3,005,000 3,005,000 WRPO Boundary
East 3,004,500 3,004,500 Marsh 3,004,000 3,004,000 3,003,500 3,003,500 3,003,000 3,003,000 3,002,500 3,002,500 3,002,000 3,002,000
0 1,550 3,100 6,200 Feet 3,001,500 3,001,500 ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model South domain description and modeling assumptions. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 3,001,000 Marsh 3,001,000 Units: Meter 3,000,500 3,000,500
3,000,000 3,000,000 USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 02_BuckIsland_USGS_AerialImageOverview.mxd
475,500 476,000 476,500 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 483,500 484,000 2/16/2017 Figure 3 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000
Historic Aerial Photograph - 1948 East Marsh 3,006,000 3,006,000 Legend
Buck Island WRP Site C
East Marsh 3,005,500 3,005,500 3,005,000 3,005,000
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
3,004,500 3,004,500 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 03_BuckIsland_HistoricAerial Photograph_1948_East_Marsh.mxd
480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 2/16/2017 3,004,000 3,004,000 Figure 4 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000
Historic Aerial Photograph - 1953 East Marsh 3,006,000 3,006,000 Legend
Buck Island WRP Site C
East Marsh 3,005,500 3,005,500 3,005,000 3,005,000
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
3,004,500 3,004,500 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 04_BuckIsland_HistoricAerial Photograph_1953_East_Marsh.mxd
480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 2/16/2017 3,004,000 3,004,000 Figure 5 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000
Historic Aerial Photograph - 1962 East Marsh 3,006,000 3,006,000 Legend
Buck Island WRP Site C
East Marsh 3,005,500 3,005,500 3,005,000 3,005,000
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
3,004,500 3,004,500 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 05_BuckIsland_HistoricAerial Photograph_1962_East_Marsh.mxd
480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 2/16/2017 3,004,000 3,004,000 Figure 6 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000
Historic Aerial Photograph - 1949
3,003,500 3,003,500 South Marsh
Legend
North Area of South Marsh 3,003,000 3,003,000
South Area of South Marsh 3,002,500 3,002,500 3,002,000 3,002,000 3,001,500 3,001,500
0 600 1,200 2,400 Feet 3,001,000 3,001,000 ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter 3,000,500 3,000,500
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06
3,000,000 3,000,000 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 06_BuckIsland_HistoricAerial Photograph_1949_South_Marsh.mxd
477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 2/16/2017 Figure 7 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000
Historic Aerial Photograph - 1953
3,003,500 3,003,500 South Marsh
Legend
North Area of South Marsh 3,003,000 3,003,000
South Area of South Marsh 3,002,500 3,002,500 3,002,000 3,002,000 3,001,500 3,001,500
0 600 1,200 2,400 Feet 3,001,000 3,001,000 ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter 3,000,500 3,000,500
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06
3,000,000 3,000,000 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 07_BuckIsland_HistoricAerial Photograph_1953_South_Marsh.mxd
477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 2/16/2017 Figure 8 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000
Current Land Use and Cover Types East Marsh
3,006,000 3,006,000 Legend
East Marsh
Buck Island WRP Site C
Community Types
Freshwater Marsh (248.87 Acres)
Canals and Ditches (55.13 Acres) 3,005,500 3,005,500
Roads (12.05 Acres)
Oak Hammocks / Cabbage Palm Hammocks 156.36 Acres
Semi-Native Pasture (615.37 Acres)
Wet Prairie (6.75 Acres) 3,005,000 3,005,000
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
3,004,500 3,004,500 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 08_June2017_Version_BuckIsland_CurrentLandUseAndCoversTypes_East_Marsh.mxd
480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 6/19/2017 3,004,000 3,004,000 Figure 9 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000
Current Land Use and Cover Types
3,003,500 3,003,500 South Marsh Legend Community Type
Freshwater Marsh 227.45 Acres 3,003,000 3,003,000 Canals and Ditches 137.57 Acres Oak Hammocks / Cabbage Palm Hammocks 239.31 Acres Semi-Native Pasture 2,059.77 Acres 3,002,500 3,002,500 South Florida Flatwoods 12.80 Acres 3,002,000 3,002,000 3,001,500 3,001,500
0 900 1,800 3,600 3,001,000 3,001,000 Feet ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter 3,000,500 3,000,500
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06
3,000,000 3,000,000 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 09_June2017_Version_BuckIsland_CurrentLandUseAndCoversTypes_South_Marsh.mxd
477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 7/13/2017 Figure 10 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000
Photo 23 Photo 22 Photo 21 Photograph Location Map Photo 20 East Marsh
3,006,000 Photo 24 3,006,000 Legend
Photograph Location Photo 19 Buck Island WRP Site C Photo 18 East Marsh
Photo 17 Photo 16 3,005,500 3,005,500
Photo 15
Photo 25 3,005,000 3,005,000
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model Photo 14 domain description and modeling assumptions.
3,004,500 3,004,500 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter
Photo 26 Photo 27
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 10_BuckIsland_PhotographLocationMap_East_Marsh.mxd
480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 2/16/2017 3,004,000 3,004,000 Figure 11 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000
Photograph Location Map South Marsh 3,003,500 3,003,500
Legend
Photograph Location 3,003,000 3,003,000
North Area of South Marsh
South Area of South Marsh 3,002,500 3,002,500 3,002,000 3,002,000 Photo 1 Photo 12 3,001,500 3,001,500
Photo 7
Photo 4 0 600 1,200 2,400 Photo 3Photo 2 Feet 3,001,000 3,001,000 ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions. Photo 8 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Photo 5 Units: Meter
3,000,500 Photo 6 Photo 9 3,000,500 Photo 11
Photo 10 Photo 13 USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06
3,000,000 3,000,000 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 11_BuckIsland_PhotographLocationMap_South_Marsh.mxd
477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 2/16/2017 Figure 12 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000
PLACID MALABAR CHOBEE USDA NRCS Soils Series Mapped Units East Marsh HICORIA BASINGER FELDA Legend 3,006,000 3,006,000
PLACID Buck Island WRP Site C PLACID HICORIA East Marsh
Munsell Class MALABAR BASINGER FINE SAND
PLACID FINE SAND HICORIA HICORIA PLACID OLDSMAR FINE SAND
3,005,500 3,005,500 IMMOKALEE SAND
MYAKKA FINE SAND HICORIA BRADENTON HICORIA TEQUESTA BRADENTON FINE SAND
CHOBEE FINE SANDY LOAM PLACID TEQUESTA MUCK
FELDA FINE SAND PINEDA HICORIA MUCKY SAND 3,005,000 3,005,000 PINEDA SAND
FELDA MALABAR FINE SAND
VALKARIA FINE SAND
PLACID 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
3,004,500 3,004,500 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter
PLACID PLACID
HICORIA PLACID USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 12_BuckIsland_USDA_NRCS_SoilsSeriesMappedUnits_East_Marsh.mxd
480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 2/16/2017 3,004,000 3,004,000 Figure 13 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000
USDA NRCS Soils Series Mapped Units 3,003,500 3,003,500 South Marsh
Legend
North Area of South Marsh 3,003,000 3,003,000
South Area of South Marsh
FELDA Munsell Class
BRADENTON FINE SAND
3,002,500 3,002,500 CHOBEE FINE SANDY LOAM
CHOBEE TEQUESTA MUCK GATOR GATOR MUCK
FELDA FINE SAND 3,002,000 3,002,000
PINEDA HICORIA MUCKY SAND
PINEDA SAND
MALABAR FINE SAND
3,001,500 PINEDA 3,001,500 MALABAR VALKARIA FINE SAND
PINEDA 0 600 1,200 2,400 PINEDA Feet 3,001,000 3,001,000 ¯ Disclaimer: TEQUESTA * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial CHOBEE modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter
3,000,500 FELDA PINEDA 3,000,500
PINEDA
PINEDA
FELDA USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 BRADENTON CHOBEE 3,000,000 CHOBEE PINEDA 3,000,000 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 13_BuckIsland_USDA_NRCS_SoilsSeriesMappedUnits_South_Marsh.mxd
477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 2/16/2017 Figure 14 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000
Proposed Vegetative Communities East Marsh Recommended Plan
3,006,000 3,006,000 Legend
East Marsh
Buck Island WRP Site C
Community Types
Freshwater Marsh (248.87 Acres)
Canals and Ditches (55.13 Acres) 3,005,500 3,005,500
Roads (12.05 Acres)
Oak Hammocks / Cabbage Palm Hammocks (155.71 Acres)
Shallow Mixed-Grass Marsh (203.00 Acres)
Semi-Native Pasture (413.01 Acres)
Wet Prairie (6.75 Acres) 3,005,000 3,005,000
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
3,004,500 3,004,500 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 14_Dec2017_Version_BuckIsland_Recommended_Vegetative_Communities_East_Marsh.mxd
480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 12/8/2017 3,004,000 3,004,000 Figure 15 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000
Proposed Vegetative Communities South Marsh
3,003,500 3,003,500 Recommended Plan
Legend
North Area of South Marsh 3,003,000 3,003,000 South Area of South Marsh
Community Types
Freshwater Marsh (227.45 Acres)
3,002,500 3,002,500 Canals and Ditches (137.57 Acres)
South Florida Flatwoods (12.80 Acres)
Oak Hammocks / Cabbage Palm Hammocks (200.11 Acres)
Shallow Mixed-Grass Marsh 3,002,000 3,002,000 (1,358.05 Acres)
Semi-Native Pasture (740.92 Acres) 3,001,500 3,001,500
0 900 1,800 3,600 3,001,000 3,001,000 Feet ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter 3,000,500 3,000,500
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06
3,000,000 3,000,000 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 15_Dec2017_Version_BuckIsland_Recommended_Vegetative_Communities_South_Marsh.mxd
477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 12/8/2017 Figure 16 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000
Invasive Plant Species
East Marsh
3,006,000 3,006,000 Legend
Buck Island WRP Site C
East Marsh
ChineseTallow
Old World Climbing Fern 3,005,500 3,005,500 3,005,000 3,005,000
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
3,004,500 3,004,500 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 16_Dec2017_Version_BuckIsland_InvasivePlantSpecies_East_Marsh.mxd
480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 12/8/2017 3,004,000 3,004,000 Figure 17 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000
Invasive Plant Species
3,003,500 3,003,500 South Marsh
Legend
North Area of South Marsh 3,003,000 3,003,000 South Area of South Marsh
Aquatic Plants 3,002,500 3,002,500 3,002,000 3,002,000 3,001,500 3,001,500
0 625 1,250 2,500 Feet 3,001,000 3,001,000 ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter 3,000,500 3,000,500
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06
3,000,000 3,000,000 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 17_Dec2017_Version_BuckIsland_InvasivePlantSpecies_South_Marsh.mxd
477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 12/8/2017 Figure 18 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000
Short-Term Conservation Practices East Marsh Recommended Plan
3,006,000 3,006,000 Legend
Buck Island WRP Site C
East Marsh
Community Types
Freshwater Marsh (248.87 Acres) Codes 314, 315, 644 and 657
Canals and Ditches (55.13 Acres) Code 315 3,005,500 3,005,500
Roads (12.05 Acres)
Oak Hammocks / Cabbage Palm Hammocks (155.71 Acres) Code 314
Shallow Mixed-Grass Marsh (203.00 Acres) Codes 314, 315, 644 and 657
Semi-Native Pasture (413.01 Acres) Codes 314 and 315
3,005,000 3,005,000 Wet Prairie (6.75 Acres)
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
3,004,500 3,004,500 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Conservation Practice Units: Meter
Code 314: Brush Management (May - November) Code 315: Herbaceous Weed Control (Year-Round) Code 644: Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management (To Be Determined) Code 657: Wetland Restoration (Year-Round)
See Legend for Specific Areas to USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 Conduct Conservation Practices GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 18_Dec2017_Version_BuckIsland_Recommended_ShortTermConservationPractices_East_Marsh.mxd
480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 12/8/2017 3,004,000 3,004,000 Figure 19 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000
Conservation Practice
Code 314: Brush Management (May - November) Short-Term Conservation Code 315: Herbaceous Weed Control (Year-Round) Practices South Marsh Code 657: Wetland Restoration (Year-Round)
3,003,500 3,003,500 Conceptual Plan See Legend for Specific Areas to Conduct Conservation Practices Legend
North Area of South Marsh
South Area of South Marsh 3,003,000 3,003,000
Community Type
Freshwater Marsh (227.45 Acres) Codes 314, 315 and 657
3,002,500 3,002,500 Canals and Ditches (137.57 Acres) Code 315
South Florida Flatwoods (12.80 Acres) Codes 314 and 315
Oak Hammocks / Cabbage Palm Hammocks (200.11 Acres) 3,002,000 3,002,000 Code 314
Shallow Mixed-Grass Marsh (1,358.05 Acres) Codes 314, 315 and 657
Semi-Native Pasture (740.92 Acres) Codes 314 and 315 3,001,500 3,001,500
0 625 1,250 2,500 Feet 3,001,000 3,001,000 ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter 3,000,500 3,000,500
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06
3,000,000 3,000,000 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 19_Dec2017_Version_BuckIsland_Recommended_ShortTermConservationPractices_South_Marsh.mxd
477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 12/8/2017 Figure 20 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000
Long-Term Conservation Practices East Marsh Conceptual Plan
3,006,000 3,006,000 Legend
Buck Island WRP Site C
East Marsh
Community Types
Freshwater Marsh (248.87 Acres) Codes 314, 315, 338, and 644
Canals and Ditches (55.13 Acres)
3,005,500 3,005,500 Code 315
Roads (12.05 Acres)
Oak Hammocks / Cabbage Palm Hammocks (155.71 Acres) Codes 314 and 338
Shallow Mixed-Grass Marsh (203.00 Acres) Codes 314, 315, 338 and 644
Semi-Native Pasture (413.01 Acres) Codes 314, 315, 338 and 394 Prescribed Burn Return Interval
3,005,000 3,005,000 Wet Prairie (6.75 Acres) 2 - 3 Years: Freshwater Marsh and South Florida Flatwoods 5 - 10 Years: Oak Hammocks / Cabbage Palm Hammocks
Conservation Practice 0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet Code 314: Brush Management ¯ Disclaimer: (May to November) * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial Code 315: Herbaceous Weed Control modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model (Year-Round) domain description and modeling assumptions. 3,004,500 3,004,500 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Code 338: Prescribed Burning (April - June) Units: Meter Code 394: Firebreak (Prior to Code 338) Code 528: Prescribed Grazing (TBD) Code 550: Range Planting (TBD) Code 644: Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management (TBD)
See Legend for Specific Areas to Conduct USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 Conservation Practices GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 20_Dec2017_Version_BuckIsland_Recommended_LongTermConservationPractices_East_Marsh.mxd
480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 12/14/2017 3,004,000 3,004,000 Figure 21 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000
Conservation Practice Long-Term Conservation Code 314: Brush Management 0 0
0 (May to November) 0 Practices South Marsh 5 5 , , 3 3
0 Code 315: Herbaceous Weed Control 0 0 0 , , 3 (Year-Round) 3 Conceptual Plan Code 338: Prescribed Burning (April - June) d x
Code 394: Firebreak (Prior to Code 338) m .
Legend h s Code 528: Prescribed Grazing (TBD) r a M
Code 550: Range Planting (TBD) _ h
North Area of South Marsh t 0 0 u 0 0 o 0 0 , , S 3 3 _ 0 0 s
0 See Legend for Specific Areas to Conduct 0 e , , South Area of South Marsh c 3 3 i t
Conservation Practices c a r P n o i t a v
Community Type r e s n o C
Prescribed Burn Return Interval Freshwater Marsh (227.45 Acres) m r 0 0 e 0 0 T 5 5
, , Codes 314, 315 and 338 g 2 2 n 0 0 o 0 0 L
, 2 - 3 Years: Freshwater Marsh and , _ 3 3
Canals and Ditches (137.57 Acres) d South Florida Flatwoods e d
Code 315 n 5 - 10 Years: Oak Hammocks / e m m
Cabbage Palm Hammocks o South Florida Flatwoods (12.80 Acres) c e
Codes 314, 315 and 338 R _ d n a l 0 0 s I 0 0 Oak Hammocks / Cabbage Palm k 0 0 , , c 2 2 u
0 0 Hammocks (200.11 Acres) B 0 0 _ , , n 3 3 Code 314 and 338 o i s r e V
Shallow Mixed-Grass Marsh _ 7 1
(1,358.05 Acres) 0 2 c
Codes 314, 315 and 338 e D _ 1 2
0 0 e
0 0 Semi-Native Pasture (740.92 Acres) r 5 5 u , , g 1 1 Codes 314, 315, 338 and 394 i 0 0 F \ 0 0 , , P 3 3 M R H \ S I G _ 9 4 0 - 6 1 0 2 \ 0 0 e t 0 0 i 0 0 S , , 0 625 1,250 2,500 1 1 P 0 0
Feet R 0 0 , , 3 3 W
d n a
¯ l
Disclaimer: s I
k
* Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial c u
modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model B _ 9
domain description and modeling assumptions. 4 0 - 6
Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 1 0 0 0
0 0 Units: Meter 2 \ 5 5 , , p 0 0 u 0 0 o r 0 0 , , G 3 3
y e l n a t S \ S T C E J O R P \ 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 , , 0 0 0
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 2 0 0 \ 0 0 S , , E 3 3
GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision 2 G
SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 L \ : F
477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 12/14/2017 Figure 22 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000
Prescribed Fire Burn Units 1 3 East Marsh 2 4 5
3,006,000 3,006,000 Legend 4 Buck Island WRP Site C 1 East Marsh
1 Fire Burn Unit
Road 2 Streams and Waterways
3,005,500 6 3,005,500
3,005,000 7 3,005,000
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions.
3,004,500 7 3,004,500 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N 8 Units: Meter
9
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision 7 SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 22_Dec2017_Version_BuckIsland_PrescribedFireBurnUnits_East_Marsh.mxd
480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 482,500 483,000 12/8/2017 3,004,000 3,004,000 Figure 23 Buck Island WRP Habitat Restoration Management Plan (HRMP) 477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000
Prescribed Fire Burn Units South Marsh 3,003,500 3,003,500
Legend
North Area of South Marsh
South Area of South Marsh 3,003,000 3,003,000 1 Fire Burn Unit
Streams and Waterways
3,002,500 1 3,002,500
3,002,000 1 3,002,000
3,001,500 2 3,001,500
6 7 2 0 625 1,250 2,500 Feet 3,001,000 4 3,001,000 ¯ Disclaimer: * Results shown on this map are based on temporal and spatial 3 modeling results. Refer to project report for a detailed model domain description and modeling assumptions. 5 Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Units: Meter 3,000,500 3,000,500
3 5 8
USACE Contract No.: W912EP-14-D-0001 SCI Project: 25523.06
3,000,000 3,000,000 GBD By Mapped By Reviewed By Approved By Revision SK HR KON / PW AMS 1 F:\LG2ES\2016\PROJECTS\Stanley Group\2016-049_BuckIsland WRP Site\2016-049_GIS\HRMP\Figure 23_Dec2017_Version_BuckIsland_PrescribedFireBurnUnits_South_Marsh.mxd
477,000 477,500 478,000 478,500 479,000 479,500 480,000 480,500 481,000 481,500 482,000 12/8/2017
Appendix B
Photograph 1: Soft Needle Rush and Pickerel Weed Photograph 3: South Marsh – American Alligator Community in South Marsh
Photograph 2: Tributary or Slough on West Side of Photograph 4: Wet Prairie and Mixed Forest in South Marsh South Marsh Photograph 5: Freshwater Marsh with Spartina Photograph 7: Cabbage Palm Hammock – backer fringe Common Raised Feature on South Marsh
Photograph 6: Live Oak/Cabbage Palm Hammock- Photograph 8: Facing East towards Cabbage Palm Upland Hardwood Forest Hammock in Distance Photograph 9: Drainage canal – South Marsh Photograph 11: Active grazing activities – Improved pasture lands in South Marsh
Photograph 10: Unimproved Pasture dominated by Photograph12: Western Sector of South Marsh – broomsedge grasses on South Marsh Facing East Photograph 13: Wetland Forest Mixed – Surface Photograph 15: Freshwater Marsh community water
Photograph 14: Improved Pasture – Active Grazing on Photograph 16: Invasive snails found near Snail Kite East Marsh foraging area on East Marsh Photograph 17: Snail Kite perches on fence of Photograph 19: Beekeeping activities – Unimproved adjacent center easement – East Marsh pasture on East Marsh
Photograph 18: Primrose Wet Prairie in East Marsh Photograph 20: Improved Pasture – Dry Prairie in northeast of East Marsh Photograph 21: Facing South- Cladium sp. Photograph 23: Pickerel Weed Freshwater Marsh – dominated community with scattered sabal palms North Boundary of East Marsh
Photograph 22: Scrub and Brushland – Wax myrtle, Photograph 24: East Marsh – Shrub and Brushland, oak species, mechanically cleared Dry Prairie Photograph 25 : Wetland Forested Mixed – East Photograph 27: White Tailed Deer in the shade near Marsh southern boundary of East Marsh
Photograph 26: Caracara xx spotted frequently throughout project area