Vegetation Response to Treating Willows (Salix Caroliniana)

Vegetation Response to Treating Willows (Salix caroliniana) Invading Marshes at Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Wildlife and Environmental Area and National Audubon Society’s Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary 2015-2016

Jean McCollom1, Kathleen Smith2, and Michael Duever1

1 Natural Ecosystems

2 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission November 2017 Table of Contents

List of Figures ...... 3

List of Tables ...... 4

List of Appendices ...... 5

Introduction ...... 6

Methods ...... 13

Analysis ...... 21

Results and Discussion ...... 25

Mechanical Treatment vs. Aerial Spraying of Herbicides ...... 25

Glyphosate Only vs. Glyphosate/Imazapyr Mixes and Recovery Over Time ...... 29

Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing Rates ...... 32

Comparison of Dry Season vs. Wet Season Treatments with Glyphosate/Imazapyr “light” Mix ...... 35

Imazamox Treatment ...... 35

Follow-up vs. No Follow-up after Mechanical Treatments ...... 38

Conclusions ...... 42

Acknowledgments ...... 42

Bibliography ...... 43

Appendices ...... 46

Appendix A. Transect Monitoring Field Comments ...... 47

Appendix B. Sample Summary Data ...... 5 0

Appendix C. Treatment Comparison Graphs for All Transects: Aerial Treatments, Mechanical Treatments and Untreated Areas ...... 52

Appendix D. Cover Data by Plant Species, Sampling Date, and Transect ...... 61

List of Figures

Figure 1. A conceptual fire transition model of major South Florida plant communities occurring on organic soils ...... 7

Figure 2. Central or Horseshoe Marsh seen from the vicinity of the current observation platform along the boardwalk at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in May 1955 ...... 8

Figure 3. Central or Horseshoe Marsh seen from about 25 feet up on the current observation platform along the boardwalk at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in March 2015 ...... 8

Figure 4. CSS North Marsh in December 1974 showing predominantly herbaceous marsh vegetation beyond the open water of the ditch along Washout Road at Seven Culverts ...... 9

Figure 5. CSS North Marsh in June 2006 taken from about 25 feet up on an observation platform overlooking the area shown in Figure 4 ...... 9

Figure 6. CSS and CREW share a marsh system that extends from the Corkscrew Marsh on CREW property south through CSS and into CREW’s Bird Rookery Swamp in Collier and Lee Counties, Florida ...... 10

Figure 7. CREW’s Corkscrew Marsh willow treatment areas and sampling transects ...... 11

Figure 8. CSS’s North Marsh willow treatment areas and sampling transects ...... 14

Figure 9. Rubber track skidsteer with a gyrotrack mulching head mulching willow at CSS ...... 16

Figure 10. Comparison of Aerial Herbicide Treatments, Mechanical Treatments, and Untreated Areas Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups ...... 2 5

Figure 11. Comparison of Glyphosate/Imazapyr Mixes to Glyphosate Only and Untreated Areas Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups ...... 30

Figure 12. Comparison of Three Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing Rates and Untreated Areas Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups ...... 3 3

Figure 13. Comparison of Dry Season and Wet Season Treatments with Glyphosate/Imazapyr “light” Mix Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups ...... 3 6

Figure 14. Comparison of Before Treatment and One Growing Season After Treatment with Imazamox Mean Coverage Indices for Species and Species Groups...... 3 9

Figure 15. Comparison of Follow-up Spot Herbicide Treatments after Mechanical Treatment with No Follow-up Spot Herbicide Treatments Mean Coverage Indices for willow and cattail ...... 41

List of Tables

Table 1. CREW’s Corkscrew Marsh Herbicide Treatment Summary ...... 12

Table 2. Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary’s Herbicide and Mechanical Treatment Summary ...... 15

Table 3. Information collected for each sample ...... 17

Table 4. Cover classes for herbaceous and woody vegetation percent cover recorded in 2016 for each transect as a whole ...... 19 Table 5. Species considered woody for percent cover recorded in 2016 for each transect as a whole ...... 20

Table 6. Tabulation of areas treated or untreated, sample years, and sample treatment types ...... 20

Table 7. Designations for species found as recorded on the Atlas of Florida Plants ...... 22

Table 8. Plant Type designations for plant species sampled and which types were included as Herbaceous or Woody in whole transect percent cover estimates ...... 23

Table 9. Conversion factors for converting qualitative cover data to a quantitative Coverage Index ...... 23

List of Appendices

Appendix A. Transect Monitoring Field Comments ...... 47

Appendix B. Sample Summary Data ...... 5 0

Appendix C. Treatment Comparison Graphs for All Transects: Aerial Treatments, Mechanical Treatments, and Untreated Areas ...... 52

Appendix D. Cover Data by Plant Species, Sampling Date, and Transect ...... 61

Introduction Florida freshwater marshes are wetlands dominated by herbaceous vegetation in basins with predominantly organic soils (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1990, 2010). These marshes are usually inundated around six to ten months a year. Fire maintains an open herbaceous community by restricting invasion by woody plants (Frost 1995). The normal interval between fires is one to ten years (Duever and Roberts 2013, FNAI 1990) with strictly herbaceous marshes burning about every one to three years (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1990). Duever and Roberts (2013) compiled successional and transitional models describing the effects of fire on marsh communities in South Florida based on information provided by natural area fire managers (Figure 1); without fire for more than roughly eighteen years, marshes generally succeed to shrub wetlands, and without fire for roughly longer than 40 years, these sites become cypress (Taxodium distichum) or mixed cypress- hardwood forests.

Throughout the state, wetlands that were marshes have been succeeding from herbaceous vegetation to willows (Salix caroliniana) and other woody shrubs and trees (Hall et al. 2017). An example of this is the Central or Horseshoe Marsh seen from the tower along the boardwalk at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary (CSS); historic photos show an herbaceous marsh as late as the early 1980s, but willow have since then formed a thick canopy with scattered maple (Acer rubrum) and cypress (Figures 2 & 3). Photos of the CSS North Marsh from 1974 show predominantly herbaceous vegetation but much of the area is now occupied by large willow, Peruvian primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), and cattail (Typha spp.), which is at least partially due to additional flow from a canal to the north that has seriously affected the ability to burn this area (Figures 4 & 5). CSS (owned by National Audubon Society) and Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) (owned by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)) share a marsh system in Southwest Florida’s Collier and Lee counties that extends from the Corkscrew Marsh on the CREW Management Area south through CSS and into CREW’s Bird Rookery Swamp and the Flint Pen areas (Figure 6). This marsh system has willow encroachment throughout, usually starting from the marsh perimeter and moving toward the center of the marsh, so larger trees toward the edge grade to smaller trees toward the interior. In 2007, the SFWMD treated willow in the northwest portion of Corkscrew Marsh using basal/foliar application of glyphosate (Figure 7, Table 1); this was the only extensive ground herbicide treatment done. From 2008 – 2011, additional acreage in the northern portion of Corkscrew Marsh were sprayed with one or more treatments of glyphosate from a helicopter. In 2014-15, Florida Fish and Wildlife

Figure 1. A conceptual fire transition model of major South Florida plant communities occurring on organic soils. The transitions include fire regimes that would maintain an existing community or allow it to shift to an earlier or later successional stage. Numbers indicate fire return interval in years (Duever and Roberts 2013).

Figure 2. Central or Horseshoe Marsh seen from the vicinity of the current observation platform along the boardwalk at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in May 1955; the marsh was composed of herbaceous vegetation at this time.

Figure 3. Central or Horseshoe Marsh seen from about 25 feet up on the current observation platform along the boardwalk at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in March 2015 showing a thick canopy of willow with scattered maple and cypress.

Figure 4. CSS North Marsh in December 1974 showing predominantly herbaceous marsh vegetation beyond the open water of the ditch along Washout Road at Seven Culverts. Note tree line in this and following photo. This photo was taken about 0.1 mile south of Figure 5.

Figure 5. CSS North Marsh in June 2006 taken from about 25 feet up on an observation platform overlooking the area shown in Figure 4. The marsh is now occupied by large willow, Peruvian primrose willow, and cattail, which is at least partially due to additional flow from a canal to the north that has seriously affected the ability to burn. The photo inset was taken at ground level in the same area in 1992.

Figure 6. CSS and CREW share a marsh system that extends from the Corkscrew Marsh on CREW property south through CSS and into CREW’s Bird Rookery Swamp in Collier and Lee Counties, Florida.

Figure 7. CREW’s Corkscrew Marsh willow treatment areas and sampling transects.

Table 1. CREW’s Corkscrew Marsh Herbicide Treatment Summary. See Figure 7 for sampling area locations. N/A N/A N/A COMMENTS 11/20/07 PROVIDED BY GOODWIN J. - 11/20/07 treatment treatment 04/13/11 07/25/11 FROM HARD COPY MAP PROVIDED BY GOODWIN J. - DERIVED - SWAMP CORKSCREW FROM HARD COPY MAP FWC AHREs funds paid for FWC AHREs funds paid for FWC AHREs funds paid for treatment = $15,000 treatment treatment treatment (WO 132) PROVIDED SITE FTP VIA (WO 143) PROVIDED SITE FTP VIA (WO 132R) PROVIDED FTP VIA SITE 07/12/11 DERIVED - SWAMP CORKSCREW - TREATMENT INITIAL SFWMD contracted and paid for FWC AHREs funds paid for FWC AHREs funds paid for DERIVED FROM HAI SHAPE FILES DERIVED FROM HAI SHAPE FILES DERIVED FROM HAI SHAPE FILES DERIVED DESCRIPTION FROM PROVIDED BYJ.GOODWIN - THIS OF TREATMENT INITIAL NEED - MARSH THE OF SECTION - CONFIRMATION FOR (TBD) WO# PROVIDED ATTRIBUTES NO - TREATMENT INITIAL DERIVED - SWAMP CORKSCREW FROM AGNAV SHAPE FILES J. (FOR BENNETT BY T. PROVIDED GOODWIN) - 10/01/08 - TREATMENT INITIAL N/A N/A N/A APPLICATOR Applied Aquatics Applied Aquatics Heli Applicators Inc Applicators Heli Inc Applicators Heli Inc Applicators Heli Heli Applicators Inc Applicators Heli Inc Applicators Heli Heli Applicators Inc Applicators Heli Coastal Air Services Air Coastal Services Air Coastal Coastal Air Services Air Coastal Services Air Coastal Services Air Coastal N/A N/A N/A MSO LYPHO LYPHO LYPHO LYPHO LYPHO GLYPHO GLYPHO GLYPHO GLYPHO GLYPHO GLYPHO GLYPHO CHEMICAL IMAZAMOX/ IMAZAPYR/G IMAZAPYR/G IMAZAPYR/G IMAZAPYR/G IMAZAPYR/G 36 36 120 120 N/A 120 120 120 N/A N/A 80-24 96-16 32-16 96-16 96-16 RATE 120-64 (ac-oz) AERIAL AERIAL AERIAL AERIAL AERIAL AERIAL AERIAL AERIAL AERIAL AERIAL AERIAL CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL TREATMENT BASAL/FOLIAR BASAL/FOLIAR 56 98 28 727 377 326 248 326 101 292 125 324 248 114 100 716 ACRES PINK PURPLE YELLOW ORANGE BLUE / EAST / BLUE MAP COLOR BLUE / WEST / BLUE GREEN DARK PINK / HATCH GREEN SOUTH GREEN GREEN NORTH BLACK STIPPLE WHITE / HATCHWHITE / ORANGE / HATCH GREEN / CROSSHATCH GREEN / CROSSHATCH GREEN / CROSSHATCH 2014 2014 2011 2009 2008 2007 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2014 2011 2011 2007 2014 YEAR TREATMENT May May July 6-Mar 16-Jun 17-Jun August August August 15-Sep August August August August MONTH September September TREATMENT N/A N/A N/A HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH LOW HIGH DENSITY MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM/ SPP. SPECIES SALIX SPP. SALIX SPP. SALIX SPP. SALIX SPP. SALIX SPP. SALIX SPP. SALIX SPP. SALIX SPP. SALIX SPP. SALIX SPP. SALIX SPP. SALIX SPP. LUDWIGIA LUDWIGIA TYPHA AND CONTROL A CONTROL B CONTROL C CONTROL -- 2016 YEARS SAMPLED 2015, 2016 2015, 2016 2015, 2016 2015, 2016 2015, 2016 2015, 2016 2015, 2016 2015, 2016 2015, 2016 2015, 2016 2015, 2016 2015, 2016 2015, 2016 [not sampled] 2011 2008 2011 2009 2009 2008 96:16 80:24 2007 N Control A Control B Control C SAMPLING 2008, 2009, 2015 Spring AREA NAME AREA [not sampled] 2014 Medium [not sampled] 2014 Hot 120:64 2014 Hot 2014 Light 96:16

(FWC) and the SFWMD conducted aerial broadcast herbicide treatments via helicopter south of the above treatment areas with three different mixes of glyphosate and imazapyr. For comparison, three control areas were set aside adjacent to the treatment plots. In Fall 2015, the areas sprayed with glyphosate from 2008-2011 were sprayed with imazamox by FWC and the SFWMD to reduce cattails. At CSS in 2008, an aerial spraying of glyphosate and diquat was done in the North Marsh (Figure 8, Table 2). In 2014 additional acres around the original 2008 site were aerial sprayed with a mix of glyphosate and imazapyr at the same concentration as the hottest mix on CREW, 120 oz glyphosate/64 oz imazapyr per acre. Also in the North Marsh, CSS conducted mechanical treatments of willow at different sites every year since 2013. Willow and other vegetation were shredded using a rubber track skidsteer with a gyrotrack mulching head which was light enough to access the areas (John Jones, 2016) (Figure 9).

Methods Monitoring of vegetation response to willow treatments was conducted almost exclusively during the months of October - December in 2015 and 2016 (Table 3). Sampling generally followed the relevé method with some modifications (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2013, Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974). The majority of the samples were collected along an approximately 0.2 mile transect; actual lengths are listed in Table 3 and discussed in Appendix A. Since vegetation within the treatments was very heterogeneous, additional sample area beyond the recommended 1076 to 4306 square feet (100 to 400 square meters) was appropriate. Assuming at least 5 feet were included in the sample on each side, 0.2 mile transects included 10,559 square feet (981 square meters); therefore, minimum sample area is more than adequate to include most species regularly distributed through the treatment (Chytry and Otypkova 2003, Peet 1998). At the beginning and end of each transect, water depth, organic soil depth, latitude, longitude, and time were recorded and three photos were taken looking into the transect to the left, center, and right (Table 3). On some CREW transects, videos were also recorded along the transect. The CREW samples were collected from an airboat or Marsh Master (tracked terrestrial and aquatic vehicle) moving slowly along the transect with at least 2 observers, one on each side, noting all species of vascular plants. The vehicle was stopped to check the identity of plants. Some plants were collected to verify identifications. At CSS, all transects were done on foot using the same methods.

Figure 8. CSS’s North Marsh willow treatment areas and sampling transects.

14 Table 2. Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary’s Herbicide and Mechanical Treatment Summary. See Figure 8 for sampling area locations. ------5.5 1.4 1.9 4.3 1.1 2.8 5.4 0.1 1.1 2.9 3.0 3.0 1.3 39.1 13.9 Acres Treated ------Herbicide glyphosate & diquat & glyphosate glyphosate imazapyr & glyphosate imazapyr & Equipment Application Gyrotrack Gyrotrack Gyrotrack Helicopter Helicopter Gyrotrack Gyrotrack Gyrotrack Gyrotrack Gyrotrack Gyrotrack Helicopter Gyrotrack Gyrotrack Gyrotrack Untreated Untreated Untreated Untreated ------2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 Years sampled 2015, 2016 2015, 2015, 2016 2015, 2016 2015, Year 2014 2015 2016 2016 2016 2008 2014 2014 2013 2013 2013 2016 2013 2014 2016 Untreated Untreated Untreated Untreated Treatment ------May May May May May May May May May May June June Spring Spring October Treatment Month Treatment Type Aerial herbicide application Aerial herbicide application Aerial herbicide application (mulching) Mechanical (mulching) Mechanical (mulching) Mechanical (mulching) Mechanical (mulching) Mechanical (mulching) Mechanical Untreated Untreated Untreated Untreated (mulching) Mechanical (mulching) Mechanical (mulching) Mechanical (mulching) Mechanical (mulching) Mechanical (mulching) Mechanical Sampling Area Name Area Sampling

2008 Aerial Glyphosate 2014 CSS Hot N 120:64 2014 CSS S Hot 120:64 2013 Eagle Island Curve of2013 N Fishfarm 2013 W of Washout Rd 2014 W of Washout Rd 2015 E of Washout Rd 2016 S-Central Area E of Rd Washout Rd Washout of E Control Rd Washout W of Control Fishfarm of N Control Marsh Central Control 2013 Half Moon Lake 2014 NE of Eagle Island Area2016 N E of Washout Rd 2016 N-Central Area E of Rd Washout 2016 S Area E of Washout Rd 2016 Pine W of Fishfarm Rd* 8 Figure on shown not *

Figure 9. Rubber track skidsteer with a gyrotrack mulching head mulching willow at CSS.

Table 3. Information collected for each sample. Percent cover for herbaceous and woody vegetation was only collected in 2016.

Start End End Samp- Minutes Water Water Start Organic Vid- ling Date spent on Length Depth Depth Organic depth % Cover % Cover eo Year Sampling Transect Sampled survey (miles) (ft) (ft) depth (ft) (ft) Herb Woody Vehicle # 2015 2007 N 10/19/15 40 0.22 0.2 1.1 0.6 1.3 -- -- Airboat 2015 2008 11/04/15 36 0.25 1.5 1.5 5 + 5 + -- -- Airboat 2015 2009 11/04/15 5 0.01 -- -- Airboat 2015 2011 10/19/15 29 0.20 1.4 4.3 + -- -- Airboat 2015 2014 Hot 120:64 along edge only 11/04/15 39 0.21 1.0 5 + -- -- Airboat 1,2 2015 2014 Medium 80:24 11/04/15 20 0.27 0.9 1.3 3.3 3.9 -- -- Airboat 7 2015 2014 Light 96:16 11/04/15 41 0.20 2.3 1.6 4.0 3.6 -- -- Airboat 2015 2015 Spring 96:16 11/04/15 7 0.25 1.5 1.3 2.7 3.4 -- -- Airboat 9,11 2015 Control A 11/04/15 32 0.27 0.9 0.8 4.3 2.9 -- -- Airboat 2015 Control C 11/04/15 26 0.19 1.3 1.0 3.9 2.0 -- -- Airboat 2015 2008 Aerial Glyphosate 05/15/15 20 0.01 -- -- On foot 2015 2014 Aerial N 10/04/15 210 0.29 -- -- On foot 2015 2015 E of Washout Rd 10/04/15 180 0.56 -- -- On foot 2016 2007 N 10/14/16 99 0.29 1.0 2.0 0.5 1.6 75-95% 1-5% Airboat 12 2016 2007 N #2 12/08/16 20 0.22 1.4 1.3 4.1 5.5 50-75% 25-50% Marshmaster 30 2016 2008 10/14/16 64 0.21 2.0 2.0 4.6+ 4.6+ 50-75% 5-25% Airboat 13 2016 2008 #2 12/08/16 22 0.20 1.1 1.0 4.3 5.2 75-95% 25-50% Marshmaster 27 2016 2009 11/09/16 54 0.20 1.3 0.8 4.4+ 4.6+ 75-95% <1% Marshmaster 23 2016 2009 #2 12/08/16 36 0.20 1.2 1.0 5.0 3.4 50-75% <1% Marshmaster 26 2016 2011 10/28/16 64 0.22 0.8 1.5 3.7+ 4.1+ 75-95% 1-5% Airboat 15 2016 2011 #2 12/08/16 28 0.22 1.4 1.5 6.4+ 5.8 50-75% 5-25% Marshmaster 28 2016 2014 Hot 120:64 10/28/16 29 0.22 1.7 1.4 3.9+ 4.1+ 25-50% 1-5% Airboat 14 2016 2014 Hot 120:64 #2 11/09/16 26 0.21 1.0 1.1 5.0+ 5.0+ 50-75% 25-50% Marshmaster 22 2016 2014 Medium 80:24 11/09/16 38 0.01 1.1 1.1 5.0+ 4.8+ 50-75% 25-50% Marshmaster 21 2016 2014 Medium 80:24 #2 Very Short 12/08/16 0.03 1.1 5.4+ 75-95% <1% Marshmaster 29 2016 2014 Light 96:16 10/30/16 30 0.24 2.3 2.3 2.3 3.8+ 50-75% 5-25% Airboat 16 2016 2014 Light 96:16 #2 11/04/16 78 0.24 1.9 1.5 3.6+ 3.6+ 75-95% 5-25% Airboat 19 2016 2015 Spring 96:16 10/30/16 50 0.25 1.6 1.6 3.3 4.6+ 50-75% <1% Airboat 17 2016 2015 Spring 96:16 #2 10/30/16 44 0.20 2.0 2.0 4.3+ 4.3+ 25-50% <1% Airboat 31 2016 Control A 11/09/16 53 0.21 1.3 1.0 4.9+ 5.1 75-95% 25-50% Marshmaster 24 2016 Control B 11/09/16 23 0.22 1.1 1.1 4.9+ 5.0+ 25-50% 75-95% Marshmaster 25 2016 Control C 10/30/16 39 0.24 2.3 1.1 3.3 2.0 75-95% 25-50% Airboat 18 2016 Control C #2 11/04/16 80 0.22 1.4 1.4 3.7 3.7 75-95% 5-25% Airboat 20 2016 2008 Aerial 12/29/16 22 0.00 50-75% 75-95% On foot 2016 2014 Aerial N 11/21/16 113 0.23 0.5 1.0 4.9 3.3 75-95% <1% On foot 2016 2014 Aerial S 12/28/16 68 0.18 0.0 0.5 2.6 2.0 95-100% <1% On foot 2016 2013 Eagle Island Curve 12/04/16 65 0.53 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.7 75-95% 1-5% On foot 2016 2013 North of Fishfarm 12/04/16 101 0.38 0.0 0.8 3.0 0.5 75-95% <1% On foot 2016 2013 W of Washout Rd 12/13/16 107 0.19 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.6 95-100% 5-25% On foot 2016 2014 W of Washout Rd 12/13/16 58 0.13 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.5 75-95% 1-5% On foot 2016 2015 E of Washout Rd 11/21/16 81 0.56 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.7 75-95% <1% On foot 2016 2016 S-Central Area 12/04/16 83 0.41 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.5 25-50% <1% On foot 2016 Control W of Washout Rd 12/13/16 49 0.17 0.0 below ground 1.8 1.3 5-25% 75-95% On foot 2016 Control N of Fishfarm 12/13/16 76 0.23 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 50-75% 50-75% On foot 2016 Control Central Marsh 12/23/17 87 0.17 0.7 0.7 6.0+ 6.0+ 75-95% 75-95% On foot 2016 Control E of Washout Rd 12/28/16 68 0.18 0.5 0.7 1.3 0.7 25-50% 75-95% On foot Blue are Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary Mean 56 0.22 1.1 3.4 50-75% 5-25% Red are CREW WEA Minimun 5 0.00 0.0 0.5 5-25% <1% Soil depth + is the extent we could measure Maximium 210 0.56 5.4 6.4 95-100% 75-95%

Table 3 continued. Information collected for each sample.

Samp- ling Start Start End End Year Sampling Transect Lat: Long: Lat: Long: Observers: 2015 2007 N 26.4839 -81.528 26.4828 -81.531 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith 2015 2008 26.4826 -81.521 26.4819 -81.518 Jean McCollom (recorder), Molly Duvall, Jessica Griffith, Kathleen Smith, Jessica Reha, Mike Duever, Joe Bozzo 2015 2009 26.4844 -81.522 -- -- Jean McCollom (recorder), Molly Duvall, Jessica Griffith, Kathleen Smith, Jessica Reha, Mike Duever, Joe Bozzo 2015 2011 26.4792 -81.525 26.479 -81.522 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith 2015 2014 Hot 120:64 along edge only 26.4764 -81.521 26.4764 -81.524 Jean McCollom (recorder), Molly Duvall, Jessica Griffith, Kathleen Smith, Jessica Reha, Mike Duever, Joe Bozzo 2015 2014 Medium 80:24 26.466 -81.525 26.4631 -81.257 Jessica Reha (recorder), Molly Duvall, Jessica Griffith 2015 2014 Light 96:16 26.4398 -81.532 26.4376 -81.533 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever, Joe Bozzo 2015 2015 Spring 96:16 26.4554 -81.536 26.4528 -81.534 Jessica Reha (recorder), Molly Duvall, Jessica Griffith 2015 Control A 26.4653 -81.528 26.4659 -81.525 Jessica Reha (recorder), Molly Duvall, Jessica Griffith 2015 Control C 26.433 -81.540 26.430 -81.542 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever, Joe Bozzo 2015 2008 Aerial Glyphosate 26.424 -81.579 26.424 -81.579 Jean McCollom (recorder), Mike Duever, Jason Lauritsen, Jim Burch 2015 2014 Aerial N 26.428 -81.579 26.427 -81.579 Jean McCollom (recorder), Mike Duever 2015 2015 E of Washout Rd 26.412 -81.582 26.411 -81.582 Jean McCollom (recorder), Mike Duever 2016 2007 N 26.484 -81.528 26.483 -81.531 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever 2016 2007 N #2 26.483 -81.527 26.482 -81.530 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster) 2016 2008 26.483 -81.521 26.482 -81.518 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever 2016 2008 #2 26.484 -81.507 26.482 -81.510 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster) 2016 2009 26.486 -81.521 26.487 -81.518 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster) 2016 2009 #2 26.487 -81.515 26.487 -81.512 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster) 2016 2011 26.478 -81.528 26.479 -81.525 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Jessi Drummond 2016 2011 #2 26.479 -81.511 26.478 -81.514 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster) 2016 2014 Hot 120:64 26.721 -81.886 26.468 -81.527 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Jessi Drummond 2016 2014 Hot 120:64 #2 26.473 -81.523 26.476 -81.522 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster) 2016 2014 Medium 80:24 26.465 -81.521 26.465 -81.518 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster) 2016 2014 Medium 80:24 #2 Very Short 26.476 -81.509 -- -- Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster) 2016 2014 Light 96:16 26.438 -81.533 26.441 -81.532 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever 2016 2014 Light 96:16 #2 26.426 -81.543 26.428 -81.541 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Stephanie Burkhardt 2016 2015 Spring96:16 26.455 -81.536 26.453 -81.534 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever 2016 2015 Spring 96:16 #2 26.446 -81.540 26.449 -81.538 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever 2016 Control A 26.466 -81.526 26.468 -81.524 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster) 2016 Control B 26.460 -81.525 26.457 -81.526 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Joe Bozzo (Maco driving Marshmaster) 2016 Control C 26.433 -81.540 26.430 -81.542 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Mike Duever 2016 Control C #2 26.427 -81.547 26.425 -81.549 Jean McCollom (recorder), Kathleen Smith, Stephanie Burkhardt 2016 2008 Aerial 26.423 -81.579 26.423 -81.579 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever 2016 2014 Aerial N 26.428 -81.579 26.427 -81.579 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever 2016 2014 Aerial S 26.421 -81.579 26.422 -81.580 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever 2016 2013 Eagle Island Curve 26.397 -81.596 26.396 -81.598 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever 2016 2013 North of Fishfarm 26.405 -81.581 26.405 -81.582 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever 2016 2013 W of Washout Rd 26.412 -81.584 26.411 -81.584 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever 2016 2014 W of Washout Rd 26.412 -81.584 26.412 -81.584 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever 2016 2015 E of Washout Rd 26.412 -81.582 loop back to start Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever 2016 2016 S-Central Area 26.405 -81.582 26.407 81.582 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever 2016 Control W of Washout Rd 26.412 -81.584 26.412 -81.583 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever 2016 Control N of Fishfarm 26.404 -81.581 26.404 -81.582 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever 2016 Control Central Marsh 26.372 -81.615 26.371 -81.616 Jean McCollom (recorder), Mike Duever, w ith George W ilder 2016 Control E of Washout Rd 26.404 -81.581 26.427 -81.577 Jean McCollom (recorder) & Mike Duever Blue are Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary Red are CREW WEA

Each new plant species was recorded as it was seen, and it was pointed out to the other observers so all were aware of its presence and appearance. Observers noted abundance of each species while traveling along the transect. Abundance categories were labeled as “Abundant”, “Common”, “Occasional”, and “Rare”. No time limit was imposed since stops were necessary. At the end of the transect, observers reported their observations of abundance for each species. If abundance categories were different between observers, the observers discussed the species and came to a consensus on abundance. In 2016 overall percent cover of live woody vegetation and live herbaceous vegetation for the entire transect were also reported and discussed to reach a consensus (Table 3), using the cover classes shown in (Daubenmire 1959) Table 4; only trees and large shrubs were included in the woody cover group for the whole transect (Table 5). In some cases, notes were recorded (Appendix A).

Table 4. Cover classes for herbaceous and woody vegetation percent cover recorded in 2016 for each transect as a whole. Cover classes are from Daubenmire (1959) with the addition of a <1% class.

Cover Classes Class # Median 0 1 0 <1% 2 0.5 1-5% 3 2.5 5-25% 4 14.5 25-50% 5 37 50-75% 6 62 75-95% 7 87 95-100% 8 97

On CREW, eight areas that had received different treatments were sampled; three untreated control areas were also sampled (Table 6). On CSS, eight different treated areas were sampled; four untreated control areas were also sampled. These areas are named in Table 3 and Appendix B. Within these 16 treated and seven untreated areas, data were collected along transects, usually in different locations within the areas (Figure 7 and 8), although a few transects were sampled at the same locations in both years.

Table 5. Species considered woody for percent cover recorded in 2016 for each transect as a whole.

Species Common name Acer rubrum red maple Annona glabra pond apple Diospyros virginiana persimmon Fraxinus caroliniana pop ash Persea palustris swamp bay Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Sabal palmetto cabbage palm Salix caroliniana carolina willow Syzygium cumini Java plum Taxodium ascendens pond cypress

Table 6. Tabulation of areas treated or untreated, sample years, and sample treatment types. See Figures 7 and 8 for locations.

All CREW CSS Treated Areas 16 8 8 Untreated Areas 7 3 4 Total 23 11 12

All CREW CSS Samples collected 2015 13 10 3 Samples collected 2016 33 20 13 Total 46 30 16

All CREW CSS Aerial Herbicide Treatment Samples 26 21 5 Mechanical Treatment Samples 7 7 Ground Herbicide Treatment Samples 3 3 Untreated Control Samples 10 6 4 Total 46 30 16

A total of 46 samples were collected, 13 in 2015 and 33 in 2016, 30 on CREW and 16 on CSS. Twenty-six of the samples were taken in areas aerially treated with herbicide; twenty-one of these were from CREW and five were from CSS (Table 6). Seven samples were taken in areas treated mechanically; all were on CSS. Three samples were taken in an area treated with herbicide on the ground on CREW. There are 10 samples from untreated areas, six from CREW and four from CSS. The three 2007 CREW ground herbicide treatment samples were not included in any of the analyses since they represent the only example of ground treatment and it is not clear if part of the original transect was included in the treatment due to lower technological precision in 2007. Also, portions of the 2007 north unit could have been sprayed during the 2008 -2011 glyphosate treatments.

Analysis Due to the difficulty of getting to and maneuvering within sites, the gradients from large to small willows within treatments, and the differences in time since treatment, we chose sites that covered a wide range of conditions rather than homogeneous plots that could be analyzed statistically. None of the differences are

statistically significant, but they do represent the treatments over a broad range of conditions. Five transects were sampled at the same locations in 2015 and 2016 and these transects are overlaid on Figures 7 and 8, and indicated in Appendix B. Three transects were on CREW and two on CSS. On these five transects, only the 2016 data are included except for the imazamox (Clearcast) before vs. after analysis. All data were entered twice and checked. The following were documented for each plant species: 1) Family, 2) nativity (native or not native), 3) Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Code (Obligate, Facultative etc.), 4) Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council Rank (Category 1 or 2), and 5) Endemic, Threatened or Endangered status (Atlas of Florida Plants 2017, Florida Administrative Code 1993 & 2015, Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council 2017) (Table 7, Appendix D). Five species of particular importance in defining the health of a marsh were analyzed individually: willow, cattail, Peruvian primrose willow, sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), and maidencane (Panicum hemitomon). Native grasses and sedges were grouped for analysis since they are important in supporting fire in marshes (Anderson 1982). Plants were also characterized as either “Desirable” or “Undesirable” marsh species for analysis. Undesirable species include all non-native

Table 7. Designations for species found as recorded on the Atlas of Florida Plants (http://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/) (Atlas of Florida Plants 2017).

22 plants, nuisance natives, and all species that are not normally a significant component of a fire-maintained marsh, including shrubs, trees, and vines. Desirable species include all other herbaceous marsh plants. Species were also assigned a Plant Type such as Fern, Grass/Sedge, or Tree (Table 8, Appendix D).

Table 8. Plant Type designations for plant species sampled and which types were included as Herbaceous or Woody in whole transect percent cover estimates.

Number Plant type Species Desirability Whole Transect found Group Percent Cover Class fern 9 Desirable Herbaceous floating/submerged 17 Desirable Herbaceous grass/sedge 48 Desirable Herbaceous herb 32 Desirable Herbaceous herb? 1 Desirable Herbaceous large emergent herbs 7 Desirable Herbaceous low herb 23 Desirable Herbaceous shrub 7 Undesirable Herbaceous tree 10 Undesirable Woody vine 10 Undesirable Herbaceous

The relative cover data for individual species (Abundant, Common, Occasional, Rare) along each transect were quantified using the conversion factors shown in Table 9 and called the Coverage Index to emphasize that the numbers are not percent cover). Conversion values were assigned based on discussions in the field and after gaining consensus among observers.

Table 9. Conversion factors for converting qualitative cover data to a quantitative Coverage Index.

Qualitative Class Coverage Index used in the field used for analysis Abundant 100 Common 31 Occasional 10 Rare 2

When the individual species comparisons were analyzed, the Coverage Index values for a species were averaged for all the transects represented in each treatment involved in the comparison.

Mean Coverage Index = Sum(Coverage Index for the species) Number of transects

The Mean Coverage Index values for the individual species comparisons can range from 0-100. When treatments (e.g. Herbicided, Mechanical, Untreated, etc.) involving a group of species (e.g. desirable species, undesirable species, grasses and sedges,) were compared, first the Coverage Index values for all species within the group were summed for each transect. Then the summed transect values were averaged for all transects in each treatment involved in the comparison.

Mean Coverage Index = Sum(Coverage Index for all species in the group for all transects in the treatment) number of transects in the treatment

Since each species involved could have a Coverage Index from 0-100, and multiple species are summed, this can result in Mean Coverage Index values that are greater than 100. The Mean Coverage Index is dependent on the number of species in the group and their abundance, the more species and the greater abundance, the higher the Mean Coverage Index value. Treatment comparisons included:

• All Herbicided vs. All Mechanical vs. Untreated • Glyphosate/Imazapyr Mixes vs. Glyphosate Only vs. Untreated • Three Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing Rates vs. Untreated • Before Imazamox Treatment vs. One Growing Season after Treatment • Follow-up Spot Herbicide Treatments after Mechanical Treatment vs. No Follow-up • Standing Water vs. Dry Ground at time of treatment

Bar graphs were created for each comparison; the graphs are all in the same format. The treatments are listed along the x-axis. The Mean Coverage Index is shown on the y-axis of the graph. In graphs for individual species, the y-axis range is between 0 and 100. Where multiple species are included in the category, the Mean Coverage Index can exceed 100. In both cases, the taller the bars, the more area was covered by this species or group of species. Number of transects sampled were not equal between treatments; number of transects sampled for each treatment category were shown on the graphs as “n=(number of transects sampled)” and which transects were included was listed in the “Comparisons” columns in Appendix B.

Results and Discussion Our objectives were to determine if treatments were shifting vegetation closer to a desirable marsh community and to compare the success of different treatment methods. We also wanted to look at plots with longer time since treatment to see how they have progressed toward a natural marsh community. Since fire is the primary mechanism that has maintained these marshes in the past, another objective was to determine if post-treatment vegetation provided sufficient fuel to burn with enough frequency to keep woody species from returning to dominate the community (Lugo 1995, Wade et al. 1980).

Mechanical Treatment vs. Aerial Spraying of Herbicides Untreated areas still retained a fair amount of Desirable vegetation such as pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) and sawgrass (Figure 10a, Appendices B, C, and D). This is encouraging since we still have a seed source and root stock present to repopulate the areas if we decide to treat them in the future. Mechanical treatment areas had more than twice the cover of Desirable species than herbicided areas and have approximately one third more than the untreated areas. Undesirable species cover was highest in the aerially herbicided areas, slightly more than in the untreated areas (Figure 10b, Appendices B, C, and D). Undesirable cover was lowest in the mechanically treated areas. Climbing hemp (Mikania scandens) had more cover in both treated areas than in the untreated areas (Appendix D). Willow cover was high in the untreated areas (Figure 10c). It was reduced by about half in the aerially herbicided plots, but in the mechanically treated areas results were even better where willow cover was reduced to only about one eighth of the untreated areas. Cattail, usually found in sunny locations, were not common in the untreated plots, probably due to the shading of the willow canopy (Figure 10d). Both treatments show more cattail cover, three times more in the mechanically treated areas and seven times more in the aerially herbicided areas. Dense cattail forming thick often impenetrable cover with virtually no other plants present is worse than willow. Untreated willow has layered vegetation with desirable species still present and is still accessible to wildlife for movement and foraging on the ground and through gaps in the willow canopy. Peruvian primrose willow is also a problem in post-treatment areas. This species was not common in the untreated plots (Figure 10e). Mechanically treated areas

range

Mean Mean s Indices rea A can exceed 100. 100. exceed can

Mean Coverage Mean Coverage and Untreated and , Mean Coverage Index Coverage Mean

Mechanical Treatments Mechanical

In graphs for individual species, species, for individual In graphs

Species and Species Groups Species and Species for for

Indices 100. Where multiple species are included in the category, the the category, in are included species multiple Where 100. . Comparison of Aerial Herbicide Treatments Herbicide Aerial of Comparison .

to 10 0

Figure Figure Coverage from each category. in samples of the number 26

rea A and Untreated and , Mechanical Treatments Mechanical

of Aerial Herbicide Treatments Herbicide Aerial of for Species and Species Groups. Groups. Species and Species for

Comparison

Indices continued.

10 Figure Figure Coverage Mean 27 had about the same cover of Peruvian primrose willow as the untreated areas, but this species more than tripled its cover in the herbicided areas. Grasses and sedges are excellent fuels that will carry fire through the marsh (Lee et al 2005, Wade 1980). Though other herbaceous plants like arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.) and pickerelweed will burn, they require drier conditions even later in the dry season when Florida Forest Service is more likely to prohibit burning, and burning organic soils later in the dry season risks creating a muck fire. Without the grass and sedge component, it is much more difficult to reach a balance between being dry enough to burn these plants yet not so dry that the organic substrate will burn. The best way we have to control willow once we restore the marshes is with fire, so fuels are critical to the long-term success of restoring marshes. If we cannot burn them, natural succession without fire will return them to woody plants, or worse, dense cattails. Here we find the biggest problem with herbicide treatments is that they are eliminating most of the grasses and sedges (Figure 10f). Mechanical treatments are promoting more grasses and sedges, which is what we need. Sawgrass, actually a sedge, and the grass maidencane are the two most common species and both are excellent fuels for burning. Herbicide treatment areas have virtually no sawgrass (Figure 10g). Mechanically treated areas also have less sawgrass cover than the untreated areas, but still had some. Maidencane is a sun-loving grass, so it is not very common in the untreated areas, but we would expect it to increase if we remove the willow canopy. Again, this species has increased in mechanically treated areas but decreased in herbicided areas (Figure 10h). The mechanical treatments used at CSS involved shredding woody vegetation with a gyrotrack mulching head using a rubber track skidsteer. This technique is more expensive and more time-consuming than aerial herbicide treatments. This method is also dependent on dry ground so equipment will not sink or rut organic soils that usually do not dry down until late in the dry season, and in some years, do not dry down at all. It is also critical that wet season water levels rise soon enough after the treatment and remain high enough to drown resprouting from the willow bases. With these restrictions at both ends of the treatment, there is a short window of time to get the work done. Therefore, the amount of area that can be treated is dependent on the number and size of machines available to do the work. Compared to mechanical treatment, helicopter aerial spraying of herbicides to remove willow is cheaper, quicker, can be done most seasons, and can cover large areas easily. Mechanical treatments seem to be much better at restoring desirable marsh vegetation, which is our goal. However, it would be difficult to keep ahead of willow encroachment with this method given the available funding and the constraints on doing the work.

Glyphosate Only vs. Glyphosate/Imazapyr Mixes and Recovery Over Time The older treatments at CSS and CREW were done from 2008-2011 and used only glyphosate except for the CSS 2008 treatment which also included diquat. Although we did not observe the results immediately after treatment, we can use these plots to determine the long-term effects (> 5 years) of glyphosate on the areas. More recent treatments both at CSS and CREW and around the state have used a combination of glyphosate and another herbicide with the active ingredient imazapyr. These treatments were done in 2014 and 2015 on both CSS and CREW. On CREW, the location of older glyphosate only treatments were at the north end of Corkscrew Marsh; willow density at the time of initial treatment was high in the 2008 treatment area and medium in the 2009 and 2011 treatment areas (Figure 7, Table 1). The more recent glyphosate/imazapyr treated areas were farther south in the marsh where prior to the herbicide treatment willow density was high in all treatment areas except the Spring 2015 area; vegetation in the untreated controls was similar to the adjacent 2014 treatment areas. CSS glyphosate/imazapyr treated areas are above and below the 2008 glyphosate only treatment and are located at the north end of the sanctuary where willows were large at time of treatment (Figures 5 and 8). The older treatments have a lower cover of desirable species (Figure 11a). This could be because glyphosate alone initially eliminated more desirable species, or the undesirable species are outcompeting the desirable species over time, or the recent imazamox treatment could have reduced the cover of desirable species (Figure 11a). Cover of undesirable species in untreated and aerially sprayed areas are about the same, so no progress has been made at eliminating undesirable species with either glyphosate only or glyphosate/imazapyr chemical treatment (Figure 11b). There were fewer willow in the recent glyphosate/imazapyr areas when compared with the older glyphosate only areas (Figure 11c); this result could be a function of time, with willow resprouting or reseeding, or it could be the type of herbicide that was used. Both areas have less willow cover than the untreated areas. In the more recently treated plots, most of the large willow appear to have been killed, but there are small willows present, either root sprouts off the old trees or new plants. There are more cattails in the recently sprayed areas treated with the glyphosate/imazapyr mixes (Figure 11d). The older glyphosate only areas also have more cattail than the untreated areas. Since cattails are now well established in the surrounding areas on both CSS and CREW, proximity of a seed source could have contributed to the increased dominance in the more recently treated plots.

100. 100.

to 0

from

Mean Coverage Coverage Mean range

n= the number of of the number n= reas A Indices Untreated can exceedcan 100. and Mean Coverage Mean Coverage nly O Glyphosate Mean Coverage Index Coverage Mean

In graphs for individual species, species, individual for In graphs Glyphosate/Imazapyr Mixes to

. Comparison of 1 for Species and Species Groups. Groups. and Species Species for

1 Figure Figure Indices the the category, in are included species Where multiple each category. in samples

Mean reas A Untreated Untreated and nly nly

Glyphosate/Imazapyr Mixes to Glyphosate O Glyphosate to Mixes Glyphosate/Imazapyr Comparison of

for Species and Species Groups. Groups. Species and Species for continued. Indices

1 Figure 1 Figure Coverage

There is substantially more cover of Peruvian primrose willow in the glyphosate only areas and only slightly more cover in the glyphosate/imazapyr treated areas compared to the untreated areas (Figure 11e). As with cattail, Peruvian primrose willow are now well established in the surrounding area, and proximity of a seed source could partly explain the increased dominance in the more recent plots. It also may be that Peruvian primrose willow is aggressive enough to pose an increasing problem over time in any areas disturbed by treatment. Similarly, grasses and sedges have been largely reduced with both types of herbicide treatment, regardless of time since treatment, compared to the untreated areas (Figure 11f). Sawgrass is absent in all the glyphosate/imazapyr treatment samples, which is a problem for the long-term maintenance of these areas with fire even if we can get the willow and cattail under control (Figure 11g). Maidencane has not increased in either treatment (Figure 11h). So, we are maintaining desirable herbaceous vegetation using the glyphosate/imazapyr treatments, with the most common species cover from pickerelweed, arrowhead, and string lily (Crinum americanum) (Appendix D). Unfortunately, the cover of grasses and sedges is low, none of which is sawgrass, and there is no increase in maidencane over what was present in the untreated areas.

Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing Rates In the 2014-15 treatments, three different combinations of concentrations of glyphosate and imazapyr were used to determine which combination was most effective at reaching the goal of restoring desirable marsh vegetation. The mixes included a “hot” mix with the strongest amounts of both chemicals, 120 oz/acre glyphosate and 64 oz/acre imazapyr which was used in 2014 on CREW and also on CSS. At CREW in 2014, another mix of 80 oz glyphosate and 24 oz imazapyr per acre, referred to as the ‘medium” mix (medium amount of imazapyr), and a mix of 96 oz glyphosate and 16 oz. imazapyr per acre, referred to as the “light” mix, were also used. It should be noted that the “medium” mix has the least glyphosate, while the “light” mix has the medium amount glyphosate, so the “medium” and “light” names follow imazapyr amounts, but not glyphosate amounts. In Spring 2015, additional areas were treated with the “light” mix on CREW. The stronger the mix, the less desirable cover was present, which might be expected due to the strengths of the mixes, i.e. the stronger the mix, the more cover could be killed (Figure 12a). But when we look at the undesirable cover, the stronger the mix, the more undesirable cover was present, which is not intuitive (Figure 12b). Therefore, the “light” mix met our objective best in this comparison, retaining the

n= range

Mean Mean reas Indices A can exceed 100. 100. exceed can

Untreated Untreated

Mean Coverage Mean Coverage Rates and Rates Mean Coverage Index Coverage Mean

In graphs for individual species, species, for individual In graphs

Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing Mixing Combination Glyphosate/Imazapyr Three Three for Species and Species Groups. Groups. Species and Species for

Indices 100. Where multiple species are included in the category, the the category, in are included species multiple Where 100. . Comparison of

2 to 1 0

Figure Figure Coverage from each category. in samples of the number 33

reas A Untreated Untreated

Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing and Mixing Rates Combination Glyphosate/Imazapyr Three Three for Species and Species Groups. Species and Species for

Comparison of . Indices continued

2 1 Figure Figure Coverage Mean

34 most desirable cover and the least undesirable cover. The “light” mix also had the least willow, cattail, and Peruvian primrose willow cover (Figure 12c- e). So, the least imazapyr, the “light” mix, worked best at retaining desirable marsh vegetation and removing undesirable cover. Despite the retention of desirable vegetation cover and reduction in undesirable cover in the “light” area, the treatment did not retain the needed grasses and sedges to carry fire. Here the mix with the least glyphosate, the Medium mix, had the most grasses and sedges and the most maidencane cover (Figure 12f and h), but this mix didn’t kill the undesirable species (Figure 12b, c, and d.). None of the mixes left any sawgrass (Figure 12g). So, though we are refining our ability to kill willow and retain desirable species, we are still not getting the fuels we need in the form of grasses and sedges to perpetuate the marsh over time.

Comparison of Dry Season vs. Wet Season Treatments with Glyphosate/Imazapyr “light” Mix CREW used the “light” mix in both the wet (August 2014) and dry seasons (May 2015) to compare the effect of standing water on the treatment. There are only two samples of treatments with this chemical concentration in late summer with standing water and two at the end of the dry season with dry ground. Treatment over dry ground contained more desirable and less undesirable cover, including willow and cattail (Figure 13a-e). The wet and dry ground treatments had similarly low cover of grasses and sedges, including no sawgrass and very small amounts of maidencane (Figure 13f-h). There was some overspray during the dry ground treatment that resulted in substantial sawgrass mortality. We thought that possibly treating when the ground is dry could cause more mortality from chemical activity in the soil and also harm the desirable seedbank. Therefore, treating over standing water might be preferable since willow seed does not have a dormant stage and does not enter the seedbank (Quintana-Ascencio and Fauth 2011, Castro-Morales et al. 2014). But the treatment over dry ground had better results in these few samples. However, the small sample size and the fact that a team of different observers sampled one of the plots treated Spring 2015 make drawing conclusions from these data inappropriate.

Imazamox Treatment In Fall 2015, CREW treated the older glyphosate areas to the north with Clearcast, an herbicide with the active ingredient imazamox, at the lowest rate recommended

n= range Mean Mean

ix M Indices can exceed 100. 100. exceed can

Mean Coverage Mean Coverage Mean Coverage Index Coverage Mean

In graphs for individual species, species, for individual In graphs

for Species and Species Groups. Groups. Species and Species for

Comparison of Dry Season and Wet Season Treatments with Glyphosate/Imazapyr “light” “light” Glyphosate/Imazapyr with Treatments and Wet Season Season of Dry Comparison Indices 100. Where multiple species are included in the category, the the category, in are included species multiple Where 100. .

3 to 1 0

Figure Figure Coverage from each category. in samples of the number

Glyphosate/Imazapyr “light” M “light” Glyphosate/Imazapyr th

for Species and Species Groups. Species and Species for

Comparison of Dry Season and Wet Season Treatments wi Treatments and Wet Season Season of Dry Comparison . Indices continued

3 1 Figure Figure Coverage Mean

37 for cattails, 32 oz imazamox and 16 oz MSO per acre. Since imazamox is somewhat selective, we were interested in what effect it had on other species. Though there were only three pre-treatment and six post-treatment samples, we found more desirable cover and somewhat less undesirable cover in the 2016 samples one growing season after treatment (Figure 14a-b). Clearcast is labeled for treating cattail, and there was substantially lower cattail cover in 2016 (Figure 14d). Though this product is not labelled for willow, it was encouraging to find that there was also less willow cover (Figure 14c). However, Peruvian primrose willow cover did increase after treatment (Figure 14e). A very encouraging result was a slight increase in the cover of grasses and sedges, instead of the sharp decrease we saw in all the previously described herbicide treatments (Figure 14f). There was no sawgrass and too little maidencane to draw conclusions (Figure 14g-h). So possibly imazamox may not negatively affect grasses and sedges, and we recommend further testing of this hypotheses in future treatments. Based on these data and a report from St. John’s Water Management District (Hall et al. 2017) that reports treating willow two years in a row at a stronger imazamox rate of 48 oz/acre had good success with cattails and also killed willow in a small plot where water levels could be regulated, CREW has proposed to conduct two treatments of imazamox on the original 2008 glyphosate area in Fall of 2017 and 2018. If possible, CREW may also do some ground selective spraying of willow and cattail.

Follow-up vs. No Follow-up after Mechanical Treatments CSS meanwhile is concentrating on mechanical treatments. The cattail in the 2013 mechanical treatment area at the Eagle Island curve was spot treated with glyphosate using a backpack sprayer and any seed heads were bagged and removed, and danglepod (Sesbania herbacea) were pulled and piled before going to seed in spring 2015. In the 2015 mechanical treatment area, Corkscrew selectively treated any willow present after the first growing season with aquatic triclopyr using a swamp buggy. These secondary treatments should go a long way toward keeping cattail and willow from re-establishing. There only were two areas with follow-up selective treatments (one for only cattail and one for only willow) and six areas with no follow-up treatment, and there was no data from before the follow-up samples. Willow and cattail cover was slightly less in both follow-up treatment plots than in the six plots without follow-up treatment (Figure 15a and b). Because of the small sample sizes, these conclusions should be considered preliminary.

n= range

Mean Mean

Indices can exceed 100. 100. exceed can

Imazamox Mean Coverage Mean Coverage Mean Coverage Index Coverage Mean

In graphs for individual species, species, for individual In graphs

. Before Treatment and One Growing Season After Treatment with with Treatment After Season Growing One and Treatment Before ison of for Species and Species Groups. Groups. Species and Species for

Compar Indices 100. Where multiple species are included in the category, the the category, in are included species multiple Where 100. .

4 to 1 0

Figure Figure Coverage from each category in samples of the number 39

Imazamox

for Species and Species Groups. Species and Species for

Comparison of Before Treatment and One Growing Season After Treatment with with Treatment Season After Growing One and Treatment Before of Comparison . Indices continued

4 1 Figure Figure Coverage Mean

Spot Spot

up up - - Mean Coverage Coverage Mean

wo areas with follow with areas wo Treatment with No Follow

only willow was treated. was willow only

There were only t were only There , .

willow and cattail and willow for for

Indices up Spot Herbicide Treatments after Mechanical after Mechanical Treatments Spot Herbicide up - n= the number of samples in each category. in samples of the number n= only cattail was treated and in the other in and was treated cattail only

, Follow

100. 100.

Mean Coverage Coverage Mean to ; in; one 0 ison of

from

Compar . 5 range

1 Figure Figure Treatments Herbicide treatments selective Indices

Conclusions Mechanical treatment would be the method of choice when possible since it comes closest to returning willow infested areas to a marsh community dominated by desirable vegetation and increasing the grass and sedge cover, which could allow us to control willow with fire over time. Following up with selective spraying of willow and cattail after the first growing season appeared to slow the return of willow and cattail. However, due to the high cost and difficult logistics, mechanical treatment may not be practical for large areas or sites with more than shallow organic soils. The area mechanically treated at CSS after 4 years totals 24.1 acres. Herbicide treatments with mixes of glyphosate and imazapyr severely reduce the cover of grasses and sedges to a level that, at least after two growing seasons, will not support fire. A mix of 96 oz of imazapyr and 16 oz of glyphosate (the “light” mix) left the most desirable marsh vegetation cover and least undesirable cover, including willow and cattail, but this mix, at least two growing seasons after treatment, does not have enough grasses and sedges to support prescribed fire. Fire of sufficient intensity is needed to kill the willow that is coming back in the plots before it gets above four feet tall, which is too big to be killed by fire (Quintana-Ascencio and Fauth 2011). Imazamox (Clearcast) at a low concentration, increased desirable cover, reduced the cover of cattail and also willow, and, in sharp contrast to the other herbicides, slightly increased cover of grasses and sedges, though due to the small sample size, these conclusions should be considered preliminary. Fire is still our best tool for retaining our current marshes and not letting willow- invaded areas get worse. Fire has the greatest likelihood of retaining desirable marsh vegetation and slowing woody species encroachment. Every effort to burn marshes in good condition and those under stress from willow and cattail should be implemented to avoid further degradation.

Acknowledgments Both CREW and CSS should be proud for tackling this difficult restoration effort. They have sought funding and pursued the problem with enthusiasm. A lot has been learned and with current and future efforts we will get closer to understanding the problem and finding the most practical solutions. Joe Bozzo, and Maco Touchett from South Florida Water Management District, Jessi Drummond with the CREW Land and Water Trust, Jessica Griffith, Stephanie Burkhardt, Molly Duvall, and Tiffany Thornhill from Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission, Jim Burch with National Park Service, retired, and Jason Lauritsen with National Audubon Society all participated in the monitoring; we appreciate your help. Thank you to FWC’s AHREs (Aquatic Habitat and Restoration) section, including Beacham Furse and Steve Gornak, for funding the CREW work. The restoration work on CSS was funded by generous gifts from the Rathmann Family Foundation, Freed Foundation, Robinson Foundation, and Steve and Merrilee Nellis. Thank you for supporting this important work. We are grateful to George Wilder, Botanist and Herbarium Curator, Naples Botanical Garden, for help with plant identification.

Bibliography Anderson, H. E., 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. National Coordinating Group, Boise, Idaho. General Technical Report INT-122. https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr122.pdf .

Atlas of Florida Plants. 2017. Wunderlin, R. P., B. F. Hansen, A. R. Franck, and F. B. Essig. Institute for Systematic Botany. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. http://florida.plantatlas.usf.edu/ [S. M. Landry and K. N. Campbell (application development), USF Water Institute].

Castor-Morales, L. M., P. F. Quintana-Ascencio, J. E. Fauth, K. J. Ponzio, and D. L. Hall. 2014. Environmental Factors Affecting Germination and Seedling Survival of Carolina Willow (Salix caroliniana). Wetlands 34:496-478.

Chytry, M., and Z. Otypkova. 2003. Plot Sizes Used for Phytosociological Sampling of European Vegetation. Journal of Vegetation Science 14:563–570.

Daubenmire, R. 1959. A Canopy-coverage Method of Vegetational Analysis. Northwest Science 33:43-64.

Duever, M. J., and R. E. Roberts. 2013. Successional and Transitional Models of Natural South Florida, USA, Plant Communities. Fire Ecology 9:1, 110-122. http://fireecologyjournal.org/docs/Journal/pdf/Volume09/Issue01/110.pdf .

Florida Administrative Code 5B-40 Preservation of Native Flora of Florida. 2015. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ChapterHome.asp?Chapter=5B-40 .

Florida Administrative Code 62-340.450(3) Vegetative Index. 1993. https://www.flrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?title=DELINEATION OF THE LANDWARD EXTENT OF WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS&ID=62-340.450, 20pp.

Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council. 2017. List of Invasive Plant Species. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. Internet: http://bugwoodcloud.org/CDN/fleppc/plantlists/2017/2017FLEPPCLIST- TRIFOLD-FINALAPPROVEDBYKEN-SUBMITTEDTOALTA.pdf .

Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. 1990. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, Florida. 116 pp. http://www.fnai.org/PDF/Natural_Communities_Guide.pdf .

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2010. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida: 2010 edition. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, FL. 223pp. http://fnai.org/naturalcommguide.cfm .

Frost, C. C. 1995. Presettlement Fire Regimes in Southeastern Marshes, Peatlands, and Swamps. Plant Conservation Program, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC. 22 pp.

Hall, D. L., K. J. Ponzio, J. B. Miller, P. J. Bowen, and D. L. Curtis. 2017. Ecology and Management of Carolina Willow (Salix caroliniana): A Compendium of Knowledge. Technical Publication SJ2017-1. St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka, FL. 108pp. http://www.sjrwmd.com/technicalreports/tpubs1.html .

Jones, John. 2016. Blue Heron Environmental, Alva, Florida. personal communication.

Lee, M. B., K. L. Snyder, P. Valentine-Darby, S. J. Miller, and K. J. Ponzio. 2005. Dormant Season Prescribed Fire as a Management Tool for the Control of Salix caroliniana Michx. in a Floodplain Marsh. Wetlands Ecology and Management 13: 479-487

Lugo, A. E. 1995. Fire and Wetland Management. in S. I. Cerulean and R. T. Engstrom, eds. Fire in Wetlands: a Management Perspective. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, No. 19. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL. 9 pp.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2013. A Handbook for Collecting Vegetation Plot Data in Minnesota: the Relevé Method. 2nd Edition. Minnesota Biological Survey, Minnesota Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, and Ecological Land Classification Program. Biological Report 92. St. Paul, MN. 56 pp. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/mcbs/releve/releve_singlepage.pdf . Mueller-Dombois, D., and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and Methods of Vegetation Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 547 pp.

Peet, R. K., T. R. Wentworth, and P. S. White. 1998. A Flexible, Multipurpose Method for Recording Vegetation Composition and Structure. Castanea 63:262–274.

Quintana-Ascencio, P., and J. E. Fauth. 2011. Ecological Studies of Willow (Salix caroliniana): Project Final Report. Department of Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. 91 pp.

Wade, D., J. Ewel, and R. Hofstetter. 1980. Fire in South Florida Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report SE-17. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. 125 pp.

Appendices

Appendix A

Transect Monitoring Field Comments

Appendix B

Sample Summary Data

Coverage Index for each Sample Comparisons Undesirables broken down Herb Imaz Imax Imaz Clea Mech Sam Desir Undesi Willow Cattail Peru Grass/ Sawg Maide Peru Mech mix- mix mix rcast Follo pling able rable vian sedge rass ncane vian Untre Glyph Hot Dry Befo wup Year prim Prim Climb Sampling Transect ated Only- Med vs re No rose rose ing NN/ Shrub Untre Light Wet Post Follo Will Will Hemp NN /Tree ated Untre wup ow Willow Cattail ow vine Other /Vine B 2015 2008 157 410 100 100 0 57 0 10 100 100 0 100 24 86 H O B 2015 2009 from edge 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 2015 2011 Walk 335 22 10 10 0 137 100 31 10 10 0 0 0 2 H O B 2015 2011 66 271 100 31 10 8 0 0 100 31 10 100 2 28 H I H 2015 2014 Hot 120:64 along edge only 0 161 10 100 0 0 0 0 10 100 0 31 12 8 H I M 2015 2014 Medium 80:24 426 137 100 0 0 114 0 100 100 0 0 0 2 35 2015 2014 Light 96:16 66 179 10 2 2 18 0 2 10 2 2 100 24 41 2015 2015 Spring 96:16 341 0 0 0 0 64 2 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U 2015 Control A 257 116 100 0 0 104 100 2 100 0 0 0 2 14 U U U 2015 Control C 218 53 31 2 0 53 31 10 31 2 0 2 0 18 H O P 2016 2008 140 187 31 10 2 28 0 2 31 10 2 100 20 24 H O P 2016 2008 #2 94 324 100 10 100 2 0 0 100 10 100 100 6 8 H O P 2016 2009 186 59 2 31 0 33 0 0 2 31 0 10 12 4 H O P 2016 2009 #2 91 329 2 10 100 26 0 2 2 10 100 100 41 76 H O P 2016 2011 232 92 31 2 0 68 31 31 31 2 0 31 12 16 H O P 2016 2011 #2 85 198 10 31 31 6 0 0 10 31 31 100 6 20 H I H 2016 2014 Hot 120:64 357 67 31 10 0 31 0 31 31 10 0 10 2 14 H I H 2016 2014 Hot 120:64 #2 71 332 100 100 2 6 0 2 100 100 2 100 12 18 H I M 2016 2014 Medium 80:24 97 346 100 100 2 14 0 10 100 100 2 100 24 20 H I M 2016 2014 Medium 80:24 #2 Very Short 26 143 2 100 0 4 0 0 2 100 0 31 4 6 H I L W 2016 2014 Light 96:16 179 113 31 10 0 6 0 0 31 10 0 31 31 10 H I L W 2016 2014 Light 96:16 #2 293 138 10 10 0 35 0 2 10 10 0 100 12 6 H I L D 2016 2015 Spring 96:16 366 6 2 2 0 20 0 10 2 2 0 0 0 2 H I L D 2016 2015 Spring 96:16 #2 389 6 0 0 0 16 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 U U U 2016 Control A 178 141 100 31 0 104 100 2 100 31 0 0 4 6 U U U 2016 Control B 155 288 100 10 0 104 100 2 100 10 0 31 100 47 U U U 2016 Control C 190 136 100 0 0 41 31 2 100 0 0 10 0 26 U U U 2016 Control C #2 393 53 31 0 0 43 31 10 31 0 0 10 0 12 H O 2015 2008 Aerial Glyphosate 0 214 100 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 2 0 12 2015 2014 CSS N Hot 120:64 51 102 2 10 31 2 0 0 2 10 31 0 39 20 2015 2015 E of Washout Rd 703 50 2 2 0 228 31 10 2 2 0 2 22 22 M F 2016 2013 Eagle Island Curve 292 111 10 10 10 165 0 100 10 10 10 31 26 24 M N 2016 2013 Nof Fishfarm 319 112 10 31 10 238 10 100 10 31 10 31 14 16 M N 2016 2013 W of Washout Rd 203 200 31 31 10 74 31 0 31 31 10 100 10 18 H I H 2016 2014 CSS N Hot 120:64 89 357 0 100 100 16 0 0 0 100 100 100 39 18 M N 2016 2014 W of Washout Rd 429 55 10 10 0 111 31 0 10 10 0 31 0 4 M F 2016 2015 E of Washout Rd 438 89 0 10 2 155 31 31 0 10 2 31 18 28 M 2016 2016 S-Central Area 544 42 2 2 10 116 10 31 2 2 10 2 4 22 U U U 2016 Control W of Washout Rd 95 134 100 2 0 43 31 10 100 2 0 10 14 8 U U U 2016 Control N of Fishfarm 271 324 100 10 31 180 31 100 100 10 31 100 24 59 U U U 2016 Control Central Marsh 286 135 100 0 0 102 100 2 100 0 0 2 0 33 U U U 2016 Control E of Washout Rd 268 386 100 2 31 136 0 10 100 2 31 100 114 39 H I H 2016 2014 CSS S Hot 120:64 229 371 10 100 10 28 0 10 10 100 10 100 133 18 H O 2016 2008 Aerial Glyphosate 0 232 100 100 10 0 0 0 100 100 10 10 10 2 Not included since duplicate of 2016 transect (ie in same spot)

Appendix B Metadata

Treatment Comparisons Columns There is a column for each comparison of treatments shown in Figures 10-15 of the report. Letters in red in column header Herb Mech Untreated Aerial Herbicide Treatments, Mechanical Treatments, and Untreated Areas Imaz mix Glyph Only Imazapyr/Glyphosate Mixes, Glyphosate Only, and Untreated Areas Untreated Imaz mix Hot Med Light Three Glyphosate/Imazapyr Combination Mixing Rates ( Hot 120:64 [glyphosate:imazapyr Untreated oz/acre], Medium 80:24, Light 96:16) and Untreated Areas Imaz mix Dry vs Wet Dry Season and Wet Season Treatments with Glyphosate/Imazapyr "Light” mix Clearcast Before Post Before Treatment and One Growing Season Post-Treatment with Imazamox (Clearcast) Follow-up Spot Herbicide Treatments after Mechanical Treatment and No Follow-up Spot Mech Followup No Followup Herbicide Treatments

Sampling Year The names assigned to the transects are listed in blue for CSS (Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary) and Sampling Transect red for CREW (Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed WEA)

Coverage Index (single species) or Sum of Coverage Indices (multiple species) Data are a measure of cover; the higher the number the more cover. For analysis, qualitative cover categories were converted Desirable Species are all native herbaceous marsh plants including native ferns, floating plants, Desirable submerged plants, grasses, sedges, and low to large emergent herbs. Classification was assigned by the authors. Undesirable species include all non-native plants, nuisance natives, and all species that are not normally a significant component of a fire-maintained marsh including native trees, shrubs, and Undesirable vines. Graphs in Figures 10-14 show a breakdown of Undesirable plants into the categories shown below in "Undesirables broken down". Willow Only this single species Cattail Only this single species Peruvian primrose willow Only this single species Grass/sedge All native grasses and sedges (no native grasses or sedges are Nuisance Natives). Sawgrass Only this single species Maidencane Only this single species Undesirables Broken Down Willow Only this single species Cattail Only this single species Peruvian primrose willow Only this single species, Peruvian primrose willow Climbing Hempvine Only this single species NN/NN Other All other non-native or nuisance native species Shrub/Tree/vine All native trees, shrubs, and vines

Appendix C

Treatment Comparison Graphs for All Transects: Aerial Treatments, Mechanical Treatments and Untreated Areas CSS sampling transects are listed first followed by CREW sampling transects for each Treatment type (Herbicide Glyphosate Only, Herbicide Glyphosate/Imazapyr, Untreated, and Mechanical).

CSS CREW 2008 Aerial Glyphosate (CSS '15) 2008 ('15) 2008 Aerial Glyphosate (CSS '16) 2008 ('16) 2008 #2 ('16) 2009 from edge ('15) 2009 ('16) 2009 #2 ('16) 2011 ('15) 2011 ('16)

Herbicide Glyphosate Only 2011 #2 ('16) 2014 CSS N Hot 120:64 (CSS '15) 2014 Hot 120:64 along edge only ('15) 2014 CSS N Hot 120:64 (CSS '16) 2014 Hot 120:64 ('16) 2014 CSS S Hot 120:64 (CSS '16) 2014 Hot 120:64 #2 ('16) 2014 Medium 80:24 ('15) 2014 Medium 80:24 ('16) 2014 Medium 80:24 #2 Very Short ('16) 2014 Light 96:16 ('15) 2014 Light 96:16 ('16) 2014 Light 96:16 #2 ('16) 2015 Spring 96:16 ('15)

Herbicide Glyphosate/Imazapyr 2015 Spring 96:16 ('16) Treatment Type Treatment 2015 Spring 96:16 #2 ('16) Control Central Marsh ('16) Control A ('15) Control E of Washout Rd ('16) Control A ('16) Control N of Fishfarm ('16) Control B ('16) Control W of Washout Rd ('16) Control C ('15)

Untreated Control C ('16) Control C #2 ('16) 2013 Eagle Island Curve ('16) 2013 N of Fishfarm ('16) 2013 W of Washout Rd ('16) 2014 W of Washout Rd ('16) 2015 E of Washout Rd ('15) Mechanical 2015 E of Washout Rd ('16) 2016 S-Central Area ('16)

Appendix D

Cover Data by Plant Species, Sampling Date, and Transect

Appendix D Metadata A list of all plants observed during sampling. Undesirable species are in pink; included are all non-native plants, nuisance natives, and all species that are not Desirable Species are in white; included are all other herbaceous marsh plants.

Descriptive Columns The following 7 categories listed here in red follow information in the Atlas of Florida Plants (Wunderlin et al. 2017). Species Scientific names to species where possible, otherwise to Genus or Family. If name is followed by Common name If the plant was could not be identified to species, short descriptive information may be given. Exotic Options are Native, Not Native, and ? when identification was not specific enough to determine FL DEP Code Codes are OBL (obligate), FACW (facultative wet), FAC (facultative), and UP (upland, inferred if Family When identification was not specific enough to determine family, the plant was listed as "?". Family Common When identification was not specific enough to determine family, the plant was listed as "?". Name FEPPC Aggressive exotic plants listed by the Florida Exotic Plant Pest Council (2017) designations EPPC(I) Status (Endemic State threatened and endangered species based on State thFlorida Administrative Code (2015). T&E) When identification was not specific enough to determine status, the plant was listed as "?". Desirable/ Undesirable species include all non-native plants, nuisance natives, and all species that are not Undesirable normally a significant component of a fire-maintained marsh including shrubs, trees, and vines. Categories are: fern, floating/submerged, grass/sedge, herb, large emergent herb, low herb, Plant type shrub, tree, vine. Classification was assigned by the authors.

Remaining Columns The top 4 rows describe the data Area Either CSS (Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary) or CREW (Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershead WE Date Sampled Year Sampled Sampling The names assigned to the transects are listed in blue for CSS and red for CREW Transects Data are 4 qualitative cover categories: A (abundant), C (Common), O (Occasional), and R (Rare). For analysis, these qualitative categories were converted to a quantitative Coverage Index described in the Analysis section of the report. Conversion factors are as follows: Abundant = 100, Common=31, Occasional=10, Rare=2.

C R C R C R O O 2015 11/4/15 Control Control CREW R R R R R R A O O O 2015 11/4/15 CREW Control A Control R O O 2015 2015 96:16 Spring 11/4/15 CREW R R C Light Light 2014 2015 96:16 11/4/15 CREW R C C 2014 2015 80:24 11/4/15 Medium CREW R R R along along 2015 120:64 11/4/15 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot edge only R R R R R O O O 2011 2015 CREW 10/19/15 R R A R Walk 2011 2015 CREW 10/19/15 from 2009 edge 2015 11/4/15 CREW C R R C C C O O O 2008 2015 11/4/15 CREW R R R R R R C R R R O 2015 2007 N CREW 10/19/15 R R R R R C A A R O O O Rd CSS 2015 10/4/15 Washout Washout 2015 E of 2015 E of R R R R R C O CSS 2014 2015 120:64 10/4/15 CSS Hot CSS Hot R O sate CSS 2008 2015 Aerial 5/15/15 Glypho- Glypho- Year Sampled Date Sampled Plant type Plant low herb grass/sedge grass/sedge herb tree low herb fern vine grass/sedge tree floating/submerged shrub shrub floating/submerged low herb herb fern grass/sedge vine low herb shrub floating/submerged fern grass/sedge large emergent herbs vine vine grass/sedge grass/sedge grass/sedge herb floating/submerged herb grass/sedge low herb grass/sedge grass/sedge low herb ? ? ? ? ? ------T&E) Status Status (Endemic (Endemic ? ? ? ? ? ? ------FEPPC EPPC(II) spiderwort sedge grass Family Common Family Name sedge sedge dogbane grape morning-glory soapberry aster brake fern grass apple custard fern mosquito aster aster figwort Plantain aster fern mid-sorus sedge laurel carrot madder hornwort brake fern sedge amaryllis morning-glory sedge sedge sedge amaranth arum aster sedge amaranth nettle Family Blue is CSS Red is CREW Commelinaceae Cyperaceae Poaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Apocynaceae Vitaceae Convolvulaceae Sapindaceae Asteraceae Pteridaceae Poaceae Annonaceae Azollaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Scrophulariaceae Plantaginaceae Asteraceae Blechnaceae Cyperaceae Lauraceae Apiaceae Rubiaceae Ceratophyllaceae Pteridaceae Cyperaceae Amaryllidaceae Convolvulaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Amaranthacae Araceae Asteraceae Cyperaceae Amaranthaceae Urticaceae ? ? ? ? ? U -- nc nc nc nc FAC OBL OBL OBL FAC FAC OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL Code FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FL DEP ? ? ? ? ? ? N Exotic native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Not Native Not Native Not Native Common name lemon bacopa lemon tracyi Rhynchospora inundata Rhynchospora Desirable Species in white Desirable Species pink in Speces Undesirable maple red spotflower oppositeleaf leathergiant fern alligatorweed amaranth vine pepper bushy bluestem, hairy bluestem, apple pond duckweed milkweed, fewflower head big composite, American waterfern silverling saltbush herb-of-grace burrmarigold swamp fern bogfalse hemp nettle, warty sedge fine-stem lovevine spadeleaf buttonbush common coontail horn fern water sawgrass dayflower seven-sisters, string-lily compact dodder dodder sedge mediumsedge, like size, largesedge, like size, swamp flatsedge yellow nutgrass haspan flatsedge flatsedge fragrant Species

Acer rubrum Acmella oppositifolia Acrostichum danaeifolium Alternanthera philoxeroides Amaranthacae (family) Ampelopsis arborea Andropogon glomeratus Andropogon glomeratus var. pumilus Annona glabra Araceae (family) Asclepias lanceolata Asteraceae Azolla filiculoides Baccharis glomeruliflora Baccharis halimifolia Bacopa caroliniana Bacopa monnieri Bidens laevis Blechnum serrulatum Boehmeria cylindrica verrucosa Carex Cassytha filiformis Centella asiatica Cephalanthus occidentalis Ceratophyllum demersum Ceratopteris pteridoides Cladium jamaicense Commelina diffusa Crinum americanum Cuscuta compacta Cuscuta sp. Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperus distinctus Cyperus esculentus Cyperus haspan Cyperus odoratus

C C R 2015 11/4/15 Control CREW R 2015 11/4/15 CREW Control A Control C 2015 2015 96:16 Spring 11/4/15 CREW R R R Light Light 2014 2015 96:16 11/4/15 CREW R R R 2014 80:24 2015 11/4/15 Medium CREW O along along 2015 120:64 11/4/15 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot edge only R R R 2011 2015 CREW 10/19/15 R Walk 2011 2015 CREW 10/19/15 from 2009 edge 2015 11/4/15 CREW R O 2008 2015 11/4/15 CREW R R R R R R R R R O 2015 2007 N CREW 10/19/15 R R R R R R C C C R R O Rd CSS 2015 10/4/15 Washout Washout 2015 E of 2015 E of R R R CSS 2014 2015 120:64 10/4/15 CSS Hot CSS Hot sate CSS 2008 2015 Aerial 5/15/15 Glypho- Glypho- Year Sampled Date Sampled Plant type Plant grass/sedge herb herb low herb low herb grass/sedge low herb tree grass/sedge grass/sedge low herb grass/sedge grass/sedge grass/sedge grass/sedge grass/sedge herb forb low herb low herb grass/sedge herb? herb vine vine large emergent herbs grass/sedge grass/sedge grass/sedge tree grass/sedge grass/sedge herb vine vine ? ? ? ------T&E) Status Status Endemic (Endemic (Endemic -- ? ? ------FEPPC EPPC(I) aster sedge sedge sedge sedge sedge aster mallow mallow carrot false fiddleleaf Family Common Family sedge grass grass madder ebony grass grass grass ? aster olive sedge sedge dogbane madder aster carrot grass mangosteen mint morning-glory morning-glory morning glory iris Name Family Blue is CSS Red is CREW Cyperaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Asteraceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae ? Cyperaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Oleaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Apocynaceae Rubiaceae Asteraceae Malvaceae Malvaceae Apiaceae Hydroleaceae Poaceae Clusiaceae Lamiaceae Convolvulaceae Convolvulaceae Iridaceae Poaceae Rubiaceae Ebenaceae Apiaceae Convolvulaceae ? ? ? ? ? -- nc OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL FAC OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL FAC Code FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FL DEP ? ? ? N N Exotic native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Not Native Common name Desirable Species in white Desirable Species pink in Speces Undesirable manyspike flatsedge witchgrass cypress witchgrass cypress buttonweed virginia persimmon barnyardgrass rough cockspur Florida cockspur coast false daisy spikerush coast gulf yellow spkerush spikerush knotted thin) (super spikerush medium thick, spikerush size, not knotted Coast poss. Gulf knotted or spikerush spikerush fennel dog thorough- semaphore wort pop ash umbrellasedge saltmarsh umbrellasedge southern white twinevine marsh stiff bedstraw, sunflower southeastern rosemallow scarlet hibiscus swamp marshpennywort manyflower marshpennywort skyflower grass marsh Indian West John's-wort St. mint musky moonflowers Glades morning glory (heart- morning-glory shaped leaves) Dixie Iris (prairie Iris) Species

Cyperus polystachyos Dichanthelium dichotomum Dichanthelium ensifolium var. ensifolium Diodia virginiana Diospyros virginiana Echinochloa muricata Echinochloa paludigena Echinochloa walteri Eclipta prostrata Eleocharis cellulosa Eleocharis flavescens Eleocharis interstincta Eleocharis sp. Eleocharis type, thick, medium size not interstincta Eleocharis, poss. cellulosa or interstincta Eupatorium capillifolium Eupatorium mikanioides Fraxinus caroliniana Fuirena breviseta Fuirena scirpoidea Funastrum clausum Galium tinctorium Helianthus agrestis Hibiscus coccineus Hibiscus grandiflorus Hydrocotyle sp. Hydrocotyle umbellata Hydrolea corymbosa Hymenachne amplexicaulis Hypericum sp. Hyptis alata Ipomoea alba Ipomoea sagittata Ipomoea sp. Iris hexagona 63

C R R O O 2015 11/4/15 Control Control CREW R R R O 2015 11/4/15 CREW Control A Control C O 2015 2015 96:16 Spring 11/4/15 CREW R A O O Light Light 2014 2015 96:16 11/4/15 CREW R R C A O O O 2014 2015 80:24 11/4/15 Medium CREW C along along 2015 120:64 11/4/15 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot edge only R A O 2011 2015 CREW 10/19/15 C O Walk 2011 2015 CREW 10/19/15 from 2009 edge 2015 11/4/15 CREW A R R 2008 2015 11/4/15 CREW R R R R C O O 2015 2007 N CREW 10/19/15 R R R A O O Rd CSS 2015 10/4/15 Washout Washout 2015 E of 2015 E of R C A+ CSS 2014 2015 120:64 10/4/15 CSS Hot CSS Hot R A sate CSS 2008 2015 Aerial 5/15/15 Glypho- Glypho- Year Sampled Date Sampled Plant type Plant floating/submerged grass/sedge floating/submerged herb floating/submerged floating/submerged low herb low herb herb grass/sedge herb low herb low herb herb low herb grass/sedge vine herb shrub floating/submerged floating/submerged floating/submerged herb herb low herb fern floating/submerged floating/submerged herb ? ? ------T&E) Status Status (Endemic (Endemic ? ? ------FEPPC EPPC(I) EPPC(I) eveningprimrose grass Name stonewort Family Common Family waterlily/bogbean frog's-bit frog's-bit eveningprimrose curlygrass waterlily waterlily waterlily gourd acanthus acanthus mallow grass eveningprimrose eveningprimrose eveningprimrose eveningprimrose eveningprimrose grass aster bayberry waterlily waterlily waterlily gentian eveningprimrose loosestrife Family Blue is CSS Red is CREW Onagraceae Poaceae Hydrocharitaceae Onagraceae Schizaeaceae Characeae Nymphaeaceae Nymphaeaceae Nymphaeaceae Nymphaeaceae/ Menyanthaceae Cucurbitaceae Acanthaceae Acanthaceae Malvaceae Poaceae Onagraceae Onagraceae Onagraceae Onagraceae Onagraceae Poaceae Asteraceae Myricaceae Nymphaeaceae Nymphaeaceae Nymphaeaceae Gentianaceae Onagraceae Lythraceae ? U nc nc OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL FAC OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL Code FACW FL DEP ? ? ? Exotic Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Not Native Not Native Common name Desirable Species in white Desirable Species pink in Speces Undesirable pineland waterwillow pineland waterwillow? Virginia saltmarsh mallow cutgrass southern spangletop bearded spongeplant, American frog's-bit winged primrosewillow Curtiss' primrosewillow anglestem primrosewillow smallfruit primrosewillow Mexican primrosewillow Peruvian primrose willow creeping primrosewillow primrosewillow watergrass southern small-leaf (old world) climbing fern loosestrife winged cucumber creeping hempvine climbing wax-myrtle grass musk or nitella (green algae) tropical royalblue waterlily yellow waterlily white waterlily water possible 3 lily, sp, this on blooming none transect water lily white & yellow waterlily so no flowers (almost white of blooms grouped; in spots 3 & yellow in 1 spot) water lily/floating heart floating heart Species

Justicia angusta Justicia angusta? Kosteletzkya pentacarpos Leersia hexandra Leptochloa fusca ( subsp. fascicularis ? Limnobium spongia Ludwigia alata Ludwigia curtissii Ludwigia leptocarpa Ludwigia microcarpa Ludwigia octovalvis Ludwigia peruviana Ludwigia repens Ludwigia sp. Luziola fluitans Lygodium microphyllum Lythrum alatum var. lanceolatum Melothria pendula Mikania scandens cerifera Myrica Nitella sp. or Chara sp. Nymphaea elegans Nymphaea mexicana Nymphaea odorata Nymphaea sp. Nymphaea sp. Nymphaea, mixed sp. Nymphaea/Nymphoides, leafsmall Nymphoides aquatica

C R R R C C O O O O O 2015 Control Control 11/4/15 CREW R C R R R C R A O 2015 11/4/15 CREW Control A Control R R R C A A 2015 2015 96:16 Spring 11/4/15 CREW R R R R R O O O O O Light Light 2014 2015 96:16 11/4/15 CREW R R A A R A O O 2014 80:24 2015 11/4/15 Medium CREW O along along 2015 120:64 11/4/15 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot edge only R A O O O 2011 2015 CREW 10/19/15 C C R R R A O O Walk 2011 2015 CREW 10/19/15 from 2009 edge 2015 11/4/15 CREW R R R R R R A O O O 2008 2015 11/4/15 CREW R R C R R R R R R C O O O 2015 2007 N CREW 10/19/15 R R R R R C R R A R O O O O O Rd CSS 2015 10/4/15 Washout Washout 2015 E of 2015 E of R R O A+ 2014 CSS 2015 120:64 10/4/15 CSS Hot CSS Hot A sate CSS 2008 2015 Aerial 5/15/15 Glypho- Glypho- Year Sampled Date Sampled Plant type Plant herb grass/sedge grass/sedge grass/sedge grass/sedge floating/submerged fern grass/sedge grass/sedge grass/sedge grass/sedge floating/submerged shrub forb low tree grass/sedge tree grass/sedge grass/sedge large emergent herbs grass/sedge grass/sedge large emergent herbs tree herb herb fern grass/sedge low herb large emergent herbs tree grass/sedge fern herb herb herb large emergent herbs floating/submerged low herb low herb ------T&E) Status Status (Endemic (Endemic ------FEPPC EPPC(I) EPPC(I) EPPC(1) Family Common Family Name laurel buckwheat buckwheat buckwheat polypody myrtle carrot beech sedge sedge sedge sedge sedge palm grass grass royal fern sedge grass grass grass grass grass grass arum grass vervain arum polypody aster aster aster pickerelweed pondweed watermilfoil watermilfoil plantain water plantain water willow Family Blue is CSS Red is CREW Osmundaceae Lauraceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polygonaceae Polypodiaceae Myrtaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Ricciaceae Arecaceae Poaceae Poaceae Cyperaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Poaceae Araceae Poaceae Verbenaceae Araceae Polypodiaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Pontederiaceae Potamogetonaceae Haloragaceae Haloragaceae Apiaceae Fagaceae Cyperaceae Cyperaceae Alismataceae Alismataceae Salicaceae ? -- nc OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL FAC FAC OBL OBL OBL OBL FAC OBL OBL OBL FAC OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL Code FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FL DEP N Exotic Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Not Native Not Native Not Native Not Native Common name Desirable Species in white Desirable Species pink in Speces Undesirable royal fern bulrush Cuban fall panicgrass maidencane torpedograss panicum redtop paspalidium Egyptian paspalum gulfdune arrow arum green bay swamp denseflower knotweed waterpepper, mild swamp smartweed dotted smartweed polypody golden common reed turkey fogfruit tangle water lettuce fern resurrection rosy camphorweed camphorweed stinking sweetscent pickerelweed Illinois pondweed marsh mermaidweed mermaidweed guava strawberry bishopsweed mock laurel oak starrush whitetop beaksedge inundated beaksedge southern shortbeak beaksedge (baldrush) beaksedge riccia (floating liverwort) palm cabbage plumegrass sugarcane American cupscale arrowhead grassy arrowhead carolina willow Species

Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis Oxycaryum cubense Panicum dichotomiflorum Panicum hemitomon Panicum repens Panicum rigidulum Paspalidium geminatum Paspalum monostachyum Peltandra virginica Persea palustris Persicaria glabra Persicaria hydropiperoides Persicaria punctata Phlebodium aureum Phragmites australis Phyla nodiflora Pistia stratiotes Pleopeltis polypodioides var. michauxiana Pluchea baccharis Pluchea foetida Pluchea odorata Pontederia cordata Potamogeton illinoensis Proserpinaca palustris Proserpinaca sp. Psidium cattleianum capillaceum Ptilimnium Quercus laurifolia Rhynchospora colorata Rhynchospora inundata Rhynchospora microcarpa Rhynchospora nitens Rhynchospora sp. Riccia sp. Sabal palmetto Saccharum giganteum Sacciolepis striata Sagittaria graminea Sagittaria lancifolia Salix caroliniana

C R R R R 43 2015 11/4/15 Control CREW C 41 2015 11/4/15 CREW Control A Control O 29 2015 2015 96:16 Spring 11/4/15 CREW R O O 39 Light Light 2014 2015 96:16 11/4/15 CREW R 38 2014 2015 80:24 11/4/15 Medium CREW R R A 25 along along 2015 120:64 11/4/15 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot edge only R R R C O 40 2011 2015 CREW 10/19/15 O O 33 Walk 2011 2015 CREW 10/19/15 A 17 from 2009 edge 2015 11/4/15 CREW C A O O 44 2008 2015 11/4/15 CREW R R R C O 62 2015 2007 N CREW 10/19/15 R R R R O O O Rd 68 CSS 2015 10/4/15 Washout Washout 2015 E of 2015 E of R C R R R O 39 CSS 2014 2015 120:64 10/4/15 CSS Hot CSS Hot 21 sate CSS 2008 2015 Aerial 5/15/15 Glypho- Glypho- Year Sampled Date Sampled Plant type Plant floating/submerged grass/sedge grass/sedge floating/submerged floating/submerged floating/submerged floating/submerged vine fern shrub herb grass/sedge low herb vine herb herb floating/submerged herb shrub herb herb herb tree tree large emergent herbs fern fern herb grass/sedge ------T&E) Status Status (Endemic (Endemic ------FEPPC EPPC(I) EPPC(1) EPPC(1) EPPC(1) grass Family Common Family Name floating fern elderberry cashew pea pea grass aster aster grass aster aster aster mint arrowroot maiden fern maiden fern carrot cattail lichen bladderwort bladderwort bladderwort bladderwort bladderwort pea fern mid-sorus aster myrtle cedar Family Blue is CSS Red is CREW Poaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Lamiaceae Marantaceae Thelypteridaceae Thelypteridaceae Apiaceae Typhaceae Poaceae Parmeliaceae Lentibulariaceae Lentibulariaceae Lentibulariaceae Lentibulariaceae Fabaceae Blechnaceae Salviniaceae Adoxaceae Anacardiaceae Fagaceae Fabaceae Poaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Myrtaceae Cupressaceae Lentibulariaceae U U U nc FAC FAC FAC OBL OBL OBL OBL FAC OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL OBL Code FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FACW FL DEP E E E N Exotic Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Native Not Native Not Native Not Native Common name Desirable Species in white Desirable Species pink in Speces Undesirable water spangles American elder, elderberry pepper Brazilian valamuerto danglepod giant bristlegrass goldenrod seaside goldenrod wand sand cordgrass bahaman or annual southwestern aster saltmarsh climbing aster Elliott's aster aster Simmonds' plum Java cypress pond wood sage, wood germander alligatorflag (Fireflag) fern maiden downy hottentot fern cowband water cattail tannergrass beard man's old (fruticose lichen) leafy bladderwort bladderwort humped purple eastern bladderwort purple small or Eastern bladderwort bladderwort cowpea hairypod Virginia chain fern 176 Species

Salvinia minima Salvinia Sambucus nigra subsp. canadensis Schinus terebinthifolia Senna pendula var. glabrata Sesbania herbacea Setaria magna Solidago sempervirens Solidago stricta Spartina bakeri Symphyotrichum bahamense or expansum Symphyotrichum carolinianum elliottii Symphyotrichum Symphyotrichum simmondsii Syzygium cumini Taxodium ascendens Teucrium canadense Thalia geniculata Thelypteris dentata Thelypteris interrupta filiformisTiedemannia Typha sp. Urochloa arrecta Usnea sp. foliosaUtricularia Utricularia gibba Utricularia purpurea Utricularia purpurea or resupinata Utricularia sp. Vigna luteola Woodwardia virginica

C C O O 2016 11/4/16 CREW Control CControl #2 R R R R C R O 2016 10/30/16 CREW Control C Control C R R A O 2016 11/9/16 CREW Control B Control R R R A O 2016 11/9/16 CREW Control A Control R O O 2015 2016 Spring 10/30/16 CREW 96:16 #2 R O O 2015 2016 96:16 Spring 10/30/16 CREW R R R R R C Light Light 2014 2016 11/4/16 CREW 96:16 #2 R O O Light Light 2014 2016 96:16 10/30/16 CREW R R R R R R R 2014 2016 12/8/16 Medium CREW 80:24 #2 Very Short Short Very R R R R R O O 2014 2016 80:24 11/9/16 Medium CREW R R R R R R R O O #2 2016 120:64 11/9/16 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot R C O 2016 120:64 10/28/16 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot C R R R O O O 2016 12/8/16 2011 #2 CREW R C R R R R R C O 2011 2016 10/28/16 CREW R C R R R O 2016 12/8/16 2009 #2 CREW C R R A 2009 2016 11/9/16 CREW R R R C O 2016 12/8/16 2008 #2 CREW R R R R C O O O O O 2008 2016 10/14/16 CREW R R R R R O O #2 2016 12/8/16 2007 N CREW R R R R R R R R R R C R R A O O 2016 2007 N 10/14/16 CREW CSS 2008 2016 Aerial 12/29/16 R R R R R R R R C A O CSS 2014 2016 Aerial S 12/28/16 R R R of A Rd CSS 2016 12/28/16 Washout Washout Control EControl R R R C A CSS 2016 Marsh Control Control Central 12/23/16 C R R R R R C R R R of O CSS 2016 12/13/16 Fishfarm Control NControl R R R C R Rd W of CSS 2016 Control Control 12/13/16 Washout Washout R R R R R C R O O O O Area CSS 2016 Central Central 12/4/16 2016 S- C R R R R R R R R R R R R O O O Rd CSS 2016 11/21/16 Washout Washout 2015 E of 2015 E of of C C R R R R R Rd CSS 2016 2014 W 2014 W Washout Washout 12/13/16 R R R R R R R O O Hot CSS 2014 2016 Aerial 120:64 11/21/16 of C R R R R O Rd CSS 2016 2013 W 2013 W Washout Washout 12/13/16 R R R R R O CSS 2016 12/4/16 Fishfarm 2013 Nof 2013 Nof Species

R R 2016 11/4/16 CREW Control CControl #2 C R R O 2016 10/30/16 CREW Control C Control R O 2016 11/9/16 CREW Control B Control 2016 11/9/16 CREW Control A Control R R 2015 2016 Spring 10/30/16 CREW 96:16 #2 O 2015 2016 96:16 Spring 10/30/16 CREW R Light Light 2014 2016 11/4/16 CREW 96:16 #2 R Light Light 2014 2016 96:16 10/30/16 CREW R R 2014 2016 12/8/16 Medium CREW 80:24 #2 Very Short Short Very R 2014 2016 80:24 11/9/16 Medium CREW R R #2 2016 120:64 11/9/16 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot C R 2016 120:64 10/28/16 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot R R 2016 12/8/16 2011 #2 CREW R R R R 2011 2016 10/28/16 CREW R R R R 2016 12/8/16 2009 #2 CREW R 2009 2016 11/9/16 CREW C 2016 12/8/16 2008 #2 CREW C 2008 2016 10/14/16 CREW O #2 2016 12/8/16 2007 N CREW R R R C R R R R O 2016 2007 N 10/14/16 CREW R 2008 CSS 2016 Aerial 12/29/16 R R R O 2014 CSS 2016 Aerial S 12/28/16 R of R R R A Rd CSS 2016 12/28/16 Washout Washout Control EControl C CSS 2016 Marsh Control Control Central Central 12/23/16 C R of R R R O CSS 2016 12/13/16 Fishfarm Control NControl R R Rd W of CSS 2016 Control Control 12/13/16 Washout Washout R R R O O Area CSS 2016 Central Central 12/4/16 2016 S- R R R R O O O O Rd CSS 2016 11/21/16 Washout Washout 2015 E of 2015 E of R R of R R R O Rd CSS 2016 2014 W 2014 W Washout Washout 12/13/16 R R R O Hot CSS 2014 2016 Aerial 120:64 11/21/16 R R R of Rd CSS 2016 2013 W 2013 W Washout Washout 12/13/16 R R R O CSS 2016 12/4/16 Fishfarm 2013 Nof 2013 Nof Species

R O O 2016 11/4/16 CREW Control CControl #2 R R R O O O 2016 10/30/16 CREW Control C Control C R R 2016 11/9/16 CREW Control B Control R R R R O 2016 11/9/16 CREW Control A Control R A O O 2015 2016 Spring 10/30/16 CREW 96:16 #2 present) (present) R R 2015 2016 96:16 Spring 10/30/16 CREW C A O Light Light 2014 2016 11/4/16 CREW 96:16 #2 R C R R C Light Light 2014 2016 96:16 10/30/16 CREW C 2014 2016 12/8/16 Medium CREW 80:24 #2 Very Short Short Very R R R R A O 2014 2016 80:24 11/9/16 Medium CREW R R R A #2 2016 120:64 11/9/16 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot C O 2016 120:64 10/28/16 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot R R C A 2016 12/8/16 2011 #2 CREW R C O 2011 2016 10/28/16 CREW R A A O 2016 12/8/16 2009 #2 CREW C O 2009 2016 11/9/16 CREW R R A A 2016 12/8/16 2008 #2 CREW R R R A 2008 2016 10/14/16 CREW R C R C #2 2016 12/8/16 2007 N CREW R R R R C R R O O O O 2016 2007 N 10/14/16 CREW O O CSS 2008 2016 Aerial 12/29/16 R R A O O CSS 2014 2016 Aerial S 12/28/16 of C A O Rd CSS 2016 12/28/16 Washout Washout Control EControl R CSS 2016 Marsh Control Control Central 12/23/16 C of R C A CSS 2016 12/13/16 Fishfarm Control NControl R R R O O Rd W of CSS 2016 Control Control 12/13/16 Washout Washout R R R R A O Area CSS 2016 Central Central 12/4/16 2016 S- C R R R R C R R R O O Rd CSS 2016 11/21/16 Washout Washout 2015 E of 2015 E of of R R C O O Rd CSS 2016 2014 W 2014 W 12/13/16 Washout Washout R A A Hot CSS 2014 2016 Aerial 120:64 11/21/16 R of R R R A O O Rd CSS 2016 2013 W 2013 W Washout Washout 12/13/16 R R C R O O CSS 2016 12/4/16 Fishfarm 2013 Nof 2013 Nof Species

C C C R R A A O 2016 11/4/16 CREW Control CControl #2 C C R R R A O 2016 10/30/16 CREW Control C Control R R C R A 2016 11/9/16 CREW Control B Control R R R R R A O O O 2016 11/9/16 CREW Control A Control R C R A O 2015 2016 Spring 10/30/16 CREW 96:16 #2 R R A A O O 2015 2016 96:16 Spring 10/30/16 CREW C C C R A O O O Light Light 2014 2016 11/4/16 CREW 96:16 #2 R C R R C R A O Light Light 2014 2016 96:16 10/30/16 CREW R R R O 2014 2016 12/8/16 Medium CREW 80:24 #2 Very Short Short Very C R R R R A O O O O 2014 2016 80:24 11/9/16 Medium CREW C R R A O #2 2016 120:64 11/9/16 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot R C C A A 2016 120:64 10/28/16 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot R R R R R O O 2016 12/8/16 2011 #2 CREW C C C R R R R C C 2011 2016 10/28/16 CREW R C R R R R R R O O 2016 12/8/16 2009 #2 CREW R R O O O 2009 2016 11/9/16 CREW R R R R A O 2016 12/8/16 2008 #2 CREW R R R C R O O O 2008 2016 10/14/16 CREW R R R R A O O #2 O O 2016 12/8/16 2007 N CREW R R C R R R C C R R O 2016 2007 N 10/14/16 CREW A O CSS 2008 2016 Aerial 12/29/16 R R C A O O O O O O CSS 2014 2016 Aerial S 12/28/16 R R R R R of A O O O O O Rd CSS 2016 12/28/16 Washout Washout Control EControl R R R A A O CSS 2016 Marsh Control Control Central 12/23/16 R R R R of R A A O O O CSS 2016 12/13/16 Fishfarm Control NControl R R R R R R R A O Rd W of CSS 2016 Control Control 12/13/16 Washout Washout R R R R R R R C R C A A O O O Area CSS 2016 Central Central 12/4/16 2016 S- R R R R R R R R C R R R C C R C A O O O Rd CSS 2016 11/21/16 Washout Washout 2015 E of 2015 E of of R C C A A O O O Rd CSS 2016 2014 W 2014 W Washout Washout 12/13/16 R R R C O O Hot CSS 2014 2016 Aerial 120:64 11/21/16 of R C C C C C Rd CSS 2016 2013 W 2013 W Washout Washout 12/13/16 C R R A A O O O O O CSS 2016 12/4/16 Fishfarm 2013 Nof 2013 Nof Species

R C 35 2016 11/4/16 CREW Control CControl #2 R R R O 44 2016 10/30/16 CREW Control C Control R R A O 35 2016 11/9/16 CREW Control B Control R C R R O 40 2016 11/9/16 CREW Control A Control R A 34 2015 2016 Spring 10/30/16 CREW 96:16 #2 R A O 31 2015 2016 96:16 Spring 10/30/16 CREW R R O O 38 Light Light 2014 2016 11/4/16 CREW 96:16 #2 O O 35 Light Light 2014 2016 96:16 10/30/16 CREW R R A 33 2014 2016 12/8/16 Medium CREW 80:24 #2 Very Short Short Very R R R A O 45 2014 2016 80:24 11/9/16 Medium CREW R R R A O #2 41 2016 120:64 11/9/16 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot R R C O 32 2016 120:64 10/28/16 CREW 2014 Hot 2014 Hot C R R R O 41 2016 12/8/16 2011 #2 CREW R R R R O O 47 2011 2016 10/28/16 CREW C R C R O O 46 2016 12/8/16 2009 #2 CREW C R 30 2009 2016 11/9/16 CREW R R R R O 37 2016 12/8/16 2008 #2 CREW R O O O 43 2008 2016 10/14/16 CREW C R R A #2 41 2016 12/8/16 2007 N CREW R R R R R R A O 71 2016 2007 N 10/14/16 CREW A 22 CSS 2008 2016 Aerial 12/29/16 R R R R A 51 CSS 2014 2016 Aerial S 12/28/16 R C R R of R A Rd 45 CSS 2016 12/28/16 Washout Washout Control EControl C R R 32 CSS 2016 Marsh Control Control Central 12/23/16 R of R O O O O O 54 CSS 2016 12/13/16 Fishfarm Control NControl R R R O O O Rd 43 W of CSS 2016 Control Control 12/13/16 Washout Washout R R C R R R O 60 Area CSS 2016 Central Central 12/4/16 2016 S- R R R R R O Rd 77 CSS 2016 11/21/16 Washout Washout 2015 E of 2015 E of C of R O Rd 45 CSS 2016 2014 W 2014 W 12/13/16 Washout Washout C R R R A 43 Hot CSS 2014 2016 Aerial 120:64 11/21/16 R of C O O O Rd 43 CSS 2016 2013 W 2013 W Washout Washout 12/13/16 R O O 46 CSS 2016 12/4/16 A/O* Fishfarm 2013 Nof 2013 Nof 176 Species