Camp Shelby Field Office The Nature Conservancy 2005 Annual Report Lisa Yager James Lee Matt Hinderliter Steve Leonard 1 Acknowledgements The Mississippi Army National Guard and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory provided funding for the Camp Shelby Field Office in 2005. We thank Col. Robert Piazza (MSARNG), Cpt. Robert Lemire (MSARNG), Marshall Adams (ORNL) and Mark Peterson (ORNL) for working with us and providing funding for the projects that are summarized in this document. We appreciate the long hours in field, data maintenance, and other assistance provided by the CSFO technicians: CJ Sabette, TG Jackson, Melissa Olsen, and John Rhine. We thank the U.S. Forest Service (DeSoto Ranger District) for allowing us to work in DeSoto National Forest and for sharing ideas with us. Tom Mann with the Mississippi Museum of Natural Science has been invaluable in providing information necessary for some projects. We would also like to thank Dr. Sam Rosso for information and access to the Camp Shelby herbarium. We look forward to continuing with these projects and starting new projects in 2006. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GOPHER TORTOISE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT ................................................. 4 1.1 Effects of Military Training and Habitat Quality on Gopher Tortoises ............................... 4 1.2 Gopher Tortoise Burrow Marking and Database ................................................................. 6 1.3 Intrinsic Causes of Low Hatching Success in Eggs of Threatened Gopher Tortoises in South Mississippi ........................................................................................................................ 6 3.0 CAMP SHELBY BURROWING CRAYFISH ...................................................................... 12 3.1 Colony Delineation and Habitat Quality at the Landscape-Scale in the Cypress Creek and Beaumont Watersheds .............................................................................................................. 12 3.2 Habitat/CSBC Density Monitoring .................................................................................... 12 4.0 COGONGRASS RESEARCH AND CONTROL .................................................................. 16 4.1 Cogongrass Control and Prevention of Spread ................................................................... 16 4.2 Comparison of Plant Species Diversity in Cogongrass Patches Compared to Adjacent Habitat ....................................................................................................................................... 22 5.0 BLACK PINESNAKE ............................................................................................................ 23 5.1 General Captures ................................................................................................................ 23 5.2 Radio-telemetry.................................................................................................................. 26 5.3 Food Items ......................................................................................................................... 28 5.4 Parasitology........................................................................................................................ 29 5.4 Seasonal Activity ............................................................................................................... 31 6.0 PLANT INVENTORY .......................................................................................................... 34 7.0 ANIMAL INVENTORY ....................................................................................................... 35 7.1 Amphibian and Reptile Captures ....................................................................................... 35 7.2 Mussels .............................................................................................................................. 37 7.3 Field Guides ....................................................................................................................... 38 8.0 SURVEYS .............................................................................................................................. 38 9.0 PRESENTATIONS, POSTERS, AND PUBLICATIONS ..................................................... 39 10.0 WORKSHOPS/FIELD TRIPS/ETC. .................................................................................... 40 11.0 REFERENCES CITED ......................................................................................................... 41 3 1.0 GOPHER TORTOISE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT 1.1 Effects of Military Training and Habitat Quality on Gopher Tortoises In 2005 we initiated a collaborative project with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) to work with gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) on the Camp Shelby Training Site (CSTS). Year one of this project involved project design, acquisition of research materials, field testing of research equipment, and site selection. Sites were selected based on various combinations of different military activity levels and gopher tortoise habitat quality, and also if they supported a population of at least 5-10 tortoises. The site selection process included: 1. Analyses of Camp Shelby Range Control’s Annual Ammunition Reports and Range Facility Management Support System (RFMSS) Utilization Detail Reports to determine troop activity and type/amount of ammunition fired from firing points and ranges over the last 5 years. 2. Analysis of survey data (Wester 2005, unpublished report) to determine location, number, and activity status of gopher tortoise burrows at sites all across the Training Site 3. Initial visual analysis of sites to determine whether they could be categorized as good ruderal habitat, good forested habitat, or poor habitat (see below for descriptions of habitat data collected at each site). A summary of study locations and treatment categories is presented in Figure 1.1.1. Habitat and vegetative sampling was performed for every burrow at each of the selected sites, and included measurements of: canopy cover, burrow bearing, burrow activity status, fire ant mound density, basal area of pines and hardwoods, vegetative species composition, and percent cover of bareground, litter, and vegetation by growth form categories. Each site was also sampled to get a thorough characterization of the energetic residues in the soil. Data collection on gopher tortoise physiological indicators, health, and reproductive status and additional habitat characterization at each study site will begin in the spring of 2006. Prior to trapping tortoises for data collection/transmitter attachment, each site will be re-surveyed for gopher tortoise burrows. Background for ORNL Research Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species on military installations can potentially be impacted by environmental factors from military and non-military sources. Therefore, sensitive and ecologically-relevant bioassessment tools are needed by environmental managers to determine 1) if the health of organisms is being impaired by these activities; 2) if observed effects are due to military activities; and 3) if so, can such effects be related to the type and magnitude of specific military activities. To address these issues, a suite of biomarkers representing a range of sensitivities, specificities, and ecological relevance to environmental stressors will be measured on gopher tortoises at Camp Shelby, MS. Some of the primary habitat of the federally-threatened gopher tortoise at CSTS are firing points that are characterized by different levels of noise, explosive residuals, and habitat disturbance resulting from tracked vehicle firing, maneuvering, and troop activity. To assess the potential impact of chemicals, noise, and habitat disturbance on the health of the gopher tortoise living on these firing points, 4 the sampling design includes 6 treatment levels with 3 replicated sites for each treatment. Main treatment effects are level of activity (high, low, none) and type of habitat (good, poor). Study Sites for ORNL Gopher Tortoise Study SITE 2 SITE 1 FP 121 FP 140 STATE LAND FP 136 FP 68 SITE 8 SITE 3 FP 72 SITE 5 FP 507 SITE 4 OP6 T44 EAST T44 WEST SITE 6 FP 64 SITE 7 • Legend Gopher Tortoise Burrows CSTS Lisa Yager 0 3,600 7,200 14,400 Meters 22 December 2005 No warranty is made by the State/Territory/National Guard Bureau as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for the individual use or aggregate use with other data. The map is a living document, in that it is intended to change as new data becomes available and is incorporated into the Enterprise GIS database. Military Activity Level High Low None Habitat Quality Forested Habitat Good n/a T44 E, T44 W, State Land n/a Poor n/a Site 3, Site 4, Site 5 Site 6, Site 7, Site 8 Ruderal Habitat Good FP 121, FP 140, FP 68, OP6* FP 136, FP 72, FP 64 Site 1, Site 2, FP 507 Poor n/a n/a n/a *OP 6 selected due to presence of energetic residues in the soil. Figure 1.1.1. Summary of study sites for gopher tortoise bioindicator study by location and Background treatment categories. for CERL Research 5 The overall technical objective of this proposed multiyear study is to determine the effects of military training activities and associated sound levels on the activity patterns and movement rates of gopher tortoises. Detailed objectives of this study are: 1) record and characterize training maneuver