To: Mike Piccirilli, Chief, Federal Aid, Southeast

United States Department of the Interior

Memorandum

From:

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICESouth Florida Ecological Services Office

1339 20th StreetVero Beach, Florida 32960

November 19, 2013

Subject: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Florida Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services’ Assistance for Prescribed Fire in PineRockland Habitat in Miami-Dade County

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological andconference opinion, based on our review of two proposals to find projects to restore and managefragments of pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade County, Florida, with the objective ofincreasing conservation benefits to federally listed and candidate species. The Opinion evaluatesthe potential effects of the covered activities on the species listed below in accordance withsection 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (1 6 U.S.C. 153 1 et seq.):

This Biological and Conference Opinion is based on infonnation provided in the March 6,2013,(Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [FWC]) and August 8,2013, (FloridaDepartment of Agriculture and Consumer Services [FDACSJ) project proposals, telephone

TAKE PRIDE~jINAM ERICA~,.<

To: Mike Piccirilli, Chief, Federal Aid, Southeast Regional Office

Lany Williams, Field Supervisor, South Florida Ecological Services (~&~t~~

Florida bonneted bat (Eumopsfioridanus)Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperi)Bartram ‘5 scrub-hairstreak butterfly (Strymon ads bartrami)Florida leafwing butterfly (Anaea troglodytafloridalis)Crenulate lead-plant (Amorpha crenulata)Blodgett’ s silverbush (Argythamnia blodgettil)Florida brickell-bush (Brickellia mosieri)Deltoid spurge (Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea)Pineland sandmat (Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetoruni)Garber’s spurge (Chamaesyce garberi)Florida prairie-clover (Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana)Florida pineland crabgrass (Digitaria pauc~ora)Small’s milkpea (Galactia smalili)Sand flax (Linum arenicola)Carter’s small-flowered flax (Linum carterj var. carteri)Tiny polygala (Polygala smallil)Everglades bully (Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense)Florida bristle fern (Trichomanes punctatum ssp.floridanum)

endangeredthreatenedproposed endangeredproposed endangeredendangeredcandidateproposed endangeredendangeredcandidatethreatenedcandidatecandidateendangeredcandidateproposed endangeredendangeredcandidatecandidate

conversations, data on the biology and ecology of threatened and endangered species in theaction area, previous biological opinions prepared for similar actions in the action area, the SouthFlorida Multi-Species Recovery Plan (MSRP) (Service 1999), and other published andunpublished sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is onfile in the South Florida Ecological Services Office (SFESO).

The analysis carried out by the SFESO concluded the funding was “not likely to adversely affect”the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly and Florida leafwing butterfly on the FDACS projectwhere these subspecies do not occur in the project area, but may “adversely affect” thesetwo subspecies on the FWC project where they may occur in the project area. Both projects may“adversely affect” other listed and candidate species.

Consultation History

On April 2, 2013, the SFESO received a request from the Service’s Jacksonville Field Office toreview a March 6, 2013, Biological Evaluation for financial support from FWC through theSoutheast Regional Office’s Federal Aid Program to conduct prescribed burns on varousproperties in pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Between April and August2013, electronic mail communication and telephone conversations occurred to discuss the detailsof the project.

On August 1, 2013, the SFESO received an informal request from FDACS to review a proposalfor financial support from FDACS through the Southeast Regional Office’s Federal Aid Programto conduct prescribed burns and habitat management on one property in pine rockland habitat inMiami-Dade County, Florida. They submitted an August 8, 2013, Biological Evaluation forreview. In August, electronic mail communication and telephone conversations occurred todiscuss the details of the project.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action is to fund two projects through section 6 grants to restore and manage pinerockland habitat on county lands in Miami-Dade County, Florida, with the objective ofincreasing conservation benefits to federally listed and candidate species. Given the highlyfragmented status of these sites, the implementation of this program is critical to recovering thisglobally imperiled ecosystem and the species that are dependent on this habitat.

Pine rockland forest once covered 185,000 acres (ac) of Miami-Dade County. By 1996, urban andagricultural development had reduced the extent of pine rocklands by 98 percent outside ofEverglades National Park (ENP) (Figure 1). Presently the county manages 34 pine rockland standstotaling 1,695 ac (Figure 2). These stands range in size from 4 to 550 ac. Natural fire plays a vitalrole in pine rockland ecology. Pine rockland species have adapted to periodic fires, and many plantand wildlife species are dependent on fire for their survival. The two projects are described below.

2

1. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Project:_The proposed action forthe FWC project is to provide funding to: a) purchase equipment in order toimplement a more efficient prescribed fire program in pine rockland habitat andb) conduct prescribed burns in Miami-Dade County on the Navy Wells PinelandPreserves (minimum of 250 ac) and at least 300 additional ac within as many otherpine rockland preserves as possible within the 2-year grant period. Some of the otherpreserves include Richmond (550 ac), Nixon Smiley (112 ac), Deering (104 ac), andCamp Owaissa Bauer (64 ac). The total acreage of these preserves is approximately1,695 ac, nearly 70 percent of all the public pine rockland managed in Miami-DadeCounty (Figure 2).

Florida’s State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) identifies “incompatible fire” as a majorthreat to conservation of pine rocklands. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative (FWLI)revised their implementation goals to align with priorities outlined in the 2012 SWAP(FWC 2012). This project will help meet an objective outlined in the Tentstrial Goalby increasing the use of fire as a management tool to suppoit upland habitat conservationthat benefits Florida’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) (FWLIwebsite). Pine rockland is identified as having a very high threat status (2012 SWAP)as well as a priority fire-dependent upland habitat for the FWLI Terrestrial Goal.Approximately 50 SGCN use Miami-Dade Pine Rocklands (2012 SWAP), includingnumerous endemic as well as Federal and State listed plants and wildlife that arebeing threatened by an altered fire regime.

The fire regime of pine rocklands has been altered in Miami-Dade County’s preservesby fragmentation due to agricultural and urban development. Pine rocklands have anaturally short fire return interval (3-7 years); however, fire records show that only 8 of34 preserves examined have burned on even a 10-year cycle. The remaining siteshave only had intermittent fire, usually dry season wildfires. The result of thisincompatible fire regime is change in the understory structure from open andfloristically diverse to a closed sub-canopy dominated by native and exotichardwoods. The SGCN in pine rocklands depend upon a habitat structure andcomposition that can only be maintained by fire. Prescribed burning is an essentialtool in the conservation of the imperiled plant community and the rare species thatinhabit pine rocklands. The purpose of this project is to restore a more natural firecycle in pine rocklands by increasing the number of acres burned on an annual basis.

This proposed project focuses on the FWLI goal to increase prescribed fire as amanagement tool in pine rocklands. Since 1995, only 1,950 ac of pine rockland haveburned by wildfire and prescribed fire in Miami-Dade County preserves. Overall, thatfigure amounts to a 20-year regime for pine rocklands in the County. Annually, thenumber of acres burned by prescribed fire is variable, ranging from 0 to 186 ac.Prescribed burns are difficult to schedule because of the variables involved.Equipment purchases will include the acquisition of portable irrigation pumps,portable water pumps, water tanks and other equipment that will improve theefficiency of prescribed fire mop-up operations. The irrigation pumps can be

3 -

connected to a hydrant, water truck, or draft from a water body. They can bepositioned to initiate mop up immediately following the flaming front and can berepositioned to get higher volumes of water on stubborn residual smoking areas. Onekey challenge to conducting prescribed burns in urban areas is taking advantage ofoptimal burning conditions. When ideal weather conditions arrive, fire managersmust be ready to take advantage of them. Burning several times a week is currentlynot an option because mop-up is labor intensive and can sometimes take several daysto complete after a burn with entirely manual labor. Performing 100 percent mop-upis critical and required in urban areas because residual smoke can cause numerousproblems to the public. The time spent diverting staff and equipment resources tomop-up operations is time that cannot be spent conducting additional burns.

Over the last 5 years, on average, the agency has only been able to prescribe burn 38 acper year. Reducing the manpower on mop-up will allow for more manpowerresources to be used for additional prescribed burns. This equipment will allow theagency to take full advantage of prescribed burning “windows” and burn moreacreage. The purchase of this equipment is expected to increase the acreage burned tomore than 200 ac in addition to the Navy Wells burn of 350 ac during the grantperiod. With the addition of this equipment, the agency expects to continue burningat least 200 ac per year. Burning more frequently will improve the structure of pinerocklands and benefit the SGCN. The equipment purchased with this grant will onlybe used for mop-up operation on Miami-Dade Preserves. Any equipment over$1,000 will be included in the County’s annual capital inventory reports withdocumentation of all property provided to FWC.

Prescribed burning in Miami-Dade County is a collaborative effort between theFlorida Forest Service (FF5), the National Park Service (NPS), and Miami-DadeCounty (Parks, Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program, and Fire Rescue.Prescribed burning activities are conducted in accordance with applicable State andFederal operational guidelines. Partners will work to increase the frequency ofprescribed fire on public lands in Miami-Dade County to sustain the pine rocklandcommunity. Supervision, staff, and equipment resources will be made available by allagencies involved. FFS coordinates prescribed burning of the preserves and willprepare the burn unit prescriptions and provide a certified burner that will act as burnboss. On the day of a burn, FFS will obtain internal approval from the District Officein Ft. Lauderdale, not requiring a permit. Neighboring landowners will be providedthe required notification by the Parks Department. FF5, NPS, Miami-Dade Parks,EEL, and Fire Rescue will provide ignition, holding, monitoring, and mop-up crewsand equipment. Partners will work to increase the frequency of prescribed fire onpublic lands in Miami-Dade County to sustain the pine rockland community.

Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden (FTBG) is monitoring populations of rare plantsand the host plant for the proposed endangered butterflies under an agreement withMiami-Dade County Parks and Miami-Dade County Department of EnvironmentalResource Management (DERM). Plants with larval butterfly activity will be excluded

4

from the burn with wet lines. Burning will be conducted in a way that will minimizetrampling of individual rare/host plants and damage from vehicles to roadsidepopulations. Staff will be trained to identify and avoid listed and candidate plantspecies during activities and will avoid placement of fire breaks through patches ofthese plants. Burning will not be conducted during cool seasons where the indigosnake may not be able to escape oncoming fire. Equipment operators will be briefedto avoid gopher tortoise burrows and will allow any snakes that they see during theburn to move away before they continue.

Miami-Dade Parks has tracked the labor expenses for past prescribed burningactivities. Each preserve is given an annual management budget broken down by task(e.g., exotic plant control, fire management, etc.). Daily labor charges for each taskare input under a site-specific work order number, so staff will be able to monitor thelabor expenses for burns conducted with the equipment purchased under this grant.These figures will be compared with pre-grant expenses and will be provided to FWCin a project summary report.

2. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Project: This proposedproject also seeks to develop and implement a restoration program for imperiled pinerockland habitat within Miami-Dade County. The proposed plan will involve theformation of multiple partnerships in an effort to reverse and repair the successionalloss of pine rockland due to historic lack of management resources.

Seminole Wayside Park (SWP) is in Miami-Dade County, Florida (Figure 3).Acquired in 1936, the SWP is one of the County’s oldest parks and still has remnantsof a coral rock wall along the eastern edge, which was constructed by PresidentFranklin Delano Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration. The SWP consists of a27-acre nature preserv~ with pine rockland and transitional rockland hammock plantcommunities. The remaining portion serves as a wayside park with picnic tables.The park is bound by residential communities or commercial development on all sideswith the exception of a 5-acre pine rockland parcel in the southwest corner, whichwas recently acquired for conservation through Dade County’s EEL program.

The natural areas of SWP occur on the Miami Rock Ridge, which is an ancientnatural geologic formation that extends from just north of present-day downtownMiami into ENP. These unique communities are designated as critically globallyimperiled and are home to many endemic and protected plant species (Gann et al.2002). At the SWP, surveys conducted by FTBG have documented 27 rare plantspecies, including federally endangered Small’s milkpea, as well as, the Federalcandidate species pineland sandmat and the proposed endangered Florida brickellbush. Of the 27 protected plant species documented within SWP, 9 species areendemic, occurring only in the pine rocklands of southeast Florida. Pine rocklandsalso support a number of rare animal species; however, due to lack of resources andregular monitoring, wildlife occurrence within SWP remains unknown. Outside ofENP, the remaining pine rockland habitat within Miami-Dade is made up of hundreds

5

of small fragments, of which the average size is only 12.1 ac (DERM 1995). At 27 ac,the SWP represents a significantly sized pine rockland and is over 1 percent of theremaining pine rocklands in the county. Similar to pine rockland habitats, rocklandhammocks are also designated globally imperiled, and once occupied approximately7 percent of the rock ridge; only 670 ac remain in County preserves (Service 1999).

Pine rocklands and associated protected plant species are fire dependent, with ahistorical fire return interval of 2 to 7 years. The lack of fire within the SWP hasresulted in the progressive loss of pine rockland habitat as it transitions to rocklandhammock or becomes severely impacted by exotic hardwood encroachment. It iscrucial that a historic fire regime be returned to SWP in order to maintain the balancebetween the pine rockland and rockland hammock communities.

In recent years, an effort has been made to increase controlled burning within SWP.Given the proximity to residential communities and lack of consistent resources, thefire regime has not been optimal, which has resulted in hardwood encroachment andwildfires. These wildfires not only threaten the imperiled rockland habitat due tohigher intensity, they also threaten adjacent residential communities and erodecommunity support for the preserve.

A “burn box” was built by Natural Areas Management (NAM) Division of Miami-Dade Parks staff several years ago; however, due to lack of staff time, the box has notbeen utilized. The burn box allows for contained fire of a small area, which closelysimulates the intensity of a regular prescribed burn. When feasible, the burn box willbe used to apply a contained burn to listed plant species. This will essentiallyestablish a black line around the plant that will assist in buffering listed plant speciesfrom extreme temperatures during prescribe burn activities. This contraption allows acontained (enclosed) burn that can closely mimic the natural fire regime and mayprovide a valuable management technique for promoting reproductive cycles ofprotected plants that are fire dependent. This box has great potential for implementingfire management in an urban setting, as well as a potential research project exploring theeffects and benefits of fire on some of the fire-dependent rockland plants.

Proper management of pine rocklands will require long-term goals for restoration;therefore, funding for this program is requested for a minimum period of 3 years.During this time the agency has committed to continuing efforts to procure additionalfunding beyond the term of this agreement. This will maximize benefits derived from theproposed project through on-going monitoring, education, and community outreach andpromote continued maintenance of the SWP, as well as, the protected species it supports.

Invasive exotic plants are also an issue in nearly all remaining pine rocklands, whichis largely due to fire suppression and proximity to development. Management ofinvasive plants within SWP has been sporadic due to lack of resources and has beenmainly confined to management units 1, 2, and 3. NAM began controlling invasive,exotic plants in SWP in 1995, with funding from a State Hurricane Andrew Recovery

6

grant and the Safe Neighborhoods Program. This funding was spread over dozens ofthe County’s nature preserves and was, therefore, very limited. Unfortunately, by2004 funding was exhausted and became non-existent for SWP until the recentacquisition of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in late 2012.

NAM’s management priority at SWP has always been to control exotic species in thepine rockland, and to attempt to keep hardwoods from invading and causing furthersuccession of the hammock. NAM was able to conduct native hardwood reductiononce, in 2006, following a wildfire. The pineland within the central portion of thepark is in relatively good condition today, but is in need of annual maintenance tocontrol persistent exotic invasive species. Given the main priority was to maintain theexisting condition of the pine rockland, there has been relatively little managementwithin the rockland hammock units, while the exotics-dominated areas of SWP havereceived no treatment. These areas will require a much more intensive restorationeffort, including extensive exotic vegetation control, and likely supplemental plantingof native species.

During the first half of 2013, the CDBG will allow NAM to address a few of theseissues for the first time in over 6 years. Current plans for the CDBG funds willinclude opening up interior firebreaks, maintenance of exotic and native hardwoodswithin the central loop, maintenance of the recreational trail, and installation ofinterpretive signs.

Passive observations during site visits have documented many of the listed plantspecies within SWP, including the federally listed Small’s milkpea. However, aformal plant inventory has not taken place in over 13 years. As a result, specieslocations, distribution, and population details are currently unknown. In order todetermine the health of the rockland communities and protected species, it is vital thata standardized monitoring program is implemented within SWP.

The environment created by the exotic and hardwood encroachment, as well as firesuppression, has provided cover that has resulted in the site being the recipient ofextensive dumping and the occasional homeless inhabitant. Recently, there has alsobeen a rash of vandalism in the form of explosive contraptions, which have been usedto fell slash pines within the pine rockland habitat. It is widely believed that regularmanagement of the site and removal of exotic and hardwood cover would result in adecrease or elimination of these issues. The agency’s vision is to develop acomprehensive management program for SWP, which would restore the natural areaswithin the park and become a source of community pride.

In 2011, NAM began discussions with Johnson Engineering, Inc. (JET), regardingpotential adoption of one of the County’s preserves. In March of 2012, JEI agreed toadopt SWP. The terms and development of the Adopt-a-Park Agreement were delayeddue to limited resources stretching NAM’s staff thin. JEI has been working with NAM todraft the agreement.

7

The CBDG Program has allowed the SWP restoration efforts to move forward; however,the program funds must be utilized by September 2013. The agency is seeking tocontinue the momentum of the restoration efforts from the CBDG funds, and to leveragethe services JEI has committed to donate, as in-kind contributions for the FFS’s FloridaStatewide Endangered & Threatened Plant Conservation Program. This Program wouldallow expansion of restoration efforts by developing and implementing a more comprehensiverestoration plan for this imperiled habitat. The additional funding would facilitate moreambitious and intensive goals for restoring the highly degraded portions of the park,including supplemental planting, implementing long-term monitoring, and an education!outreach program. These efforts would allow documentation of restoration success andestablish a case study for implementing rockland restoration projects in an urban setting.

The proposed project will develop and implement a management plan for the purpose ofrestoring, enhancing and protecting the pine rockland habitat within the SWP. The mainobjectives of the proposed project are to: a) develop and implement a management plan;b) inventory and monitor species and ecosystem health within the SWP; c) restore andenhance habitats towards historic conditions; d) Involve and educate the public andsurrounding community, and; e) continue funding opportunities. The following is adetailed description of activities that will be implemented to meet these objectives.

Objective #1 - Develop and Implement a Management Plan for the Seminole Wayside Park

Activity 1.1— Develop a Plan

The proposed project will develop a management plan for SWP. This plan will include ahistory of the Park, current threats and problems, recommended management practices andinvasive plant control, as well as a list of management goals, objectives, and actions. Thisplan will be reviewed on an annual basis dur ng the 3-year span of this grant to assesswhether management activities are meeting the goals and objectives. This activity will alsoinclude the development of a Prescribed Burn Plan, which will include recommendedcontrolled burn regimes, firing techniques, etc., as well as, potential solutions forconducting prescribed burn activities within heavily populated urban areas. The burn planwill not be implemented until Year 2 of the grant.

Activity 1.2 — Implement the Plan

Following the development of a plan, JET will work collaboratively with NAM toimplement the management plan. Specific activities, approaches, and timeline will beoutlined to assist in a smooth implementation of the plan.

Objective #2 — Inventory and Ecosystem Monitoring

On-going monitoring will be an essential component of the management plan in order to determinethe success of restoration efforts, as well as, guide management decisions based on ecosystemresponse. During the first year of the grant, a monitoring methodology will be identified that willallow documentation of the success of a pine rockland restoration within an urban setting. Theinformation derived from a standardized monitoring program will provide valuable benefits and

8

insight for future restoration activities within similar settings. Monitoring efforts will be conductedthrough a cooperative effort with a qualified botanist from FTBG.

Activity 2.1 — Baseline and Annual Rare Plant Inventory and Monitoring

As part of establishing a baseline condition within SWP, a sub-meter GPS unit (TrimbleGeoXT) will be used to delineate the precise boundaries of the hardwood lines andmanagement units. The baseline will allow us to set goals and document success of therestoration efforts. Additionally, a comprehensive inventory of rare plant species within theSWP will be conducted. The initial inventory methodology will be conducted inaccordance with the standardized guidelines issued by the Service for conducting rare plantsurveys (Service 1996). These intensive systematic surveys will involve establishing andwalking transects at 5- to 10-meter (m) intervals, parallel to each other across the extent ofthe natural areas within SWP. Rare and protected species documented during surveys willbe located utilizing the Trimble GeoXT; plants will be photographed, and genus and specieswill be recorded, as well as, estimated number of individuals, height, area of coverage,phenology of plant (vegetative, dormant, flowering, fruiting, etc.). A rare plant inventoryand monitoring of documented listed species will occur on an annual basis.

All data collected during monitoring events will be incorporated into a GeographicInformation System (GIS) Geodatabase (North American Datum [NAD] 1983 State PlaneEast Projection) and Microsoft Access database to facilitate long-term monitoring of thesite. The monitoring Microsoft Access database is a tallored tool that has been developedby JEI; this database includes scripting within the pre-formatted reports, which allowsinstant analysis of monitoring data. This tool will be made available to the Service.

Activity 2.2 — Qualitative Monitoring

Qualitative monitoring will occur on a semi-annual basis. Qualitative monitor ng will consistof pedestrian surveys throughout the SWP as part of the Early Detection Rapid Response forinvasive species detection. This monitoring will also include casual observations anddocumentation of general health of documented protected species, invasive speciesoccurrence, and new occurrences of listed and candidate species. Qualitative monitoring willalso include pre- and post-burn assessments to evaluate fire effects and determine whetherobjectives set in the prescription were met. Finally, photographic documentation will be takenduring each of the qualitative monitoring events. A minimum of six photo stations will beestablished and 360° panoramic photos will be taken during each qualitative monitoringsession. Photographic documentation will allow monitoring of vegetative structure (canopyand subcanopy), density, and diversity (Mojica et al. 2005). All monitoring data will beincorporated into the GIS geodatabase and Microsoft Access database.

Objective #3 — Restore and Enhance Natural Area Habitats

Restoring and enhancing the natural areas within SWP will include a variety of managementtechniques. When possible, alternative methods of removing exotic invasive and hardwoodvegetation will be utilized, such as mechanical and manual removal. However, chemicals may alsobe used. There are several species of invasive plants on site, ranging from herbaceous to vines to

9

hardwood. This demands several herbicide application techniques using different mixtures ofglyphosate, triclopyr amine and ester, imazapyr, and the surfactants and carriers of those herbicides.This treatment has very little non-target mortality to the surrounding vegetation because of thesmall area on the woody plant that is sprayed. All felled hardwoods will be removed off-site andnative trees may be chipped and used as mulch to define trails. However, rare plants at the bases ofwoody species may be susceptible to non-target spray during herbicide application.

A foliar spraying technique will also occur, mostly to herbaceous and small invasive, exotic woodyplant species. Applicators will spray at least 90 percent of their target plants with a low (<5 percent)mixture of either a glyphosate/sticker (e.g., Rodeo©fKinetic©) or triclopyr amine/sticker (e.g.,Element 3A©IKinetic©) in a water carrier. Herbicide application will occur on foot and by usingmotorized vehicles.

Herbicide treatments will be conducted only by staff trained to identify and target invasives andlisted plant species in the area in which they are working. Prior to beginning work, rare plant andanimal sensitive areas will be flagged and applicators will be briefed on the spatial occurrence oflisted and candidate plants in the area to be treated. No large-scale foliar applications of herbicidewill be applied and use of pre-emergent herbicides will be minimized or not used. Efforts will bemade to use the least toxic mixture of herbicide when spraying foliar applications to non-desirableplants. Mixing of chemicals should occur off-site to the greatest extent practicable. To reduce thechance of spray drift, backpack sprayer applications will not be conducted when wind speeds or gustsare greater than 5 miles per hour (mph). Droplet size will be large, sprayers will be operated withminimal pressure, and nozzles will be adjustable and kept as low to the ground as possible. Cut stumpapplications will not be conducted when rain is forecast in the treatment area within 24 hours.

Activity 3.1 — Maintain Condition of Higher Quality Pine Rockland

Conduct annual maintenance of invasive plants within Management Units 1 and 3,including treating invading wild tamarind and undesirable hardwoods.

Activity 3.2 — Enhance Condition of Lower Quality Pine Rockland

Conduct at a minimum one maintenance event per year of invasive plants withinManagement Units 2, 4, and 5. Maintenance will also include native hardwood removalwithin pine rocklands to reverse encroachment and shading of protected herbaceous species.

Activity 3.3— Enhance Condition of Rockland Hammock

Conduct annual maintenance of invasive plants within Management Unit 6. Initiate invasiveplant removal within Management Unit 7, and conduct, at a minimum, one maintenance eventper year within this unit. Conduct selective removal of native hardwoods and problematicunderstory to maintain habitat and prevent further transition or succession of hammock. It isimportant to maintain existing hammock-pineland ecotones in SWP that serve to increasehumidity, reduce wind, and provide habitat for edge and gap species.

Activity 3.4 — Restore Disturbed Habitats

Develop and implement a restoration plan for exotic dominated Management Unit 8. Thisunit will require a more intensive plan that will involve supplemental planting of native

10

species and, if possible, planting of protected species. In addition to the known federallylisted and candidate species within SWP, there are several federally protected plant species,which are endemic to Miami-Dade rocklands that currently do not occur within SWP. Oncerestored, SWP could serve as a potential site to reintroduce and establish new populations ofthese species.

Activity 3.5 — Establish Appropriate Fire Regime and Conduct Controlled Burning

An appropriate prescribed fire program will be identified which will attempt to mimic amore natural and historic fire regime for this habitat. In general, fire will be implemented insmall patches or units at a 2- to 5-year interval based on habitat type. Timing of prescribedbum and fire return intervals may vary, based on bum objectives and research goals.Prescribed bum activities will begin in the second year of the grant.

Objective #4— Community Outreach, Education, and Involvement

The SWP provides the perfect opportunity to promote public awareness of this unique habitat andrestoration efforts due to its central location within a residential community and proximity to U.S.Highway 1. Additionally, the existing wayside/picnic area invites visitors to frequent the park,while interpretive signs will provide an educational opportunity. Community outreach andeducation is a vital component of the project and will attempt to build support not only for thisrockland, but also for all rocklands. This is a crucial step in the future preservation of this globallyimperiled habitat, particularly considering such a significant portion of the remaining rocklandhabitats occur in urban settings. It is hoped that this study will serve as a pilot project that cangenerate support for the implementation of similar projects in the future.

Activity 4.1 — Community Events and Volunteer Workdays

At least two community events and/or volunteer workdays will be conducted on an annualbasis. Volunteer workdays will be a TEl-sponsored event open to the public to clean up trash,maintain existing trails, etc. Community events may involve interpretive nature walks throughthe park, which will focus on the uniqueness of this habitat, endemic and protected species,predicted future of the rocklands, and the importance of restoration and management.

Activity 4.2 — Increase Surrounding Community Support

A significant portion of outreach efforts will be focused on developing support for thispreserve. This will include development of educational literature that can be distributedthroughout the adjacent communities. This may also include the formation of acommunity-monitoring group who can routinely patrol the preserve for trash, homelessinhabitants, and other problematic issues.

Activity 4.3 — Coordinate with Educational/Research Institution

In Year 2 of the grant, the agency will seek to establish a partnership with a local universityor non-profit organization to promote a research project revolving around the restoration

11

efforts. One potential opportunity for research may involve the “burn box” which wascreated by NAM. This contraption framed with four sides made of sheet metal and no topor bottom allows a contained (enclosed) burn that can closely mimic the natural fire regimeand may provide a valuable management technique for promoting reproductive cycles ofprotected plants that are fire-dependent. This also has the potential to provide a valuabletool for mimicking burns in a setting where proximity to roads or communities wouldprohibit such activities. Other research objectives could include a comparison of the plantcommunity and individual species response to burns conducted with the burn box and largercontrolled burns conducted in an open setting.

Objective#5 — Continue and Expand Future Management and Outreach Efforts

The agency is committed to the on-going success of the management ai~d outreach program thatwill be established through the proposed Seminole Wayside restoration program. They willcontinue to seek additional funding and identify ways they can enhance and expand the currentinitiatives. Documentation of these efforts will be included in report requirements for the FFSEndangered & Threatened Plant Conservation Program.

The proposed project will produce the following deliverables:

• Seminole Wayside Park Management Plan;• Restoration and enhancement of approximately 27 ac of imperiled habitat;• A minimum of 80 ac of invasive removal, cumulative over 3 years;• Approximately 27 ac of prescribed burning, cumulative over 2 years;• Over 3 ac of planting including establishing and expanding protected species with a

preference for re-planting federally endangered species, if possible;• A minimum of 5 community outreach events, cumulative over 3 years;• Address over a dozen “Species-level Recovery Actions” identified for the federally

endangered Small’s milkpea;• Produce a case study or pilot project to guide and support future restoration activities and

build community support within urban settings;• Educational material;• Potential research project revolving around the restoration;• Updated plant inventory including population details for listed species;• ArcGIS Geodatabase;• Monitoring Access Database;• Annual monitoring and management report;• Final report on restoration success, community outreach success and future

recommendations.

All controlled burns for this project shall be conducted in compliance with Florida StatutesChapter 590.125(3) “Certified Prescribed Burning,” Florida Administrative Code Chapter 51-2,and any other applicable statutes and rules. All fires shall be conducted by FFS, or by a CertifiedPrescribed Burn Manager whose burn record will permit him/her to secure burn authorizationsfrom the FFS. Every effort will be made to include State or federally protected plant species in

12

the supplemental planting and potential research projects utilizing existing permits throughFTBG or through obtaining new permits. State or federally listed species will not be harvested orrelocated without procuring the appropriate author zation and/or perniit from corresponding agencies.

Prescribed burning activities will include moving vehicles through the site, plowingperimeter/interior fire suppression lines, mowing fuels such as shrubs and grasses alongfirebreaks, site preparation, ignition techniques/applying fire, and mop-up activities. Equipmentused for preparation of firebreaks will be outfitted rubber-tired vehicles and efforts will be madeto reduce rutting and compaction of the soil. Efforts will be made to apply fire within theappropriate fire return interval and season of fire outlined by Florida Natural Areas Inventory’s(FNAI) Natural Community Guide and reduce heavy fuels that contribute to excessively hotprescribed fire that can destroy the seed bank.

A thorough survey for rare plants and animals is planned and all existing rare plant and animalareas will be mapped and flagged. All documented listed and rare species will be conspicuouslymarked and a 5-foot (ft) buffer will be established. Only qualified individuals will be allowed toconduct any restoration activities within this buffer. This baseline survey and preventative buffer areexpected to minimize and/or avoid potential activity impacts to listed species. Efforts will be made tominimize the effect of trampling and vehicle use on rare plants or in rare animal sensitive areas.

Staff and volunteers will be trained to identify and avoid listed and candidate plant and animalspecies prior to activities to help them refrain from cutting or clearing rare plants and animalburrows or nesting areas, and help them avoid trampling rare plants or moving vehicles onto rareplants and animals. Personnel will avoid placement of fire breaks through patches of listedplants. Heavy fuels will be removed from around individual plants and nearby, desirable pinetrees, prior to prescribed burning.

Rare plants and animals will be surveyed prior to herbicide application so a strategy can be madeas to prepare the site for spraying and to identify sensitive areas. Rare plant populations will bemarked and extreme caution will be used when treating invasive plants near them. If possible,hand pulling of invasive plants will be done to reduce non-target damage from herbicides tosensitive areas. Only qualified individuals familiar with conducting treatments in pine rocklandsand qualified ecologists will conduct invasive treatments. Additional training or “refreshertailgate meetings” with staff to ensure identification of rare plants and animals prior to applyingherbicides will further minimize potential impacts to listed species.

The cut-stump treatment technique will utilize a horizontal cut to minimize chemical runoff fromthe stump. Tree removal off-site will occur along defined trails or from access points along thewayside portion of the park or urban interface. Where appropriate, preference will be given foruse of glyphosate, which becomes inactive in soil. When herbicides such as imazapyr are used,preference will be given to aqueous solutions, which have increased susceptibility tophotodegradation and a half-life of two days.

As per The Institute for Regional Conservation’s (IRC) Floristic Inventory of South FloridaDatabase and FNAI’s Florida Invasive Plant database, there is a diverse exotic plant species

13

assemblage on SWP including herbaceous and woody species. These plants have been treated inthe past and in recent years, and include herbaceous plants (e.g., guineagrass [Panicummaximum], natal grass [Melinis i-epens], Burma reed [Neyraudia reynaudiana], Chinese brake[Pteris vittata], etc.), vines/lianas (e.g., Jasminuin spp.), shrubs (e.g., lantana [Lantana camara],Brazilian pepper-tree [Schinus terebinthifolius], etc.), and trees (earleaf acacia [Acaciaauriculifonnis], woman’s tongue ~Albizia lebbeck], queen palm [Syagrus romanzo.ffiana], etc.).

Having many species of invasive, exotic target species can pose a problem because of confusionwith the diverse native species assemblage there. This will be mitigated in this project bykeeping staff on site that can conclusively identify species or have been trained to identify themprior to herbicide application, and/or by establishing an effective system for marking listedspecies that reduces confusion. Herbicide applicators will include the county’s NAM staff, whohave extensive experience working in pine rocklands. Additionally, any contractual herbicideapplicators will include contractors with prior pine rockland experience.

There will be no large-scale, broadcast, foliar treatments of invasive, exotic plants such as byhelicopter or tractor boom-sprayers. Applications will be done by hand application, with abackpack sprayer or motorized pump hand sprayer, which will allow the applicator to discernareas with or without target plants and accurately apply herbicide. All sprayers will haveadjustable nozzles to permit the applicators to adjust spray volume to reduce non-target sprayingas the result of variable winds, changes of herbicide-type, and infestation level. Foliar sprayingwill not be conducted if winds are over 5 mph.

if motorized vehicles will be used to move applicators and herbicide around, extreme cautionwill be used to not drive over rare plants and animals, or burrows or other components of thispine rockland/rockland hammock habitat necessary for rare animal survival.

To reduce toxicity of herbicide that the Florida bonneted bat, indigo snake, and gopher tortoisemay consume as they eat prey that was sprayed with herbicide or eat plants that were sprayed,efforts will be made to use herbicides that are labeled for aquatic use. For example, Rodeo©glyphosate and Kinetic© surfactant will be used rather than RoundUp©glyphosate and its moretoxic surfactant that is included in the product.

Efforts will be made to avoid impacts to all butterfly species. if listed butterfly species areobserved on the site during activities, personnel will take extreme care to avoid the species, andits host plant, pineland croton (Crown linearis). Prescribed burning should be conducted in amosaic with some areas of potential habitat left unburned. Crews will be briefed to not push oversnags, live trees, palm trees, or rocks that potentially provide habitat for Florida bonneted bats,except where necessary due to safety concerns.

The creation of fire lines and mowing on top of fire-adapted rare plants can help these deep-rooted plants by causing them to resprout, flower, and seed after being mowed or plowed over.Upon creation of a management plan for this site, mowing may be conducted before theprescribed fire on the interior of the selected burn units to help facilitate staff stringing fire withinor to help fires move through heavy fuels, such as invasive, exotic plant infestations or heavy,fire resistant oak (Quercus spp.) thickets.

14

When appropriate, heavy fuels such as downed, dead trees, or tall saw palmetto growth arounddesirable pine trees and rare plant and animal populations sites will be removed before theapplication of fire to protect them from deadly, excessively hot temperatures. When feasible, thecounty’s “burn box” will be utilized to apply a contained burn to listed plant species. This willessentially establish a blackline around the plant that will assist in buffering listed plant speciesfrom extreme temperatures during prescribe burn activities. Furthermore, every effort will be madeto conduct bum activities when conditions will be more conducive to lowering the intensity of the fire.

If fuels allow, prescribed burning will not be conducted during cool seasons where the indigosnake may not be able to escape oncoming fire. Equipment operators will be briefed to avoidgopher tortoise burrows and will allow any snakes that they see during the burn to pass beforethey continue. Fire crew members supported by this project will be trained to identify thespecies, learn about habitat needs that pertain to the health of the population, and learn aboutspecific management practices that will avoid detrimental impacts to individuals. Personnel willavoid running over individuals when operating vehicles during preparations for prescribed burns.Ring fires will not be used. Rescue attempts will be made if any encounter occurs withindividual indigo snakes, including ceasing ignition until the animal is deemed safe. Burns willbe conducted in mosaic patterns, providing areas of refuge for indigo snakes. The restorationactivities are expected to be beneficial to the eastern indigo snake. The Service’s StandardProtection Measures for the eastern indigo snake will be implemented.

No ring fires will be lit to ensure the survival of rare animals that may be within the ring. Effortswill be made to burn the area to its optimal ecological benefit, mimicking natural fire processesas much as possible. Prescribed fire will be targeted for a growing season burn, preferably in latespring before the summer rains. However, if there is sufficient advice given by experiencedprescribed burners, a winter burn(s) may be conducted to reduce fuels in preparation for futuregrowing season burns, which would be implemented at the appropriate fire return interval.

The action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal actionand not merely the immediate area involved in the action. The Service has determined the actionarea for this project is 1,695 ac of County-managed pine rocklands and degraded pine rocklandfragments located throughout Miami-Dade County, Florida.

STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT RANGEWIDE

Florida bonneted bat

The Florida bonneted bat is a federally endangered species. A complete discussion of the statusof this species, including the most current species assessment and the final rule to list the bat asendangered, may be found at: http:llecos.fws.gov/speciesPmfflelprofilelspeciesProfile.action?spcode=AOJB.

Species/critical habitat description

The Florida bonneted bat is a large, free-tailed bat approximately 130-165 millimeters (mm) (5.1-6.5 inches) in length (Timm and Genoways 2004), and it is the largest bat in Florida(NatureServe 2009). The body mass of the species averages 39.7 grams (g) (1.4 ounces [oz])with a range from 30.2 g (1.1 oz) to at least 55.4 g (2.0 oz) in pregnant females (Belwood 1981;

15

Beiwood 1992; Timm and Genoways 2004; NatureServe 2009). Timm and Genoways (2004)found that males and females are not significantly different in size, and there is no pattern ofsize-related geographic variation in this species. Fur is short and glossy with hairs sharplybicolored with a white base (Timm and Genoways 2004; NatureServe 2009). Color is highlyvariable from black to brown to brownish gray or cinnamon brown with ventral pelage paler thandorsal (Timm and Genoways 2004; NatureServe 2009). Leathery rounded ears are joined at themidline and project forward (NatureServe 2009). Relatively little is known of the ecology of theFlorida bonneted bat, and long-term habitat requirements are poorly understood (Robson 1989;Robson et al. 1989; Belwood 1992; Timm and Genoways 2004). Habitat for the Florida bonnetedbat mainly consists of foraging areas and roosting sites, including artificial structures. At present,no active, natural roost sites are known, and only limited information on historical sites is available.

Life history

Relatively little is known of the ecology of the Florida bonneted bat and long-term habitatrequirements are poorly understood (Robson 1989; Robson et al. 1989; Belwood 1992; Timmand Genoways 2004). Recent information on foraging habitat has been obtained largely throughacoustical surveys designed to detect and record bat echolocation calls (Marks and Marks 2008a).In general, open fresh water and wetlands provide prime foraging areas for bats (Marks andMarks 2008b). Bats will forage over ponds, streams, and wetlands and drink when flying overopen water (Marks and Marks 2008b). During dry seasons, bats become more dependent onremaining ponds, streams, and wetland areas for foraging purposes (Marks and Marks 2008b).The presence of roosting habitat is critical for day roosts, protection from predators, and therearing of young (Marks and Marks 2008b). For most bats, the availability of suitable roosts isan important limiting factor (Humphrey 1975). South Florida bats roost primarily in trees andmanmade structures (Marks and Marks 2008a).

Major habitat types where this species is known to occur include dry prairie, freshwater marsh,wet prairie, and pine flatwoods (Marks and Marks 2008a). They have been known to roost inbuildings, tree cavities, outcrops, and bat houses (Marks and Marks 2008a). The discovery of anadult for which the specimen tag says “found under rocks when bull-dozing ground” suggeststhis species may roost in rocky crevices and outcrops on the ground (Timm and Genoways 2004).It is not known to what extent such roost sites are suitable. Robson (1989) indicated Floridabonneted bats are closely associated with forested areas because of their tree-roosting habits.They roost singly or in groups of up to a few dozen individuals (NatureServe 2009). The Floridabonneted bat is not migratory (Timm and Genoways 2004; NatureServe 2009). However, theremay be seasonal shifts in roosting sites because Belwood (1992) reported bonneted bats werefound “during the winter months in people’s houses.”

Florida bonneted bats feed on flying insects (e.g., Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera) (Belwood1981; Belwood 1992; NatureServe 2009). They forage in open spaces and use echolocation todetect prey at relatively long range, roughly 3-5 m (10-16 ft) (Belwood 1992). Based uponinformation from G. T. Hubbell, Belwood (1992) indicates these bats leave their roosts to forageafter dark, seldom occur below 10 m (33 ft) in the air, and produce loud calls, audible to humans,as they fly. Precise foraging and roosting habits and requirements are not known (Belwood 1992).

16

Population dynamics

The Florida bonneted bat has a fairly extensive breeding season during summer months (Timmand Genoways 2004; NatureServe 2009). Pregnant females have been found in June throughSeptember (Marks and Marks 2008a). Timm and Genoways’ (2004) examination of limited datasuggests that this species may be polyestrous, with a second birthing season possibly in January -

February. However, the Florida bonneted bat has low fecundity, producing a litter size of one(NatureServe 2009).

There is only one record of natural predation upon this species (Timm and Genoways 2004). Askull of one specimen was found in a regurgitated owl pellet in June 2000 at the FakahatcheePreserve (Timm and Genoways 2004; Marks and Marks 2008a).

Status and distribution

The Florida bonneted bat is recognized in Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife ConservationStrategy as one of Florida’s species of greatest conservation need (FWC 2005). This species islisted as endangered by the FWC as the Florida mastiff bat (Eutnops glaucinusfioridanus) (i.e.,the previously-accepted taxonomic designation). The FNAI and NatureServe consider the globalstatus of the Florida bonneted bat to be Gi, critically imperiled (FNAI 2010; NatureServe 2009).The 2009 Thternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Specieslists Eumopsfloridanus as critically endangered because “its population size is estimated to numberfewer than 250 mature individuals, with no subpopulation greater than 50 individuals, and it isexperiencing a continuing decline” (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008). On November 9, 2009, theService added the Florida bonneted bat to the candidate species list. A final rule listing thespecies as endangered was published on October 2, 2013.

The Florida bonneted bat exists only in Florida (Timm and Genoways 2004; C. Marks and G.Marks, pers. comm. 2008). This species has one of the most restricted distributions of any batspecies in the New World (Belwood 1992; Timm and Genoways 2004) and its global range isestimated at < 100-250 square kilometers (km2~ (40-100 square miles [mi21) (NatureServe 2009).Its current range includes Charlotte, Collier, Lee, Miami-Dade, Okeechobee, and Polk Counties(Timm and Genoways 2004; NatureServe 2009; Marks and Marks 2008c). Surveys conducted inthe Kissimmee River area for the FWC recorded Florida bonneted bat calls at two locations(Marks and Marks 2008b; 2008c). The findings along the Kissimmee River are significant as itis the first time the species has been found north of Lake Okeechobee except in fossil records andeffectively moves the known range 80 km (50 mi) north (Marks and Marks 2008c).

Although older literature lists Fort Lauderdale as an area where the species occurred (Belwood1992), none of the recent specimens examined by Timm and Genoways (2004) were fromBroward County. However, Hipes et al. (2001) included Broward County as part of the range.Marks and Marks (2008a) did not record any Florida bonneted bat calls in the Fort Lauderdalearea; surveys were conducted in Long Key Park, Miramar Pinelands, and the Plantation area. Nocalls were recorded on the east coast of Florida north of Coral Gables (Marks and Marks 2008a).Overall, based upon all available historic and current surveys, the species exists within a veryrestricted range (Timm and Genoways 2004; Marks and Marks 2008a).

17

Results of 2006-2008 acoustical range-wide survey indicate that the Florida bonneted bat is a rarespecies with limited range and low abundance (Marks and Marks 2008a). Based upon theseresults and an additional survey of select public lands, the species has been found at 12 locations(Marks and Marks 2008c), but the number and status of the bat at each location is unknown. The2006-2008 acoustical range-wide survey recorded 5,016 calls; when these calls were lateranalyzed, it was determined that only 79 (1.6 percent) were from Florida bonneted bats (Marksand Marks 2008c). Marks and Marks (2008a) stated total population size may be less than a fewhundred individuals owing to the small number of locations where calls were recorded, the lownumbers of calls recorded at each location, and the fact that the species forms small colonies. Inhis independent review of the FWC’s biological status report, Ted Fleming, Emeritus Professorof biology at University of Miami, stated that the total State population numbers “in the hundredsor low thousands” (FWC 2011). Results of the 2010-2012 surveys and additional surveys byother researchers identified new occurrences within the established range (i.e., within Miamiarea, areas of ENP and BCNP) (S. Snow, pers. comm. 201 la, 201 Ib, 2012a-e; R. Arwood, pers.comm. 2012, 2013a, 2013b; Marks and Marks 2012), however, not in sufficient numbers to alterprevious population estimates.

Habitat loss and alteration in forested and urban areas are substantial threats to the Floridabonneted bat (Belwood 1992; NatureServe 2009). In natural areas, this species may be impactedwhen forests are converted to other uses or when old trees with cavities are removed (Belwood1992; NatureServe 2009). In urban settings, this species may be impacted when buildings withsuitable roosts are demolished (Robson 1989; NatureServe 2009) or when structures are modifiedto exclude bats. Small population size, restricted range, low fecundity, and few and isolatedoccurrences are considerable on-going threats. This species is also vulnerable to prolongedextreme cold weather events. The cold spell experienced in Florida in early 2010 may havecaused a decline in the Florida bonneted bat population. A colony in Lee County once includedapproximately 20 to 24 individuals in two houses (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2008a, 2008b), butonly 9 remained after the prolonged cold temperatures in early 2010 (5. Trokey, pers. comm.2010a, 2010b).

Eastern indigo snake

In addition to the assessment below, a 5 year review was completed in 2008 resulting in nochange to the species designation (Service 2008). No critical habitat has been designated for thisspecies. The 5 year review builds upon the detailed information in the MSRP for this species andis located at hti .//www.fws. ov/southeastl5 earReviews/5 earreviews/easternindiaofinal. df


The eastern indigo snake is the largest non venomous snake in North America, obtaining lengths ofup to 8.5 ft (2.6 m) (Moler 1992). Its color is uniformly lustrous-black, dorsally and ventrally,except for a red or cream-colored suffusion of the chin, throat, and sometimes the cheeks. Its scalesare large and smooth (the central 3 to 5 scale rows are lightly keeled in adult males) in 17 scalerows at mid-body. Its anal plate is undivided. In the Florida Keys, adult indigo snakes seem tohave less red on their faces or throats compared to most mainland specimens (Lazell 1989). Severalresearchers have informally suggested that Lower Keys indigo snakes may differ from mainlandsnakes in ways other than color. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.

18

Life history

In south-central Florida, limited information on the reproductive cycle suggests that eastern indigosnake breeding extends from June to January, egg laying occurs from April to July, ax~d hatchingoccurs from mid-summer to early fall (Layne and Steiner 1996). Young hatch approximately 3months after egg-laying and there is no evidence of parental care. Eastern indigo snakes in captivitytake 3 to 4 years to reach sexual maturity (Speake et al. 1987). Female eastern indigo snakes canstore sperm and delay fertilization of eggs. There is a single record of a captive eastern indigosnake laying five eggs (at least one of which was fertile) after being isolated for more than 4 years(Carson 1945). However, there have been several recent reports of parthogenetic reproduction byvirginal snakes. Hence, sperm storage may not have been involved in Carson’s (1945) example(Moler 1998). There is no information on the eastern indigo snake lifespan in the wild, althoughone captive individual lived 25 years, 11 months (Shaw 1959).

Eastern indigo snakes are active and spend a great deal of time foraging and searching for mates.They are one of the few snake species that are active during the day and rest at night. The easternindigo snake is a generalized predator and will eat any vertebrate small enough to beoverpowered. They swallow their prey alive. Food items include fish, frogs, toads, snakes(venomous, as well as non-venomous), lizards, turtles, turtle eggs, small alligators, birds, andsmall mammals (Keegan 1944; Babis 1949; Kochman 1978; Steiner et al. 1983).

Population dynamics

Eastern indigo snakes need a mosaic of habitats to complete their annual life cycle. Over most ofits range, the eastern indigo snake frequents several habitat types, including pine flatwoods,scrubby flatwoods, high pine, dry prairie, tropical hardwood hammocks, edges of freshwatermarshes, agricultural fields, coastal dunes, and human-altered habitats. Eastern indigo snakesalso use some agricultural lands (such as citrus) and various types of wetlands (Service 1999). Astudy in southern Georgia found that interspersion of tortoise-inhabited sandhills and wetlandsimprove habitat quality for the eastern indigo snake (Landers and Speake 1980; Service 2004).Eastern indigo snakes shelter in gopher tortoise burrows, hollowed root channels, hollow logs, orthe burrows of rodents, armadillos, or land crabs (Lawler 1977; Moler 1985a; Layne and Steiner1996). Throughout peninsular Florida, this species may be found in all terrestrial habitats whichhave not experienced high density urban development. They are especially common in the hydrichammocks throughout this region (Service 1999). In central and coastal Florida, eastern indigosnakes are mainly found within many of the State’s high, sandy ridges. In extreme south Florida(i.e., the Everglades and Florida Keys), eastern indigo snakes are found in tropical hardwoodhammocks, pine rocklands, freshwater marshes, abandoned agricultural land, coastal prairie,mangrove swamps, and human-altered habitats (Steiner et al. 1983; Service 1999). Undergroundrefugia used by this species include natural ground holes; hollows at the base of trees or shrubs;ground litter; trash piles; and in the crevices of rock-lined ditch walls (Layne and Steiner 1996).It is thought they prefer hammocks and pine forests since most observations occur there and useof these areas is disproportionate compared to the relatively small total area of these habitats(Steiner et al. 1983). Observations over the last 50 years made by maintenance workers in citrusgroves in east-central Florida indicate that eastern indigo snakes are occasionally observed on theground in the tree rows and more frequently near the canals, roads, and wet ditches (Zeigler

19

2006). In the sugar cane fields at the A-i Reservoir Project site in the Everglades AgricultureArea, eastern indigo snakes have been observed (including one mortality) during earthmovingand other construction-related activities.

Eastern indigo snakes range over large areas and use various habitats throughout the year, withmost activity occurring in the summer and fall (Smith 1987; Moler 1985a). Adult males havelarger home ranges than adult females and juveniles; their ranges average 554 ac, decreasing to390 ac in the summer (Moler l985b). In contrast, a gravid female may use from 3.5 to 106 ac (Smith1987). In Florida, home ranges for females and males range from 5 to 371 ac and 4 to 805 ac,respectively (Smith 2003). At ABS, average home range size for females was determined to be47 ac and overlapping male home ranges to be 185 ac (Layne and Steiner 1996).


The eastern indigo snake was listed as threatened on January 31, 1978 (43 FR 4028), due topopulation declines caused by habitat loss, over-collecting for the domestic and international pettrade, and mortality caused by rattlesnake collectors who gas gopher tortoise burrows to collectsnakes. The indigo snake (D,ymarchon corais) ranges from the southeastern United States tonorthern Argentina (Conant and Collins 1998). This species has eight recognized subspecies,two of which occur in the United States: the eastern indigo and the Texas indigo (D. c.erebennus). In the United States, the eastern indigo snake historically occurred throughoutFlorida and in the coastal plain of Georgia and has been recorded in Alabama and Mississippi(Diemer and Speake 1983; Moler 1985b). It may have occurred in southern South Carolina, butits occurrence there cannot be confirmed. Georgia and Florida currently support the remainingendemic populations of the eastern indigo snake (Lawler 1977). The eastern indigo snake occursthroughout most of Florida and is absent only from the Dry Tortugas and Marquesas Keys, andregions of north Florida where cold temperatures and deeper clay soils exist (Cox and Kautz2000).

Effective law enforcement has reduced pressure on the species from the pet trade. However,because of its relatively large home range, the eastern indigo snake is vulnerable to habitat loss,degradation, and fragmentation (Lawler 1977; Moler l985a). The primary threat to the easternindigo snake is habitat loss due to development and fragmentation. In the interface areasbetween urban and native habitats, residential housing is also a threat because it increases thelikelihood of snakes being killed by property owners and domestic pets. Extensive tracts ofundeveloped land are important for maintaining eastern indigo snakes. In citrus groves, easternindigo snake mortality occurs from vehicular traffic and management techniques such as pesticideusage, lawn mowers, and heavy equipment usage (Zeigler 2006). Within the 2000 to 2005timeframe, since the spread of citrus canker, Zeigler (2006) reported seeing at least 12 dead easternindigo snakes that were killed by heavy equipment operators in the act of clearing infected trees.

To protect and manage this species for recovery, Breininger et al. (2004) concluded that thegreatest eastern indigo snake conservation benefit would be accrued by conserving snakepopulations in the largest upland systems that connect to other large reserves while keeping edge

20

to area ratios low. Management of these lands should be directed towards maintaining andenhancing the diversity of plant and animal assemblages within these properties. Where thesegoals are achieved, eastern indigo snakes will directly benefit because of improved habitatconditions. Land managers should be encouraged to utilize fire as a tool to maintain biodiversityin fire-dependent ecosystems.

Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly


The Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly, endemic to southern Florida, is a small butterflyapproximately 25 mm (1 inch) in length with a forewing length of 10.0 to 12.5 mm (0.4 to 0.5 in)(Opler and Krizek 1984; Minno and Emmel 1993). Despite its rapid flight, this hairstreak iseasily observed if present at any density as it alights often, and the brilliance of its grey undersidemarked with bold, white postdiscal lines beneath both wings provides an instant flash of coloragainst the foliage of its host plant, pineland croton (Euphorbiaceae) (Smith et al. 1994; Salvato1999). The Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly does not exhibit sexual or seasonal dimorphism,but does show some sexual differences. The abdomen of the male is bright white, while femalesare gray (M. Minno, pers. comm. 2009).

The Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly is proposed as endangered for listing. Critical habitat isproposed for this subspecies. A complete discussion of the status of this species may be found atha s://ecos.fws. ov/s eciesProfile/ rofile/s eciesProfile.action?s code=107G.

Life history

The Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly is rarely encountered more than 5 m (16.4 ft) from itshost plant, the pineland croton (Schwartz 1987; Worth et al. 1996; Salvato and Salvato 2008).Females oviposit on the flowering racemes of pineland croton (Worth et al. 1996; Salvato andHennessey 2004). Eggs are laid singly on the developing flowers.

Population dynamics

The Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly has been observed during every month on Big Pine Keyand ENP; however the exact number of broods appears to be sporadic from year to year (Salvatoand Hennessey 2004; Salvato and Salvato 2010). Baggett (1982) indicated that the Bartram’sscrub-hairstreak butterfly seemed most abundant in October-December. Salvato and Salvato(2010) encountered the subspecies most often during March to June within ENP. Land (pers.comm. 2012) has noted the subspecies to be most abundant in the spring and summer months.One of the earliest reports of Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak phenology from Big Pine Key wasprovided by Schwartz (1987) who encountered the subspecies only during April, November andDecember, despite an extensive annual survey. Subsequent research by Hennessey and Habeck(1991), Emmel et al. (1995), and Minno and Minno (2009) reported occurrences of Bartram’ sscrub-hairstreak on Big Pine throughout the year with varying peaks in seasonal abundance.Salvato (1999) recorded 92 and 36 adult Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak on Big Pine Key during 1-weekperiods in July 1997 and January 1998, respectively, suggesting the species can occur in highnumbers during any season if suitable habitat and conditions are present. Since 2010 on Big Pine

21

Key, Anderson has found them most active when the average temperature is consistently near80°F which can occur at any time of year (Anderson, pers. comm. 2012).


The Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly is currently known to occur on Big Pine Key, in thelower Florida Keys (Monroe County), Long Pine Key within ENP (Miami-Dade County), as wellas Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and the various parcels that compose the Richmond PineRocklands in Miami-Dade County (Salvato and Hennessey 2004; Service 2011). The Bartram’sscrub-hairstreak is extirpated from the majority of its historic range in southern Florida, extantpopulations are threatened by loss or inconsistent fire management of pine rockland habitat,small population size, poaching, and pesticide applications.

Florida leafwing butterfly


The Florida leafwing butterfly is a medium-sized butterfly approximately 2.75 to 3.00 inches (in)(76 to 78 mm) in length with a forewing length of 1.3 to 1.5 in (34 to 38mm) and has anappearance characteristic of its genus (Opler and Krizek 1984; Minno and Emmel 1993). Theupper-wing surface color is red to red-brown, the underside is gray to tan, with a tapered outline,cryptically looking like a dead leaf when the butterfly is at rest. The Florida leafwing butterflyexhibits sexual dimorphism, with females being slightly larger and with darker coloring along thewing margins than the males.

The Florida leafwing butterfly is a proposed as endangered for listing. Critical habitat isproposed for this subspecies. A complete discussion of the status of this species may be found athttp://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=1087.

Life history

Adults are rapid, wary fliers. The subspecies is extremely territorial, with both sexes flying outto pursue other butterflies (Baggett 1982; Worth et al. 1996; Salvato and Hennessey 2003;Salvato and Salvato 2010a). Minno (pers. comm. 2009) and Salvato and Salvato (2010a) notethat males are generally more territorial. The Florida leafwing butterfly is multivoltine (i.e.,produces multiple generations per year), with an entire life cycle of about 60 days (Hennesseyand Habeck 1991) and maintains continuous broods throughout the year (Salvato 1999).Females lay eggs singly on both the upper and lower surface of the leaves of its host plant,pineland croton, normally on developing racemes (Baggett 1982; Hennessey and Habeck 1991;Worth et al. 1996; Salvato 1999).

Population dynamics

The Florida leafwing butterfly has been observed during every month within the Everglades andformerly on Big Pine Key; however the exact number of broods appears to be sporadic from yearto year (Baggett 1982; Opler and Krizek 1984; Minno and Emmel 1993; Salvato and Hennessey2003; Salvato and Salvato 2010a; 2OlOb). Salvato and Salvato (2OlOa) and Land (pers. comm.

22

2012) encountered the subspecies throughout the year, but the majority of observations occurredfrom late fall to spring in ENP. By contrast, when extant on Big Pine Key, Salvato and Salvato(2010c) reported finding the subspecies abundantly throughout the year, particularly during thesummer months.


The Florida leafwing butterfly is currently known to occur only within the Long Pine Key withinENP (Miami-Dade County). Recent populations on Big Pine Key, in the lower Florida Keys(Monroe County), as well as Navy Wells Pineland Preserve and the various parcels that composethe Richmond Pine Rocklands in Miami-Dade County are no longer extant (Salvato and Salvato2010a). The extant population within the Everglades remains threatened by inconsistent firemanagement of pine rockland habitat, small population size, and illegal poaching.

Crenulate lead-plant

The following discussion is summarized from the MSRP (Service 1999), the 5-year status review(Service 2006), as well as from recent research publications and monitoring reports. A completecrenulate lead-plant life history discussion may be found in the MSRP.


The crenulate lead-plant is a rhizomatous, perennial, deciduous shrub that inhabits marl prairiesand wet pine rocklands in a small area of Miami-Dade County. This pine rockland community ismaintained by periodic fires. Also known as the Miami lead-plant, crenulate lead-plant grows to1.5 m in height and is endemic to Miami-Dade County, Florida (Florida Department ofTransportation [FDOT] 1997). The branches of this plant are red/purple, and contain 25 to 33leaflets borne on leaves that are 0 to 15 centimeter (cm) long, with petioles 1 cm long or less.The crenulate leaflets are gray and green above, paler and glandular dotted below, and 5 to 11 cmlong. The racemes are terminal, 15 to 20 cm long, solitary, or in clusters of two to three. The 8-millimeter long flowers are held in loose clusters. The calyx is dark green or purplish, 3.2 to 4.0mm long with the upper half glandular dotted. The showy white standard flower is 5.2 mm longand 4.2mm wide with long exerted stamens. The fruit is 6 toll mm long, laterally compressed,and glandular dotted on the upper two-thirds. The seeds produced in the fruit are 5 mm long andcompressed.

No critical habitat has been designated for the crenulate lead-plant.

Life history

Not much is known of the life history of crenulate lead-plant. The plants are long-lived, but littleto no recruitment occurs in populations in a typical year (Fisher 2000). Plants show little to nogrowth and flower primarily following human disturbance. Several species of native solitarybees, such as Dianthidiurn curvatumfiorictens and non-native honeybees, Apis mellifora,pollinate the flowers (Koptur 2006). Shoots of these woody plants die back to the root stockfollowing fire or other disturbance, and, therefore, age of the plant may not be strongly correlated

23

with size (Fisher 2000). Crenulate lead-plant is semi-deciduous, with about 70 percent of plantslosing most or all leaves between December and February. New sprouts, when observed, havebeen identified as primarily adventitious roots (FDOT 1997). In addition, the viability ofgermplasm is not known (FDOT 1997). Fisher (2000) reported this species is relatively easy tocultivate, indicating the lack of reproduction in the wild may not be due to a lack of viable seeds.Maschinski et al. (2005) reported low recruitment rates may be due to the depth of the duff layerand to hydrologic influences. A propagation protocol has recently been developed forconservation purposes (Roncal et al. 2006).

Population dynamics

The crenulate lead-plant occurs in plant communities that were historically associated withseasonally hydrated soils and frequent burning, including wet pinelands, transverse glades, andhammock edges. It can be found growing in poorly-drained Opalocka sands within pinerocklands or in wet prairies with Opalocka-rock outcrop complex soils. It requires open sun topartial shade. The type specimen (Small and Wilson #1898) describes the primary habitat typefor crenulate lead-plant as hammock (Miami-Dade County DERM 1993). No recent collectionshave been seen from within hardwood hammocks. Many of Small’s specimen labels were preprinted with habitat data and some species were collected and labeled as occurring in hammocksthat were actually collected in habitat types outside of hammocks. It is possible crenulate lead-plant was never collected in hammocks.

The pine rocklands where the crenulate lead-plant occurs are characterized by a canopy of slashpine (Pinus elliottil var. densa), a shrub canopy of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), wax myrtle(Myrica cerifera), poison wood (Metopiuin tox~feruiii), and willow bustic (Sideroxylonsalicifoliuin). Common herbaceous associates include crimson bluestem (Schizachyrininsanguineum var. sanguineum), wire bluestem (S. gracile), scaleleaf aster (Aster adnatus), andbastard copperleaf (Acalypha chainaedr~folia). Other typical species associates of crenulate lead-plant include cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), southern sumac (Rims copallina var. leucantha),bluestem (Schizachyrium rhizomatum), wild-petunia (Rue/ha succulenta), gulfdune paspalum(Paspalum monostachyum), and blueheart (Buchnera americana).


Crenulate lead-plant was listed as endangered on July 18, 1985, because of the loss of pinerockland habitat from residential and commercial development. Vegetative communities withinthe historic range of crenulate lead-plant have been almost entirely eliminated by agricultural,urban, and commercial development. The transverse glades where crenulate lead-plant occurswere among the first areas in Miami-Dade County to be farmed, because their marl soils werebetter suited to conversion to farmland than the limestone rock of the adjacent pinelands. By1984, 98 to 99 percent of Miami-Dade County pine rocklands had been destroyed, anddevelopment continues today. In addition, fire suppression, invasion by exotic plant species, anddrainage threaten the survival of the crenulate lead-plant. Flowering and seed production maynot occur as a result of these disruptions. A newly recognized potential threat to trees and shrubsin south Florida is lobate lac scale (Paratachardina lobata lobata), an invasive scale insect. Itwas discovered on some of the crenulate lead-plants at one of the sites in November 2004(Maschinski et al. 2005). Since that time, it has not appeared to be a threat to crenulate lead-plant.

24

The crenulate lead-plant was known from a 20-mi2 area from Coral Gables to Kendall, Miami-Dade County (DERM 1993). Its historic range was only slightly greater, extending south toCutler (based on an entry of Amoipha caroliniana on an unpublished plant list by John KunkolSmall of Addison Hammock), and north to the Little River in northeast Miami-Dade County.This range encompasses an area 5 mi east to west and 12 mi north to south. The crenulate lead-plant is currently known from six sites, four of which contain natural populations and twocontain re-introduced populations (Roncal et al. 2006). The two largest natural populationsshowed a slight increase in numbers of individuals in 2012, of which one site had particularlyhigh seedling recruitment (Maschinski et al. 2012). However, within the last 10 years, fouradditional natural populations were lost to urban development, leaving the total population sizeat less than 2,000 individuals (Roncal et al. 2006).

Blodgett’s silverbush

Blodgett’s silverbush first became a candidate on October 25, 1999. The following discussion issummarized from the most recent species assessment (Service 2012) and from recent researchpublications and monitoring reports.

Species /critical habitat description

“A. blodgeuii is an erect suffrutescent perennial 1-6 decimeters (dm) tall, the stems and leavescovered with bifurcate hairs; leaves entire, oval to elliptic, sometimes slightly spatulate, 1.5-4 cmlong, often colored a distinctive metallic bluish green, distinctly 3-nerved; staminate calyx 7-8 mmwide; sepals are lanceolate; petals broadly elliptic, shorter than sepals; pistillate sepals lanceolateto linear-lanceolate; petals broadly elliptic, shorter than sepals; pistillate sepals lanceolate tolinear-lanceolate, 5-6 mm long; capsule 4-5 mm wide (Adapted from Small 1933)” (Bradley andGann 1999). Reproduction is sexual; flowering and fruiting apparently takes place throughoutthe year (Bradley and Gann 1999).

Life history

On the mainland, Blodgett’s silverbush grows in pine rockland and edges of rockland hammock(Bradley and Gann 1999). In the Keys, this species grows in pine rockland, rockland hammock,coastal berm and on roadsides, especially in sunny gaps or edges (Bradley and Gann 1999).Bradley and Gann (1999) stated “A. blodgettü is primarily a plant of open sunny areas in pinerockland, edges of rockland hammock, edges of coastal berm, and sometimes disturbed areas inclose proximity to a natural area. Plants can be found growing from crevices on oolitic or KeyLargo limestone or on sand. The pine rockland habitat where it occurs in Miami-Dade County andthe Florida Keys requires periodic fire to maintain an open, sunny understory with a minimum amountof hardwoods.” Bradley and Gann (1999) indicated this species does tolerate some degree of human-induced disturbance. It can often be found along disturbed edges of pine rockland, rocklandhammock, and coastal berm, or in completely scarified pine rockland (Bradley and Gann 1999).

Population dynamics

In the Keys, Blodgett’s silverbush is extant on nine islands, with three others of uncertain status(Hodges and Bradley 2006). The largest population surveyed is on Big Munson Island and is

25

estimated to be 8,000-9,000 plants (Hodges and Bradley 2006). The population size in the Keys,excluding Big Pine, is estimated to be approximately 11,000 plants (Hodges and Bradley 2006).Occurrences on Big Pine Key vary by location and are shown below (Hodges and Bradley 2006).According to data from IRC, the estimated population of Blodgett’s silverbush in Miami-DadeCounty is 375-13,650 plants (i.e., total of low and high estimates from loglO scale) (K. Bradley,pers. comm. 2007); however, this may be an overestimate of the actual population size because itwas based upon a loglO scale. In ENP, the current estimated population size is 1,000 plants (J.Sadie, pers. comm. 2008a, 2010).


Historical Range/Distribution: “A. blodgeuii historically occurred from central and southernMiami-Dade County from Brickell Hammock (latitude ca. 25° 45.9’) to southwestern Long PineKey in ENP (latitude ca. 25° 24.2’), and throughout the Florida Keys (Monroe County andMiami-Dade County) from Totten Key (latitude 25° 22.95’) south to Key West (latitude 24°32.52’)” (Bradley and Gann 1999). Based upon Hodges and Bradley (2006) and data from IRC(K. Bradley, IRC, pers. comm. 2007), Blodgett’s silverbush has been extirpated from the sites inTable 1 (Bradley and Gann 1999).

Table 1. Extirpated occurrences of Blodgett’ s silverbush (Bradley and Gann 1999).Site Owner County Last Cause

Obsei’~edSrickell Hanunock iJnknown Miani—Dacle 1937 DevelopedCaribbean P~ik Miami-Dade County Miani-Dade 195’S DevdopeclCoconut Grove Unknown Miani-Dade 1901 DevelopedCord Gables Area iJnknown Miani-Dade 1967 DevelopedFuchs Hammock Miami-Dade County Miani—Dade 1991 Developed, fire suppres~onKey West IJnknown Monroe 1955 DevelopedKey West Cemetery Public Monroe 1955 UnknownMifler and72 Ave. ~ Miani-Dade 1975 DevelopedNoith Key Lago Various Monroe 1977 UnknownOrchidJunge Miami-Dade County Miani-Dade 1930 Unknown (development, fire

suppression, exotic pest Plantslikely)

PalmsWoodla’,vn Pmlvtte Miani-Dade 1992 Developed(em eteryS of Miani Piver Unknown Miani-Dade 1913 DevelopedStock Island Priv~e Monroe 1931 DevelopedTotten Key (Biscayne National PakService Miani-Dacle 1904 UnknownNational Park)Vaca Key IJnknown Monroe 1909 DevelopedNFC #317 Priv~te Miani-Dade unknown Developed

Current Range/Distribution: “A. blodgeuii is currently known from central Miami-Dade Countyfrom Coral Gables (latitude 25° 43.45’) and southern Miami-Dade County to southwestern LongPine Key in ENP (latitude 25° 24.2’), and the Florida Keys from Windley Key (latitude 24°57.08’) southwest to Big Pine Key (latitude 24° 38.52’)” (Bradley and Gann 1999). Although wedo not know the total extent of the former range, approximately 12 mi (19 km) of habitat hasbeen lost near the northern end of the range in Miami-Dade County and 43 mi (69 km) has been

26

lost in Monroe County (Bradley and Gann 1999). More recently, Hodges and Bradley (2006)indicated that species’ verified range extends from Miami-Dade County to Boca Chica Key.

Based upon Bradley and Gann (1999), Hodges and Bradley (2006), and data from IRC (K.Bradley, pers. comm. 2007), Blodgett’s silverbush is extant at the sites in Table 2. However, thespecies may be extirpated from the Charles Deering Estate, the Epmore Drive Pineland fragment,the Old Dixie Pineland, and S.W. 184 Street and 83 Avenue (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007).The NFC #317 site has been destroyed (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007). Indefinite occurrences(those which have not been verified lately) in Monroe County include Key West Golf Course,Boot Key, and Long Key State Park (Hodges and Bradley 2006). Indefinite occurrences inMiami-Dade County are between Coconut Grove and Cutler, and between Cutler and LongviewCamp (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007).

Table 2. Extant occurrences of Blodgett’s silverbush (Bradley and Gann 1999; Hodges andBradley 2006; J. Sadie, pers. comm. 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2010, 2011).

Site Oa,ti€r County Popifatloii flileatsSize

Big Munson Island The Boy Scouts of Monroe 1001- exotIc plants, possible developmentAmerica 10,001 In future (non-Imminent)

Big Pine Key, Cactus National Key Deer Monroe 1.000— tIre suppreseon, slorm surge, exoticHammock and Long Reach Refuge 10,0(0 plants, trail maintenancecoastal berm (apploxlmat

ely 2.000)Big Pine Key. Koehn’s National Re,, Deer Monroe 101 —1,000 are suppresslon, exotic plants, roada.lbdivision Refuge (in part) (appretcimat maintenance, illegal dumping,

ely 2(0) paving. Infrastructure ploiects,herbicIde spraying

big Fine Key, Watson’s National Key Deer Monroe 2 fire suppression, hot fires, otherHammock Refuge natural disturbance events, exotic

plantsBlue Heron Hammocks, Florida Fish and Wildlife Monroe 11-1 00 road n’lalrltenance, exotic plants,Vaca Key Conservation infrastructure, herbicide spraying

CommIssionBoot Key private Monroe 11-100 development

Camp Owaissa Bauer MIami-Dade County Miami-Dade 101-1,OoO are suppression, exotIc plants

ca~etiow Haininocr, t.lianiDacte County t:t,t,,it-Dade 1J,-iO0 itiC aJppres~on ‘exoac plants

Charles Deering EstatC’ Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade 11-100 fire suppresdon. exotic plants, feliceline_maintenance

Counlty RidgeEslates private Miami-Dade 11-100 exotic plants

Epmore Drive private Miami-Dade 2-10 development, exotic plantsPineland_FragrnenrENP, DeerHammockArea National Park Seivice Miami-Dade 1,000 Brazilian pepper(pine biockA) and adjacentpine_block_BFuchs Hammock Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade 2-10Addtlonoifmrd Arboretum Pinetand private Miami-Dade 2-10 development, exotic plants

Key Largo, Do,e Creek Florida Fish and Wildlife Monroe 11 -100 road construction, mowing, exoticHammocks Conservation plants

Commlsstonsty West Naval Air Department of Defense Monroe 1,001— lead tree (Leuceenaleucoce1ohafá),elation, Boca Chica Key 10,0(0 maintenance activIties, development.

(appioximat dumping of toxic substances,ely 1,200) openIng of new roads

Larry and Penny Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade 1.001- development, fire suppression,Thompson Park and 10,0(0 e~colic plantsadiacent_propertiesUgnunwitae Key Department of Monroe 11-100 maintenance acti,’ities, exotic plantsBotanical Stale Park, ErlvironmentatUonum Vtae Rev ProtectionUonurnvltse Ke~ Department or Monroe 11-100 general disturbance, weedy andBotanical State Park, Environmental exotic plantstlopp Tract, Matecumbe ProtectionKeyNed Glenn Nature Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade 11-100 fire suppression, exotic plantsPreserveOld Dixie Pinetand (= Keg private Miami-Dade 11.100 development, fire suppression.South Pineiandr exotic plantsOwaissa Bauer Addition Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade 100-1,000 fire suppression, exotic plants

Pine Ridge Sanctuary pnvate preserve Miami-Dade 2-10 exotic plants

Snake Creek Hammock, Florida Fish and Wedlife Motiroe 101-1,000 exotic plants, maintenance actlvtiesPlantation key Conservation

CommIssionSW. 1B4 St. and 63 Aver private Miami-Dade 11-100 development, nre suppression,

exotic_pianisWindicy i<ey Fossil Florida Monroe 11-100 maintenance activities, exotic plantsReef_State_Geological_Site

27

The finding of a new, small occurrence approximately 0.9 mi (1.5 km) from the Deer Hammocksite (yet within Pine Block B) suggests that the range within ENP is larger than originally thought(J. Sadie, pets. comm. 2010).

Florida brickell-bush

Florida brickell-bush first became a candidate on October 25, 1999. The following discussion issummarized from the most recent species assessments (Service 2011; 2012) and from recentresearch publications and monitoring reports. Florida brickell-bush was proposed as endangeredon October 3,2013. The proposed rule to list the species as endangered may be found athttps://www.federalregistei .gov/ar tcles/20 13/10/03/2013-24173/endangered-and threatenedwildlife-and-plan s-proposed-endangered-status-for-brickellia-rnosieri. Critical habitat was alsoproposed. The proposed rule to designate critical habitat may be found athttps://www.federalregister.gov/articles/20 13/10/03/201 3-24174/endangered and threatenedwildlife-and-plants-designation-of-critical-habitat-for-brickellia-mosieri.


Florida brickell-bush is a perennial herb Ito 3.5 ft (0.3 to 1.1 m) tall, slender, erect, andbranching (Chafin 2000). Leaves are 0.4 to 1.2 inches (1 to 3 cm) long, alternate, narrow, linear,thick, usually spreading or curved downward, entire or slightly toothed, resin-dotted (Chafin2000). The flower heads are in loose, open clusters at the ends of branches (Chafin 2000). Diskflowers are white in small, dense heads surrounded by hairy, slightly ribbed bracts; there are noray flowers, although long style branches (white, sometimes brown) may appear to be rays(Chafin 2000). Reproduction is sexual, pollinators and dispersers are unknown (Bradley andGann 1999). Flowering takes place primarily in the fall (August to October), but individuals maybe found in flower during most of the year (Bradley and Gann 1999).

Critical habitat is proposed for approximately 2,646 ac (1,071 ha) in Miami-Dade County,Florida.

Life history

Bradley and Gann (1999) stated that Florida brickell-bush is “found exclusively in pinerocklands. It tolerates only minor amounts of disturbance. The pine rockland habitat where itoccurs in Miami-Dade County requires periodic fires to maintain an open sunny understory witha minimum amount of hardwoods. It tends to occur in areas within open shrub canopy andexposed limestone with minimal organic litter (pine needles, leaves, and other organic materials).Some populations are found at relatively high elevations (3 to 4 m), one occurrence is in a lowelevation pine rockland very close to a marl prairie (2 to 3 m). The pine rockland which containsthis occurrence may have flooded periodically during the summer wet season. Periodic fires areextremely important in maintaining this ecosystem. The natural fire regime was probably 3 to7 years, with most fires occurring at the beginning of the wet season in spring and early summer.These periodic fires keep the shrub canopy low and reduce litter accumulation.”

28

Population dynamics

Larry and Penny Thompson Park has the only large population. Based upon data from IRC,Keith Bradley (pers. comm. 2007) had estimated 1,001-10,000 individuals at this location. Morerecently, based upon data from FTBG, Jennifer Possley (pers. comm. 2008) had estimated thepopulation size at 1,000-1,500 individuals, noting that 200 plants were found in a surveycovering approximately 10 percent of the Park. Bradley and Gann (1999) indicated that thisspecies rarely occurs in great abundance; most populations are very sparse, containing a lowdensity of plants.

Bradley and Gann (1999) estimated populations using a logarithmic scale. On that scale, thetotal population of Florida brickell-bush was estimated at 1,001 to 10,000 plants, with the exactnumber probably between 5,000 and 7,000 plants (Bradley and Gann 1999). Based on the latestavailable data, the lower range may be closer to approximately 1,550 individuals. Bradley andGann (1999) also stated the population was probably declining because “private sites where thisplant occurs are either not being managed or are being developed. Populations on public landsare also being impacted.”


Historical Range/Distribution: Florida brickell-bush is “endemic to Miami-Dade County on theMiami Rock Ridge. It was historically distributed from central and southern Miami-DadeCounty from South Miami (latitude ca. 25° 42.5’) to Florida City (latitude 25° 26.0’). This is arange of approximately 22.5 mi along the Miami Rock Ridge.” Herbarium specimens have notbeen studied from the New York Botanical Garden, so the full extent of its historic range isunknown” (Bradley and Gann 1999). Bradley and Gann (1999) provided a list of herbariumspecimens and other records for this plant that do not give precise or accurate locationinformation. In these cases, the localities have almost certainly been destroyed because theywere located in Miami-Dade County. Bradley and Gann (1999) indicated this species wasextirpated from two privately owned sites (Palms Woodlawn Cemetery, and Sunset Drive and71 Court) in 1968 and 1992, due to development. Bradley (pers. comm. 2007) also confirmedthe more recent extirpation of another population at a privately owned site (Turnpike Extensionand 93rd Terrace) due to development.

Current Range. Population Estimates, and Status: Florida brickell-bush is currently distributedfrom central and southern Miami-Dade County from SW 120 Street (latitude ca. 25” 39.4) toFlorida City (latitude ca. 25” 26.0), suggesting its historic range has contracted at least 4.8 km(3 mi; more than 13 percent) (Bradley and Gann 1999). At least 9 known populations on privatelands have been extirpated including: Sunset Drive and 71 Court (site developed; last observationin 1968); Palms Woodlawn Cemetery (site developed; last observation in 1992); TurnpikeExtension and 93~ Terrace (site destroyed; confirmed extirpated in 2007); plus at least 6 of18 undated occurrences reported by Alan Herndon (Bradley and Gann 1999; Bradley, pers.comm. 2007). In addition, several of Herndon’s 18 sites experienced impacts to habitat throughdisturbance or invasion by nonnative plants or dense hardwoods, and Florida brickell-bush mayno longer occur at these sites (Bradley and Gann 1999).

29

The number of extant occurrences of this species is somewhat uncertain due to the lack ofcomplete and recent survey information, which is primarily a function of the number ofpopulations which occur on private lands, making them difficult to survey. In addition, Floridabrickell-bush can be extremely difficult to identify when not in flower, making it difficult toconfidently determine when a population has been extirpated. The most complete survey whichincluded the species was the 2004—2005 mapping by IRC of natural forest communities (NFCs;pinelands and hardwoods) in Miami-Dade County outside of BNP. IRC mapped both public andprivate NFCs where the county government obtained landowner permission or determined it wasnot necessary. This survey found Florida brickell-bush on six privately owned parcels, includingon the University of Miami Richmond campus (formerly the U.S. Naval Observatory). Surveysof populations on public lands, specifically those owned or managed by the County, occur morecommonly and provide a more detailed assessment of the species’ status on selected preserves.Florida brickell-bush was not found during a 2-year project intended to survey and mapnonnative and rare plants along FDOT right-of-ways within Miami-Dade County (Gordon et al.2007).

Based on the best available data, we classified those occurrences of Florida brickell-bush whichhave not been confirmed extirpated as either extant (status confirmed within the last 10 years),possibly extant (reliable data are greater than 10 years but less than 15 years old, habitat is stillextant), or unknown/historical (observation does not include sufficient detail and/or data aremore than 15 years old, habitat is still extant) (Table 3). Using this classification, populations ofFlorida brickell-bush are believed to occur on at least 17 (extant or presumed extant) sites, andmay possibly occur on up to another 5 (possibly extant) sites although most of these latter siteshave been searched in recent years without the species being found. Florida brickell-bush mayalso occur at three historical sites, but additional information would be needed to confirm at thistime. Of the 17 extant occurrences, 9 occur on public conservation lands, 3 occur on privatelands managed for conservation, and 5 occur on private lands with unknown management(Table 3). Four of the populations on public conservation lands, including two of the three large(>100 plants) monitored populations, occur adjacent to one another in the Richmond PinelandComplex.

Bradley and Gann (1999) estimated population size using a logarithmic scale. On that scale, thetotal population of the species in 1999 was estimated at 1,001—10,000 plants (with the exactnumber probably between 5,000 and 7,000 plants), and was thought to be declining (Bradley andGann 1999). Since that time, the estimate for the largest population (Larry and Penny ThompsonPark, 1,001—10,000 plants in 1999) has decreased to 101—1,000 plants, with adjacent areas(University of Miami, Metrozoo, Martinez Pineland) estimated to hold another 112—1,100 plantscombined (Possley, pers. comm. 20l3b, 2013c). Additional plants are suspected to occur onadjacent privately owned parcels in the Richmond Pineland Complex (Possley, pers. comm.2013a). The only other monitored population estimated to be composed of greater than 100 plantsoccurs on the Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, located approximately 20 km (12.5 mi) southwestat the southern end of species current range. Another large population was observed on a privateparcel situated between Navy Wells and the Richmond Pinelands, however this property has notbeen surveyed since 2004. Smaller populations occur on pine rockland fragments spread acrossthe landscape, most no more than approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) from their nearest neighboring

30

population — the major exception to this is a 7.2-km (4.5-mi) gap between the populations onQuail Roost Pineland and Camp Owaissa Bauer. Based on the 17 populations considered to beextant, the current total population estimate is between 515 and 4,935 plants, although the actualnumber of individuals is probably closer to 2,150-3,700. Based on current estimates, the totalpopulation of Florida brickell-bush has apparently declined by approximately 50 percent since 1999.

Table 3. Extant and recent (presence still possible) occurrences of Florida brickell-bush.

OWNERSHIP POPULATION RANGEPOPULATION * denotes lands managed for No. plants and year if

NFC # if applicable (P-#) conservation availableExtant: Regularly monitored populations — Status confirmed within last 5 years

Navy Wells Pineland Preserve Miami-Dade County* 101-1,000 (272 in 2009) 1(P-415)

Pine Shore Pineland Preserve (P-48) Miami-Dade County* 11-100 (77-118 in 2009)’

State of Florida — managed byQuail Roost Pineland (P-l44) 11-100 (23 in 2011)’Miami-Dade County*

Richmond Pinelands Complex —

Larry and Penny Thompson Park Miami-Dade County* 10 1-1,000 (815 in 2008)’(P-391)

Richmond Pinelands Complex — Miami-Dade County* 10 1-1,000 (742 in 2009)’Miami MetroZoo (P-39l)

State of Florida — managed byRockdale Pineland (P-52) 1-10(5 in 2010)1Miami-Dade County*

Ron Ehman Park Miami-Dade County~ 11-100 (31-45 in 2011)’

State of Florida — managed byWest Biscayne Pineland (P-295) 11-100 (15-150 in 2008)’Miami-Dade County*

31

Presumed Extant: Populations not regularly monitored — Status confirmed within last10 years

P-132 Private 1~102P-295 Private 101~10002

P-297 Private 11-100 2

P-316 Private ll_1002P-365 Private 11~l002

Pine Ridge Sanctuary (P-310) Private* 11-100~Porter Russell Pineland Preserve Private — Tropical Audubon 10-15~

(P-160) Society*Unknown (previously

Richmond Pinelands Complex — Miami-Dade County’~ grouped with Larry andMartinez Pineland (P-39l) Penny Thompson Park)

Richmond Pinelands Complex —

Private — University ofUniversity of Miami, Richmond 1 1-100 2Miami*

Campus_(P-391)Nixon Smiley Pineland Preserve Miami-Dade County* Unknown ~

(P-370)

Possibly Extant: Habitat extant but status last confirmed 10-15 years ago

Camp Choee (P-397) Private* 11-100~

Camp OwaissaBauer(H-681) Miami-Dade County*. ii-i00~

Panther Pineland (P-338) Private 11-100~

Seminole Wayside Park (P-365) Miami-Dade County* 11-100 ~

Tamiami Pinelands Complex State of Florida — managed by io-ioo5Addition (P-6.00) Miami-Dade County*

Unknown/Historical: Habitat extant but records regarding occurrence are limited and/or>15 years_old

State of Florida — managed byIngram Pineland (P-360) Unknown 6Miami-Dade_County*

Miami-Dade County — School Unknown ~Navy Wells #2 (P-329) Board

Possley, pers. comm. 2013a, 2013b, 2013c.; 2 Bradley and Gann 2005; 4Bradley 2008, pers. Comm.;Bradley and Gann 1999; 6 Included in a 2005 plant list by IRC, but no estimate provided; ~ FNAI ElementOccurrence #7, dated 9/5/1995; Included in a 1999 letter by IRC but no estimate provided; also includedin a 2004 IRC list of B. mosieri occurrences

32

Alan Herndon had reported 18 occurrences in an undated report (Bradley and Gann 1999).Six of Herndon’s occurrences have been developed and several additional sites have beendisturbed or, because of lack of management, the sites are now dominated by exotic plants and/ordense hardwoods (Bradley and Gann 1999). Florida brickell-bush may no longer occur at someof these sites (Bradley and Gann 1999). IRC mapped all of the public and many privatepinelands in Miami-Dade County outside of ENP in 2004. They found no new sites for thisplant, other than at the Porter Russell Preserve. Data from IRC from 2007 indicates that 21 otherlocations have an undetermined status (i.e., the area was surveyed, but the plant was not observedby IRC) (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007). Additional survey work at these locations (all privateland) would be needed to determine presence. The species was not found during a 2-year projectintended to survey and map exotic and rare plants along FDOT right-of-ways within Miami-DadeCounty (Gordon et al. 2007).

Threats: Nearly all of the pine rockland habitat within the narrow range of Florida brickell-bushhas been urbanized, converted to agricultural use, or degraded, so that the original low understoryhas been replaced by hardwoods or exotic plants. Based upon available data, there are 16 extantoccurrences of Florida brickell-bush in remnants of its former pine rockland habitat in Miami-Dade County (Bradley and Gann 1999; K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007). Only one occurrence ofmore than 100 individuals is known to exist. Essentially all remaining occurrences are small andisolated. The Service has determined that the threats to Florida brickell-bush consist primarily ofhabitat loss and modification through urban and agricultural development, fire suppression,proliferation of nonnative invasive plants, and sea level rise. Threats described under habitatloss, fragmentation, and degradation resulting from development, fire suppression, andcompetition from nonnative invasive plants are believed to be the primary drivers in the historicand recent declines of Florida brickell-bush. This species has also been threatened byanthropogenic disturbances which threaten populations in disturbed habitats such as firebreaksand road rights-of-way, and this taxa is suspected to be negatively affected by threats related tosmall, isolated populations. All of these threats are expected to continue to impact populations ofthese taxa in the future. Current local, State, and Federal regulatory mechanisms are inadequateto protect these taxa from taking and habitat loss. Despite the existing regulatory mechanisms,Florida brickell-bush continue to decline.

This species is threatened by habitat loss, which is exacerbated by habitat degradation due to firesuppression, modification of fire regime, the difficulty of applying prescribed fire to pinerocklands, and threats from exotic plants (Bradley and Gann 1999; NatureServe 2012).

Remaining habitats are fragmented, and populations which occur on private lands are threatenedby development and further fragmentation. Climatic changes, including sea-level rise, are longterm threats that will further reduce the extent of habitat. Florida brickell-bush is vulnerable tonatural disturbances, such as hurricanes, tropical storms, and storm surges. Due to its restrictedrange and the small sizes of most isolated occurrences, this species is vulnerable toenvironmental (catastrophic hurricanes), demographic (potential episodes of poor reproduction),and genetic (potential inbreeding depression) threats.

33

Deltoid spurge

The following discussion is summarized from the final listing rule (50 FR 29345), the SouthFlorida MSRP (Service 1999), the 5-year status review (Service 2006), and from recent researchpublications and monitoring reports.


Deltoid spurge, a member of the Euphorbiaceae (spurge family), is an herbaceous, prostrate tobarely ascending plant forming small mats to a few decimeters in diameter. The thin, wiry stemsextend from a central woody taproot. Leaves are deltoid to ovate in shape, opposite, and up to 5 mm(0.2 inch) long. Flowers are unisexual; male and female flowers are arranged in a cuplikestructure (cyathium). The 3-seeded fruits are 1 to 2 mm (0.04 to 0.08 inch) wide; seeds measureabout 1 mm (0.04 inch) wide. The density and distribution of hairs on the stems, leaves, andcapsules distinguish varieties deltoidea and adhaerens. Variety deltoidea is essentially hairless;adhaerens is fairly hairy.

No critical habitat has been designated for the deltoid spurge.

Life history

The deltoid spurge tends to occur in areas with an open shrub canopy, exposed limestone (oolite),and minimal litter (pine needles, leaves, and other organic materials). It is most often foundgrowing at the edges of sand pockets with plants growing both in sand (sometimes in associationwith the endangered tiny polygala) and on oolitic limestone. The soils in which it grows areclassified as Opalocka-Rock Outcrop soils. The subspecies C. deltoidea ssp. adhaerens occurs infine, reddish sandy loam over limestone. Dense colonies are sometimes found in pinelands thathave undergone a slight mechanical disturbance, where little or no topsoil is formed and whereproductivity is low. The shrub canopy in this disturbed habitat is often poorly developedproviding high light levels and low organic litter accumulation rates. The pine rocklands areoften considered a fire subclimax, and are maintained with periodic fires (3 to 7 years). Theseperiodic fires keep the shrub canopy down and eliminate the litter accumulations.

Studies into the life history of the deltoid spurge have only recently begun, and little is knownabout its reproduction. It is a perennial that flowers from April through November, peaking inJuly. Its extensive root system gives evidence it is a long-lived plant (Miami-Dade CountyDERM 1993). The reproductive ecology in Chamaesyce has been poorly studied, but it is knownto be highly variable (Ehrenfeld 1976, 1979; Webster 1967). Some species are completely relianton insects for pollination and seed production while others are self-pollinating. Pollinators mayinclude bees, flies, ants, and wasps (Ehrenfeld 1979). Seed capsules of many Euphorbiaceae areexplosively dehiscent, ejecting seeds a short distance from the parent plant. The seeds of somespecies are dispersed by ants (Pemberton 1988).

Population dynamics

Current estimates of the number of individuals have not been obtained for the entire population,and population trends are not well understood. The NAM staff of Miami-Dade County have

34

reported plants on some of their sites have significantly declined with one site having only threeplants, another having two populations containing no more than one or two plants, and a thirdsite having only two distinct colonies remaining after reporting an abundance of plants in the late1980s (Maguire 2006 in litt.). In a study conducted in three plots located in the northernBiscayne pinelands, Herndon (2002) noted populations occur in small, dense, widely-separatedclusters of 50 to 200 individuals. Population sizes varied 10 to 50 percent annually but nogeneral decrease in population size was reported. He estimated 800 to 8,000 plants occurred ineach population at the Deering Estate pinelands and Larry and Penny Thompson Park.

Annual recruitment rates range from 0.0 to 0.2 and mortality rates range from 0 to 0.39 (Herndon2002). Survival in three study plots over the 3-year study period was 41,46, and 65 percent.Low seed germination rates were detected in both greenhouse conditions and field assessments,and seed production varied seasonally by rainfall amount. While Herndon’s (2002) studyevaluated parameters such as population size, recruitment, survival, and mortality, otherinformation such as growth and reproductive characteristics are necessary for populationmodeling. A research project conducted at Larry and Penny Thompson Park in 1992 comparedthe growth rates of this subspecies in burned versus unburned plots (DERM 1993). Data on plantsize and flower density was collected in each plot, and results indicated that plants respond to fireby allocating energy towards vegetative recovery immediately after fire, rather than to flowering.

Although these demographic studies have provided a catalyst for recovery of this subspecies,these data are only sufficient to run short-term population models. Additional information isneeded on the plant’s life history, especially data on age-specific mortality and drought-relatedmortality. Additional censuses and studies on seed production and germination must be initiatedto refine recruitment data for modeling population trends to determine the appropriate numbersof self-sustaining populations required to ensure a high probability of persistence.


Deltoid spurge is a Miami-Dade County endemic that was historically known to occur in pinerocklands of the Miami rock ridge from the Goulds area north to the center of the city of Miami.The northern portion of its range has been completely modified by urban expansion. In 1992-93,deltoid spurge plants were known to occur on 18 sites, including the Richmond pine rocklandsclassified as one site where several thousand individuals were recorded (DERM 1993). Seven ofthese sites were owned by Miami-Dade County, and eight others were proposed for acquisition.According to recent updates, five sites located on private lands have been developed (Maschinski2005 in litt.).

Results of a project to map the remaining pine rockland habitat in 2006 reported deltoid spurgeoccurred on 11 public sites (IRC 2006). Currently the species is known to remain on 14 publiclands (12 County, 1 State, I Federal) and an undetermined number of private lands from southernMiami to Homestead (K. Bradley, IRC, pers. comm. 2010). Even though the majority of thepopulations occur on public lands, they are fragmented, and habitat degradation continues toaffect the extant populations. Because of habitat modification due to urban expansion in the

35

northern portion of the range, deltoid spurge is now known only from south of Miami to theHomestead area. Its limited distribution renders the spurge vulnerable to random natural orhuman induced events, such as hurricanes and encroachment of invasive exotic species (IRC2006). The current number of individuals in wild populations is not known, therefore, trendanalysis is not available. Although some demographic information is available for deltoidspurge, additional long-term research will be necessary to develop accurate population models.

Continued habitat loss and fragmentation threaten the existence of deltoid spurge, and less than2 percent of the original acreage of pine rockland habitat remains (Maschinski et al. 2002).Populations on private sites remain threatened with destruction or habitat modification due toimproper or lack of management. Modification of pine rockland habitat on protected lands isalso of concern (Maschinski et al. 2008). There is an ongoing effort to conduct prescribed burnsat the publicly-owned sites. Management of these small preserves is difficult because exoticplants are present within and near the properties. Habitat degradation on these sites continues tobe a moderate threat because vegetation restoration and management programs are costly anddepend upon availability of funding (Service 2006).

Pineland sandmat

Pineland sandmat first became a candidate on October 25, 1999. The following discussion issummarized from the most recent species assessment (Service 2012) and from recent researchpublications and monitoring reports.


Pineland sandmat is an ascending to erect perennial herb forming small tufts; stems are reddish;leaf blades reniform or deltoid to orbicular or ovate; involucres 1 mm long, pubescent; glandsgreen; gland appendages very narrow, even-edged; capsules 2 mm broad, pubescent; seed 1 mmlong, transversely wrinkled, yellowish (Small 1993; Bradley and Gann 1999).

Although little is known about this taxon’s reproductive biology and ecology, reproduction issexual (Bradley and Gann 1999). The pineland sandmat’s extensive root system indicates it is along-lived plant (Wendelberger 2003). Pollinators are unknown; other congeneric species arecompletely reliant on insects for pollination and seed production while others are self-pollinating(Wendelberger 2003). Pollinators may include bees, flies, ants, and wasps (Ehrenfeld 1979).Dispersal is unknown for pineland sandmat; however, many seed capsules of Euphorbiaceae areexplosively dehiscent (Wendelberger 2003). This species is known to fruit year round(Wendelberger and Maschinski 2006). FTBG has found a peak in fruiting in the fall andstimulation after fire (Wendelberger and Maschinski 2006).

No critical habitat has been designated for pineland sandmat.

Life history

Bradley and Gann (1999) provide the following description, “This species occurs in pinerockland in pockets of clayey marl or on oolitic limestone. The soils on which it occurs outsideof ENP are classified as Opalocka rock-outcrop soils (soils within the National Park have not

36

been classified) (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1996). The pine rocklands where thisplant occurs are at the southern end of the Miami Rock Ridge and are at lower elevations thanmost pine rockland areas to the north. This is especially true for the pine rocklands on Long PineKey, which flood occasionally. Fire is an important element in maintaining the pine rocklandhabitat. Periodic fires eliminate the shrub subcanopy and remove litter from the ground.”Pineland sandmat is shade intolerant and requires periodic burning to reduce competition fromwoody vegetation. Without fire, native hammock species and exotics invade pine rocklandschanging their structure and function (Wendelberger 2003).

Pineland sandmat occurs in pine rocklands characterized by a canopy of southern slash pine, ashrub canopy of saw palmetto, wax myrtle, poisonwood, and willow bustic (Bradley and Gann1999). Common herbaceous associates include: crimson bluestem, wire bluestem, scaleleafaster, and bastard copperleaf (Bradley and Gann 1999). Pineland sandmat is often associatedwith other rare plant taxa, including Blodgett’s silverbush and Florida brickell-bush (Bradley andGann 1999).

Population dynamics

The population size at ENP is roughly 10,000 plants (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2006).Occurrences on other public and private lands are smaller. In assessing the overall status andtrend, Bradley and Gann (1999) indicated that the population of the pineland sandmat is probablydeclining due to the threats to this species. However, since that time, five additional occurrenceshave been found.


Historical Range/Distribution: Pineland sandmat was historically known from only the southernportions of the Miami Rock Ridge in southern Miami-Dade County (Bradley and Gann 1999).The northernmost occurrences were found at SW 296 Street (latitude ca. 25° 29.52’) and possiblyas far north as SW 248 Street (latitude ca. 25° 32.14’). It extended south through Long Pine Keyin ENP (Bradley and Gann 1999). One purported locality may have been reported inaccurately.A specimen collected by Burch (No. 232, New York Botanical Garden) in 1963 at theintersection of S.W. 187 Avenue and 248 Street had a label describing the station as ‘Princeton’(Bradley and Gann 1999). However, this intersection is more than 5 mi (8 km) west of the areaknown as Princeton and 3 mi (5 km) north of the northernmost confirmed station for this taxon(Bradley and Gann 1999).

The pineland sandmat is known only from the southern portion of the Miami Rock Ridge insouthern Miami-Dade County, Florida (Small 1933; Long and Lakela 1971; Wunderlin 1998)and extends south through Long Pine Key in ENP (Bradley and Gann 1999). The area outside ofENP represents nearly half of the range of this taxon (Bradley and Gann 1999).

Current Range/Distribution: The current range is similar to the historic range, although most ofthe former habitat outside of ENP has been lost and only small remnants remain. Based uponBradley and Gann (1999) and data from IRC (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007), this plant is extantat the sites in Table 4.

37

Table 4. Extant occurrences of pineland sandmat.

Site Owner Population Size Threatshydrologic changes, exotic plants,

ENP NPS 10,000-100,000 fire suppressionFlorida City Pineland Miami-Dade County 100-1,000 exotic plants, fire suppression

Navy Wells Miami-Dade County 1,000-10,000 exotic plants, fire suppressionMiami-Dade School exotic plants, development,I ,000- 10,000Navy Wells #2 Board fire suppression

Palm Drive Pineland Miami-Dade County 10-100 exotic plants, fire suppressionPine Ridge Sanctuary Private Preserve 10-100 exotic plants, fire suppression

Rock Pit #39 Miami-Dade County I 1-100 exotic plants, fire suppression

Seminole Wayside Park Miami-Dade County 100-1,000 exotic plants, fire suppressionFuchs Hammock Addition Miami-Dade County t 1-100 exotic plants, fire suppression

Navy Wells Pineland #39 Miami-Dade County 100-1,000 exotic plants, fire suppression

Sunny Palms Pineland Miami-Dade County 100-1,000 exotic plants, fire suppressionNatural Forest Community development, exotic plants, firepnvate 11-100

[NFCJ #P330 suppressiondevelopment, exotic plants, fire

NFC #P338 private 1,001-10,000 suppressiondevelopment, exotic plants, fire

NFC#P339 private I 1-100 suppressiondevelopment, exotic plants, fire

NFC#P347 private 11-100 suppressiondevelopment, exotic plants, fire

NFC#P41l private 101-1,000 suppressiondevelopment, exotic plants, fire

NFC #P41 3 private I I -100 suppressiondevelopment, exotic plants, fire

NFC#P416 private 11-100 suppressiondevelopment, exotic plants, fire

NFC #P445 private 1,001-10,000 suppression

Garber’s spurge

The following discussion is summarized from the final listing rule (50 FR 29345), the SouthFlorida MSRP (Service 1999), the 5-year status review (Service 2007), and from recent researchpublications and monitoring reports. -


Garber’s spurge is a prostrate to erect herb with pubescent stems. The leaves are ovate in shapeand 4 to 9 mm long, with entire or obscurely serrate leaf margins. The cyathia are about 1.5 mmlong and borne singly at the leaf axils. The appendages are minute or completely absent. Thefruit is a pubescent capsule 1.5 mm wide. The seeds either are smooth or have transverse ridges,but are not wi-inkled; this is not, however, a distinctive character for this species.

No critical habitat has been designated for Garber’s spurge.

Life history

Reproductive ecology in Chainuesyce has been poorly studied, but is known to be highly variable(Ehrenfeld 1976, 1979; Webster 1967). Some species are completely reliant on insects forpollination and seed production while others are self-pollinating. Pollinators may include bees,

38

flies, ants, and wasps (Ehrenfeld 1979). The seed capsules of many Euphorbiaceae areexplosively dehiscent (spontaneous), ejecting seeds a short distance from the parent plant. Someseeds are dispersed by ants (Pemberton 1988).

Population dynamics

Garber’s spurge is still found nearly throughout its historical range. It has been extirpated fromCollier County and part of Miami-Dade County. Within its historical range, many stations whereit once occurred have been lost. On mainland Florida, Garber’s spurge occurs in conservationlands like ENP. It probably occurs on less than half of the islands where it once occurred in theFlorida Keys. Some populations are very small and are thus threatened with extirpation due totheir small sizes. Examples include Cudjoe Key with 1 plant, Lower Matecumbe Key with 10 to20 plains, Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge on Key Largo with 10 to 20 plants, and CrawlKey with fewer than 10 plants. Two populations are large, with probably over 1 million plants onCape Sable and over 100,000 plants on Long Pine Key in ENP. There have been insufficientstudies to determine long-term population trends on any site. At many sites where Garber’s spurgedoes occur, management is insufficient to ensure long-term persistence of the species.


Garber’s spurge is endemic to South Florida. It is abundant on Cape Sable, Long Pine Key, andthroughout the Keys in small numbers. Historically, it occurred from Perrine, Miami-DadeCounty, west to Cape Sable, Monroe County, and to the Sand Keys west of Key West, MonroeCounty (Small 1933; Long and Lakela 1971).

Garber’s spurge is currently known from about 17 populations, including two in Miami-DadeCounty, and one at Cape Sable (on two Capes) (ENP) and on 14 islands in the Keys in MonroeCounty (Bahia Honda Key, Big Torch Key, Boca Grande Key, Crawl Key, Key Largo, CudjoeKey, Fat Deer Key, Grassy Key, Long Key, Long Point Key, Lower Matecumbe Key, MarquesasKeys, Sugarloaf Key, Summerland Key) (FNAI 2006). Some islands contain more than one colony.

Most (96 percent) known extant populations of Garber’s spurge are on publicly ownedconservation lands and are protected from further habitat loss. On private property, two particularlysignificant populations occur in privately owned coastal rock barrens, one on Long Key andanother on Crawl Key. Other populations probably exist on private lands but have not been seendue to lack of access and surveys. Several populations occur on public lands that are notconsidered protected, for example, along the road shoulders on Grassy Key. Because of thespecies’ tendency to grow on disturbed substrates, it is often found in places that are not typicallymanaged for their natural resources.

All populations are threatened to a degree by exotic plant invasion. Populations on Long PineKey are probably the least threatened by exotic plants, because of their isolation and continuedmanagement by prescribed fire. Populations in coastal habitats are threatened by invasive plantswhich constantly colonize via ocean dispersed seeds and can rapidly invade, especially followingcoastal disturbances such as tropical cyclones.

39

Fire suppression is a problem at the Deering Estate at Cutler population in Miami-Dade County.The pine rockland area with Garber’s spurge has not burned since 1993. Like all pine rocklandfragments in Miami-Dade County, it has been impossible to maintain a proper fire cycle at thissite. This situation is not likely to change in the near future.

Pine rocklands in the lower Florida Keys (Keys), now mostly protected in the National Key DeerRefuge (NKDR), historically contained populations of Garber’s spurge, although this does notseem to be its primary habitat in the Keys. It has been collected in pine rockland on Big Pine andNo Name Keys, although no populations are currently known from pine rockland habitat in theKeys. This may be due to the lack of a proper fire regime, compounded with an increase in Keydeer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium) population sizes and subsequent increases in herbivory.Implementation of prescribed fire in the lower Keys, especially in NKDR, has been a highlycontentious issue, with much public opposition. Lack of a proper fire cycle has probablycontributed to the dense hardwood and palm understory on islands with pine rockland, and asubsequent reduction in diversity and density of the herb layer, limiting habitat suitability forGarber’s spurge.

Sea level rise may become a significant threat influencing the long-term persistence ofpopulations of Garber’s spurge, especially in the Keys and Cape Sable (ENP). All of thesecoastal populations occur at very low elevations, many only meters from the ocean. Sea levelrise has been found to be causing a reduction in pine rockland acreage in the lower Keys by Rosset al. (1994), and will have impacts on other types of habitat as well. As described by Wanless etal. (1994), sea level rise will cause drastic impacts to coastal ecosystems in Florida, especiallyduring episodic events like tropical cyclones. Sea level rise will probably degrade much ofGarber’s spurge’s habitat in the Keys and Cape Sable to the extent that it is no longer suitable tomaintain populations of the species.

Florida prairie-clover

Florida prairie-clover first became a candidate on October 25, 1999. The following discussion issummarized from the most recent species assessment (Service 2012) and from recent researchpublications and monitoring reports.


Florida prairie-clover is a suffrutescent (having a stem that is woody only at the base; somewhatshrubby) shrub 3 to 6 ft (0.5 to 2 m) tall (Bradley and Gann 1999; Chafin 2000). Bradley andGann (1999) describe it as follows, “Leaflets 15 to 23, ovate to elliptic, 5 to 14 mm long,glandular punctuate beneath; spikes subcaptitate to shortly oblong, 0.5 to 1.5 (-2) cm long,pubescent; peduncles opposite the leaves, terminal or appearing axillary, ito 3.5 cm long; bractsshorter than calyx; calyx 5 to 7 mm long, subequal and exceeding the tube, plumose; corollasubpapilionaceous, initially greenish white, turning maroon or dull purple, 4 to 5 mm long;stamens 9 to 10 (Adapted from Isely 1990).”

40

Although the reproductive biology and ecology of this taxon has not been studied, reproductionis sexual (Bradley and Gann 1999). Research by FTBG has shown that scarification has apositive effect on the germination of this plant’s seeds (Carroll 2005). Both concentrated sulfuricacid and boiling water function equally well as scarifying agents; this information can lead togreater success in propagation and reintroduction efforts (Carroll 2005).

No critical habitat has been designated for Florida prairie-clover.

Life history

This shrub is found in pine rocklands, edges of rockland hammocks, coastal uplands, and mat-iprairie (Chafin 2000). Bradley and Gann (1999) suggested fire is probably very important to thelivelihood of this taxon. Plants probably do not tolerate shading by hardwoods in the absence ofperiodic fires. Two of the extirpated occurrences were reported from rockland hammocks(Castellow and Cox). Historically, this species likely occurred at the edges of rocklandhammocks and was also known to occur in coastal uplands, at least within Palm Beach County.

In 1999, each of the five occurrences known at that time were located in slightly different habitattypes: disturbed pine rockland, pine rockland and rockland hammock ecotone, pine rocklandand rockland hammock ecotone along road edges, edge of roadside in marl prairie, and ecotonebetween rockland hammock and marl prairie and flatwoods (Bradley and Gann 1999). In 2007,Jimi Sadie (National Park Service [NPS], pers. comm. 2007) characterized one occurrence in BigCypress National Preserve (BCNP) at an ecotone between pineland and hammock habitats.Florida prairie-clover occurs in association with south Florida slash pine, live oak (Quercusvirginiana), gumbo-limbo (Bursera simaruba), poisonwood, willow bustic, white stopper(Eugenia axillaris), bluestem grasses, and paspalum grasses (Faspalum spp.) (Bradley and Gann1999).

Population dynamics

Although Bradley and Gann (1999) estimated the total population (based on a 10gw scale) to be101 to 1,000 plants, they indicated that the total population size is probably closer to 200 to300 individuals and that the population is probably declining since it has been extirpated onmany sites where it once occun-ed. Updated information for the occurrences at Miami-DadeCounty preserves was provided by Joyce Maschinski (pers. comm. 2007) for 2007. Maschinski(pers. comm. 2007) indicated that 10 woody plants and 4 seedlings occurred at the R. HardyMatheson Preserve in 2007. Since 2003, the number of woody plants had declined dramaticallyat this preserve - from 31 to one (Possley and Maschinski 2009). Eleven seedlings were found inSeptember 2008 (Possley and Maschinski 2009). Overall, the population at this site performedpoorly, likely due to fire suppression for decades (Possley and Maschinski 2009). By 2008, onlyfour plants remained, and only one was large enough to reproduce (J. Possley, pers. comm.2008). Plants are failing to thrive for unknown reasons, and the population at this preserve isessentially extirpated leading some to speculate that the population would soon be extirpated (J.Possley, pers. comm. 2008). However, the population rebounded to 50 to 200 plants in 2010,apparently as a result of managers raking away pine straw and using a string trimmer (weed-eater) on competing plants in the immediate area (J. Possley, pers. comm. 2011).

41


Historical Range/Distribution: Florida prairie-clover was historically known from Miami-Dade,Collier, Monroe, and Palm Beach counties (Bradley and Gann 1999). Collections were made inPalm Beach County at an unknown location near Palm Beach by Curtiss in 1895, and south ofPalm Beach by Small in 1918. In Monroe County it has been known historically from thePinecrest region in the BCNP. It was discovered in Collier County portion of the BCNP in 1999(Bradley and Gann 1999).

In Miami-Dade County, this plant was reported from many locations, including Key Biscayne,Castellow Hammock, the Charles Deering Estate, R. Hardy Matheson Preserve, the edge of ENP,the Coral Gables area, pinelands south of the Miami River, and Cox Hammock (Bradley andGann 1999). There have been no reports of this plant from Palm Beach County since 1918(Bradley and Gann 1999). Gann et al. (2002) accounted for essentially every herbariumspecimen and reliable sighting. Gann et al. (2006) did not find Florida prairie-clover in ENP andit is presumed to be extirpated at this location. Previous records (2) at this location may haverepresented waif populations established on road fill or disturbed soil (Gann et al. 2006).

Based upon Bradley and Gann (1999) and data from the IRC (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007),Florida prairie-clover has been extirpated from the sites in Table 5.

Table 5. Extirpated occurrences of Florida prairie-clover.

LastSite Owner County Observation CauseCastellow Hammock fire suppression,Environmental Education Center Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade 1975 exotic pest plants

Coral Gables area Private Miami-Dade 1967 developmentdevelopment,fire suppression,

Cox Hammock Private Miami-Dade 1930 exotic pest plants

ENP NPS Miami-Dade 1964 unknownPalm Beach area Private Palm Beach 1918 development

Current Range/Distribution: This plant is extant at the sites in Table 6 (Bradley and Gann 1999;data from IRC [K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007); data from FNAI (2007, 2011) [A. Jenkins, pers.comm. 2007]; data from NPS [J. Sadle, pers. comm. 2007, 2011]; and data from FTBG [J.Maschinski, pers. comm. 2007; J. Possley, FTBG, pers. comm. 2008, pers. comm. 2009, pers.comm. 2011; Possley and Maschinski 2009; Maschinski et al. 2010]).

Table 6. Extant occurrences of Florida prairie-clover.

Site Owner County Occurrence ThreatsSize

BCNP, Florida Trail NPS Collier I 1-100 off-road vehicles, firesuppression, exotic plants

BCNP, I I-Mile Road NPS Collier 2-10 fire suppression, exotic plants.Brazilian pepper (Schinus

42

Site Owner County Occurrence ThreatsSize

tetebinthifolius); off roadvehicle activity at this locationis minimal

BCNP, Pinecrest NPS Monroe 1 1-100 off-road vehicles, firesuppression, exotic plants,changes_in_mowing_practices

Charles Deering Estate, Miami-Dade Miami- 500 (46 woody plants; 453 fire suppression, exotic plantsnorth of Addison County Dade seedlings)HammockCharles Deering Estate, Miami-Dade Miami- 4 woody plants, 7 seedlings fire suppression, exotic plantssouth of Addison County DadeHammockVirginia Key Beach Park City of Miami Miami- 4 dune erosion, competition(reintroduction) Dade from early successional dune

speciesCrandon Park Miami-Dade Miami- 1,000-1,500 fire suppression,

County Dade encroachment of sea grape(Coccoloba_zn’ifera)

R. Hardy Matheson Miami-Dade Miami- 50-200 fire suppression, mountainPreserve County Dade biking, exotic plants, lobate

lac scale (Paratachardinapseudolobata)

Strawberry Fields private Miami- 2-10 not yet assessedHammock (next to Natural DadeForest Community)Florida Power and Light Florida Power Miami- 2-10 not yet assessedproperty and Light Dade

Only nine occurrences of Florida prairie clover remain, seven of which are on conservation lands.There is one additional reintroduced occurrence, consisting of four plants, at Virginia Key BeachPark (Maschinski et al. 2010). The species’ range is restricted and there are a small number ofplants at most sites. Although no population viability analysis has been conducted for this plant,indications are that most existing occurrences are not viable, at least in Miami-Dade County. Asa result, threats associated with small population size are present. These include potentialvulnerabilities from environmental (catastrophic hurricanes), demographic (potential episodes ofpoor reproduction), and genetic (potential inbreeding depression) threats.

Florida pineland crabgrass

Florida pineland crabgrass first became a candidate on October 25, 1999. The followingdiscussion is summarized from the most recent species assessment (Service 2012) and fromrecent research publications and monitoring reports.


Florida pineland crabgrass is a rhizomatous perennial; sheath auricles ca. 1.5 mm long; sheathshairy (becoming glabrous with age); ligule 1.5 to 2 mm long; leaf blades flexuous or twisted,spreading, 7 to 18cm long, ito 2.2mm wide, hairy on both surfaces (becoming glabrous withage); main axis of the inflorescence 10 to 80 mm long, primary branches 2 to 8, appressed orspreading from the main axis, ca. 0.3 mm wide; pedicels 2 to 3 mm long, 0.7 to 0.9 mm wide;spikelets 30 to 60 on a primary branch, lanceolate, 2.7 to 3 mm long, 0.7 to 0.9 mm wide; first

43

glume often present; second glume the same length as spikelet, usually 7-nerved, glabrous,acuminate to acute; lemma of lower floret 7-nerved, acuminate to acute, glabrous; upper floretthe same length as the lower floret; lemma of the upper floret becoming purple, acuminate toacute (Adapted from Webster and Hatch 1990; Bradley and Gann 1999).

No critical habitat has been designated for Florida pineland crabgrass.

Life history

The reproductive biology and ecology has not been studied, but reproduction is sexual (Bradleyand Gann 1999). This species fruits in the fall (Wendelberger and Maschinski 2006). Thespecies occurs most commonly along the ecotone between pine rockland and marl prairiehabitats, but do overlap somewhat into both of these ecosystems (Bradley and Gann 1999). Thesoil where it occurred at the Richmond Pine Rocklands has been classified as Biscayne marl,drained (USDA 1996). These habitats, particularly marl prairie, do flood for 1 to several monthsevery year in the wet season. Gann et al. (2006) described the major habitat types for Floridapineland crabgrass at Long Pine Key to consist of pineland I prairie ecotones and prairies. Gannet al. (2006) indicates this species is associated with low elevation pinelands and pineland I marlprairie ecotones that flood each summer.


Historical Range/Distribution: The historical distribution included central and southern Miami-Dade County along the Miami Rock Ridge, from the south Miami area (latitude 25° 42.5’) toLong Pine Key (latitude 25° 20.5’), a range of approximately 42 mi (67.6 km). J. K. Small and J.J. Carter (No. 916, NY) collected Florida pineland crabgrass in pinelands near the homesteadroad, between Cutler and Longview Camp, Florida, Nov. 9-12, 1903” (Bradley and Gann 1999).The 1903 Eaton collections from “Jenkins to Everglades” were possibly from the same collectingtrip.

Bradley and Gann (1999) stated after a few collections in the beginning of the century, thisspecies seemed to disappear. After a 1936 collection, it was not found again until 1973 in ENPnear Osteen Hammock on Long Pine Key (Avery 1983 as cited in Bradley and Gann 1999).Since that time it had been documented many times in Long Pine Key. In 1995, a single plantwas discovered in a small marl prairie on the grounds of the Luis Martinez U.S. Army ReserveCenter in the Richmond Pine Rocklands in Miami-Dade County; however, this plant has sincedisappeared (Herndon 1998; Bradley and Gann 1999). Based on data from IRC, this occurrencewas last observed in 1997 and is considered extirpated due to decreased hydroperiod (K. Bradley,IRC, pers. comm. 2007; IRC 2009). This species was extirpated from its historical range on theMiami Rock Ridge by drainage and development (FNAI 2007). Prior to its discovery in BCNPin 2003, the range of this species was thought to have contracted by approximately 29 mi (46.7 km)(Bradley and Gann 1999).

44

Wipff (2004) noted Florida pineland crabgrass is known only from the type collection, whichwas collected in pinelands of Dade County, Florida. Wipff apparently did not have access tomore recent collections, although the distribution map cites “reliable reports” from mainlandMonroe and Collier Counties. The source of these reports is unknown. Wunderlin and Hansen(2004) report it only from Miami-Dade County.

Current Range/Distribution: Florida pineland crabgrass is currently known from the Long PineKey area of ENP (Bradley and Gann 1999; Gann et al. 2006) and from BCNP (Table 7) (K.Bradley, pers. comm. 2005a). Citing Avery, Bradley and Gann (1999) indicated that this speciesoccurred in an area of ENP “stretching from near the park entrance (just east of Long Pine Key),southwest to the Mahogany Hammock turnoff at the western end of Long Pine Key”, an area ofabout 31 mi2 (8,000 hectares [ha]). Prior to research by Garin et al. (2006), this species was knownfrom the following locations within Long Pine Key: Hole-in-the Donut, Pine Blocks A, C, D, H.Follow-up surveys of historical locations yielded two additional extant occurrences of this speciesin the Hole-in-the-Donut (Gann et al. 2006). In addition, Jimi Sadle, botanist at ENP, located thespecies at Pine Blocks SW2, B, and F2 (J. Sadle, NPS, pers. comm. 2010). Gann et al. (2006)also expect to find new occurrences of Florida pineland crabgrass within ENP as work continuesto establish the limits of this species’ habitat requirements. Florida pineland crabgrass appears tohave a much wider range than previously thought (Gann et al. 2006).

In 2003, Keith Bradley (pers. comm. 2005) discovered this species south of Loop Road in BCNPin Monroe County. This finding is a significant discovery, since it is the first occurrence of thisnarrow endemic documented outside of the Miami Rock Ridge / Everglades area (FNAI 2007).Prior to this discovery, the only extant population was on Long Pine Key (FNAI 2007). IRC andFTBG have initiated surveys of the general area around Gum Slough, south of Loop Road (K.Bradley, pers. comm. 2007). Funding became available for a full survey in 2009, and a fullsurvey within BCNP began in 2011 (Bradley 2009). Until this study is complete, the mostaccurate rangewide estimate is 1,000-10,000 individuals at Long Pine Key (Gann et al. 2006) and>10,000 individuals within BCNP (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007). There is also some potentialfor the species to still occur on remaining unsurveyed pine rockland fragments within Miami-Dade County.

Table 7. Extant occurrences and population estimates of Florida pineland crabgrass (Gann et al.2006; K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007; J. Sadle, pers. comm. 2010, 2011).

Site Owner Population Size ThreatsENP NPS 1,000-10,000 hydrologic changes (possible),

exotic plantsBCNP NPS > 10,000 exotic plants, fire suppression

45

Small’s milkpea

The following discussion is summarized from the final listing rule (50 FR 29345), the MSRP(Service 1999), the 5-year status review (Service 2007), and from recent research publicationsand monitoring reports.


Small’s milkpea is a perennial herb with numerous trailing stems radiating from large woodytaproots and with relatively large flowers (calyx 6 to 8 mm [0.2 to 0.3 inch] long, standard andkeel 1 to 1.5 cm [0.4 to 0.6 inch] long) (Herndon 1981). This species has compound leaves,usually with 3 elliptic leaflets 1.5 to 3 cm (0.6 to 1.2 inches) long. The stem pubescence isascending or spreading-sericeous, and upper leaf surface is puberulent (hairs 0.1 to 0.2 mm[0.004 to 0.008 inch] long); hairs on stem less than 0.5 mm [0.02 inch] long) (Herndon 1981).

No critical habitat has been designated for Small’s milkpea.

Life history

There is limited knowledge about the demographic features and trends of this plant. Small’smilkpea is a perennial legume and, therefore, probably experiences little annual variation inpopulation size (Fisher 2000; Bradley and Possley 2002). This species does not experienceseasonal dieback and is thought to be long-lived, as most of the plants used in a pollination studysurvived over a period of 5 years (Bradley and Possley 2002). Flowering occurs throughout theyear but most abundantly during the dry season. Because most flowers do not produce fruit, itmay be self-incompatible (Bradley and Possley 2002). Once pollinated, seeds take severalmonths to mature and often germinate in response to fire. Annual variability in flowering, seedproduction, seed viability, and establishment requirements are unknown (Bradley and Possley2002). FTBG is conducting propagation trials in order to expand the ex situ collection of thisspecies. Because of the small size of seeds, seed storage has been difficult (Maschinski 2005).

Small’s milkpea prefers open sun and little shade and can be threatened by shading fromhardwoods and displacement by invasive exotic species in the absence of periodic fires.Disturbance, such as prescribed fire, is a necessary management tool to maintain suitable habitatfor the species. Habitat degradation on these sites continues to be a moderate threat becausevegetation restoration and management programs are costly and depend upon availability offunding.

Population dynamics

O’Brien (1998) located the species on 10 sites. li 2002, FTBG reported this species occurred onfewer than 12 sites located in a 6.5-mile (10.5-kilometer) area (Bradley and Possley 2002). Thetotal population at that time was estimated to be less than 10,000 plants and ranged from 3 toover 1,000 individuals per site, with only two sites that contained over 1,000 plants (Bradley andPossley 2002). The most recent comprehensive survey of pine rocklands documented thepresence of Small’s milkpea on five public sites but did not determine population sizes (IRC2006). These sites have been purchased by Miami-Dade County for conservation purposes. TheCounty is working to restore and manage these lands.

46


When this species was listed, it was known from two sites near Homestead in Miami-DadeCounty. In a study of distribution and habitat preference of two plant genera native to southFlorida pine rocklands, Small’s milkpea was found in the Redland region and a few sites at thesouthern end of the Biscayne region (O’Brien 1998). The distribution of this species is correlatedwith soil depth and color in Redland pine rocklands. Small’s milkpea appears to prefercalcareous soils with less quartz sands, but not at low elevations, and does not occur in pineforests off of the limestone rock ridge (O’Brien 1998). As elevation decreases southward alongthe Miami Rock Ridge, so does quartz sand (Bradley and Possley 2002). Preferred soils aremapped as Cardsound Rock outcrop complex and are porous and well-drained (Bradley andPossley 2002). The elevation where the plants occur generally ranges from 7 to 10 ft (2 to 3 m)with a smooth slope from 0 to 2 percent (Bradley and Possley 2002).

The distribution of this plant is fragmented. One study noted several sites had large numbers ofplants distributed throughout each site with no well-defined population clusters (Fisher 2000). In2002, this species occurred in less than 12 fragmented sites located along a 6.5-mile (10.5-kilometer) portion of the ridge (Bradley and Possley 2002). The total population at that time wasestimated to be less than 10,000 plants and ranged from 3 to 1,000 individuals per site, with only2 sites that contained over 1,000 plants (Bradley and Possley 2002). Results of a project to mapextant pine rockland habitat indicated that the plants remained on 7 public and 15 private sites(IRC 2006; Bradley 2OlOa). Miami-Dade County owns six of the public sites, purchased forconservation purposes, and is working to restore and manage these lands through their EELprogram. The remaining public site is owned by the County’s Board of Education (Bradley20 lOb) and is, therefore, subject to future development. However, the EEL program is currentlyattempting to acquire this site (Guerra 2010).

In 2009, a large population containing as many 100,000 individuals was documented on anadditional public property (County owned) adjacent to the Homestead Air Reserve Base (HARB)(Bradley 2009). Although HARB is seeking to develop these lands, they are also coordinatingwith the Service and IRC to retain and manage the plant at this site. Therefore, the most currentassessment of NFCs in Miami-Dade County recorded the species on eight public sites (IRC2006; Bradley 2009, 2010a). Also in 2009, an additional small population was discovered on theprivate Palms Woodlawn Cemetery along Old Dixie Highway in Homestead (Bradley 2010b).Because this species has no apparent mechanism for long-distance dispersal of seeds, it ispresumed that these fragmented populations are relicts of larger populations prior tofragmentation (O’Brien 1998). Not much is known about how fragmentation has impacted thepopulation dynamics of the species, but most likely populations have become isolated and moreimperiled (O’Brien 2006 in litt.).

Less than 2 percent of the original acreage of pine rockland habitat remains (Bradley and Possley2002). Most of that habitat occurs in small, isolated stands in an urban landscape that aredifficult to protect and manage. Many of the fragments are overgrown and in need of restoration.The known sites where Small’s milkpea occurs on public lands are protected from development,but these sites must be managed to prevent habitat degradation and potential loss of plants.Privately-owned sites remain at risk of being developed and management remains a concern.

47

Limited distribution renders the species vulnerable to random natural or human induced events,such as hurricanes and encroachment of invasive exotic species. All of the populations requireactive management, including exotic plant control, thinning of overgrown vegetation, and/orprescribed fire. The current number of individuals in wild populations is not known, therefore,trend analysis is not available. Although some demographic information is available, additionallong-term research will be necessary to develop accurate population models.

There is an ongoing effort to conduct prescribed burns at the publicly-owned sites. Managementof these small preserves is difficult because exotic plants are present within and near theproperties. Habitat degradation on these sites continues to be a moderate threat becausevegetation restoration and management programs are costly and depend upon availability offunding. Continued habitat loss and fragmentation, fire suppression, and invasion by exotic plantspecies threaten the existence of Small’s milkpea (Service 2007).

Sand flax

Sand flax first became a candidate on October 25, 1999. The following discussion issummarized from the most recent species assessment (Service 2012) and from recent researchpublications and monitoring reports.


Sand flax is a wiry, yellow-flowered herb (Bradley and Gann 1999; Bradley 2006). Bradley andGann (1999) state sand flax “is a glabrous perennial herb; stems 1-several from the base, wiry,35 to 53 cm tall; leaves mostly alternate, linear, 7 to 10 mm long, 0.6 to 1 mm wide, entire orwith scattered marginal glands; stipules glandular, reddish; inflorescence a cyme of a fewslender, spreading or ascending branches; pedicels 2 mm long or less; sepals lanceolate to ovatewith a prominent midrib, 2.4 to 3.2 mm long; petals yellow, obovate, 4.5 to 5.5 mm long; fruit2.1 to 2.5 mm long, 2 to 2.3 mm diameter, pyriform, dehiscing into ten segments; seeds ovate,1.2 to 1.4mm long, 0.7 to 0.8 mm wide. (Adapted from Rogers 1963)”. The reproductiveecology and biology of this taxon has not been studied (Bradley and Gann 1999). No studieshave been conducted on the ecology of the species (Bradley 2006).

No critical habitat has been designated for sand flax.

Life history

Sand flax is found in pine rockland, disturbed pine rockland, marl prairie, roadsides on rockysoils, and disturbed areas (Bradley and Gann 1999; Hodges and Bradley 2006). The pinerockland and marl prairie where this species occurs requires periodic wildfires in order tomaintain an open, shrub free subcanopy and reduce litter levels (Bradley and Gann 1999). Thistaxon is currently rare in relatively undisturbed natural areas, with the exception of plants on BigPine Key and the grounds of an office building on Old Cutler Road in Coral Gables (Bradley andGann 1999; Hodges and Bradley 2006). Several occurrences are in scarified pine rocklandfragments that are dominated by native pine rockland species, but have little or no canopy orsubcanopy. One population in Miami-Dade County occurs entirely on a levee composed ofcrushed oolitic limestone in the middle of a sawgrass marsh (Bradley and Gann 1999; Hodgesand Bradley 2006).

48

More recently, Hodges and Bradley (2006) found in the Keys sand flax seems to only rarelyoccur within intact pine rockland, but more frequently adjacent to it. Its persistence on roadsidesis not fully understood, but it is possible this species has evolved to occur in this habitat as fireregimes and natural areas were altered and destroyed over the last several hundred years (Hodgesand Bradley 2006).

Population dynamics

In Miami-Dade County, Kernan and Bradley (1996) reported six mainland occurrences for sandflax. They estimated that approximately 1,000 plants occurred in Miami-Dade County, withabout 600 at Homestead Air Reserve Base. In 2008, Bradley (pers. comm. 2008) estimated thathundreds of plants, possibly thousands, remained at this site, now owned by the Miami-DadeCounty Homeless Trust. In 2009, Bradley (2009) estimated that approximately 74,000 sand flaxplants occur on the site, with densities ranging as high as 4.5 plants per 10.8 ft2 (per 1.0 m2). This isthe largest known population in Miami-Dade, but a portion of it is threatened by development; theU.S. Army Special Operations Command Center South (SOCSOUTH) seeks to locate permanentheadquarters at this site (Department of Defense 2009). Project plans include avoidance of themajority of the population with accompanying protection and management of approximately60,000 individuals (Service 2011). However, this project will need to be carefully monitoredbecause impacts would affect the largest known occurrence of the species.

An occurrence called Old Cutler contained 26 percent of the known individuals in Miami-DadeCounty, prior to being cleared (Bradley and Gann 1999). As of 1996, there were fewer than200 plants in the remaining sites on the mainland (Kernan and Bradley 1996). According toBradley (2006), the population size in 2006 in Miami-Dade County was unknown. A newoccurrence has been confirmed recently in Miami-Dade County on a tract of land enrolled in theEEL program, which is an addition to Camp Owaissa Bauer Pineland (J. Possley, pers. comm. 2011).

More detailed information is available for the Keys. Neither Dickson (1955) nor Alexander andDickson (1972) reported the species in their studies. Carlson et al. (1993) recorded it at afrequency of 1.3 percent in study plots (0.5 m2) on Big Pine Key. Ross and Ruiz (1996) foundsand flax on only 16 plots across 5 Big Pine Key transects. According to their analysis, sitesmost likely to support sand flax had a high relative representation of graminoids in theunderstory, abundant pine regeneration, and high cover of exposed rock (Ross and Ruiz 1996).

More recently, in the first comprehensive study of distribution and abundance in the Keys,Hodges and Bradley (2006) estimated that there were between 101 and 1,000 plants in the Keysoutside of Big Pine Key. In a follow-up study, examining the distribution and population size ofthree pine rockland endemics on Big Pine Key, sand flax was found to be extremely rare, locatedat only five sample locations throughout the island and at three places not associated with samplelocations (Bradley 2006). Bradley (2006) found a total of 33 plants, mostly in the interior of theisland away from the coast. In the northern pinelands it was found in 6 of 427 plots (1.4 percent)at a density of 0.07 ± 0.09 plants/plot (Bradley 2006). In the southern pinelands, it was found inI of 114 plots (0.9 percent) at a density of .009 ± 0.91 plants/plot (Bradley 2006). The differencein density was significant (U = 32,978.5, P 0.033). Since sand flax was found at such lowdensities in so few plots, the mean density had an extremely broad range; 95 percent confidence

49

intervals showed a range from -3,353 to 56,404 individuals (Bradley 2006). All plants werefound prior to Hurricane Wilma; sand flax was not found at all in surveys 8 to 9 weeks after thehurricane (Bradley 2006). In 2007, Bradley and Saha (2009) found sand flax in northern plots,but did not find it in any of the southern plots. Additional surveys have not been conducted, so itis not possible to determine if sand flax has recovered.


Historical Range/Distribution: Sand flax historically was distributed in Monroe County in thelower Keys and in central and southern Miami-Dade County (Bradley and Gann 1999). InMiami-Dade, the plant was widespread from the Coconut Grove area to southern Miami-DadeCounty, close to what is now the main entrance to ENP and Turkey Point (Bradley and Gann1999). In Monroe County, the plant was recorded from Big Pine Key, Ramrod Key, SugarloafKey, Park Key, Boca Chica Key, and Middle Torch Key (Bradley and Gann 1999). Based uponBradley and Gann (1999), Hodges and Bradley (2006), and data from IRC (K. Bradley, pers.comm. 2007), sand flax has been extirpated from the sites in Table 8.

Table 8. Extirpated occurrences of sand flax.

Site Owner County Last CauseObservation

Boca Chica Key Department of Monroe 1912 unknown, probablyDefense development

Middle Torch Key unknown Monroe 1979 unknownPark Key unknown Monroe 1961 unknown, probably

developmentRamrod Key unknown Monroe 1979 unknownAllapatah Linum Site private Miami-Dade 1996 land clearingCamp Jackson Area unknown Miami-Dade 1907 unknownCamp Owaissa Bauer Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade 1983 fire suppressionCemetery Pineland private Miami-Dade 1996 property scarified,

may_regenerateEast of Naranja unknown Miami-Dade 1907 unknownHomestead to Camp unknown Miami-Dade 1907 unknownJacksonHomestead to Big unknown Miami-Dade 1911 unknownHammock Prairie

Current Range/Distribution: Sand flax is currently known from four occurrences in the Keys andeight occurrences in Miami-Dade County (Bradley 2006; K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007, 2011; J.Maschinski, F1’BG, pers. comm. 2007, 2011; J. Possley, FTBG, pers. comm. 2011). Based uponBradley and Gann (1999), Hodges and Bradley (2006), Bradley (2009), data from IRC (K.Bradley, pers. comm. 2007; Gannet al. 2001-2010), data from FTBG (Maschinski et al. 2002; J.Maschinski, pers. comm. 2007; J. Possley, pers. comm. 2011; J. Maschinski, pers. comm. 2011)and Bradley and Saha (2009), sand flax is extant at the sites in Table 9. On Big Pine Key, sandflax occurs at the Terrestris Preserve, which is owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC); thisoccurrence is included within the Big Pine Key site in Table 9.

50

Table 9. Extant occurrences of sand flax.

Site Owner County Population Threats

___________________________ Size (site specific only)

Big Pine Key NKDR, TNC, other public Monroe 2,676 development, fire(primarily conservation lands) and private entities suppression, exotic plantsLower Sugarloaf Key Florida Department of Monroe 101-1,000 road clearing or other

Transportation (FDOT) maintenance, illegaldumping, exotic plants

Big Torch Key Monroe County Monroe 11-100 road clearing or otherDepartment of maintenance, exotic plantsTransportation

Middle Torch Key Monroe County Monroe 2-10 road clearing or otherDepartment of maintenance, exotic plantsTransportation

Village of Palmetto Bay private Miami-Dade 1 1-100 development, liresuppression, exotic plants

Cocoplum Development private Miami-Dade 11-100 developmentCountry Ridge Estates/ private I Miami-Dade Miami-Dade 11-100 development, herbicideCamp Owaissa Bauer County(partial conservation lands)Homestead Air Reserve Base Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade 74,000 development; proposedand adjacent land Homeless Trust military facilities and

operationsHomestead Bayfront Park Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade 101-1,000 road clearing or other(conservation lands) maintenanceIRC Preserve and adjacent IRC and South Florida Miami-Dade 2-10 herbicide application oncanal bank Water Management canal bank(primarily conservation lands) DistrictLuis B. Martinez U.S. Army U.S. Army Miami-Dade 30-50 not assessedReserve Station, RichmondPine RocklandsCamp Owaissa Bauer Miami-Dade County Miami-Dade I-lU not assessedPineland Addition #1(conservation lands)

Hodges and Bradley (2006) initiated population surveys for sand flax in the Keys on Big PineKey and other keys with potential habitat. The survey included extant occurrences, historic sites,and exploratory surveys of potential habitat. This project provided the first comprehensivesurvey of distribution and abundance for the area. Negative survey results (i.e., locationsurveyed, but sand flax absent) included: Boca Chica Key (southern edge), No Name Key(roadside edges and NKDR), Ramrod Key (Dan Austin Site), roadsides from Little Torch Key toLower Sugarloaf Key, and Upper Sugarloaf Key (NKDR) (Hodges and Bradley 2006).

In 2009, an assessment of rare plants and pine rockland habitat was conducted for the proposedSOCSOUTH headquarters at the site adjacent to the Homestead Air Reserve Base (Bradley2009). During a survey of the 90-ac (36.4-ha) tract, Small’s milkpea and sand flax were found in27 different locations covering 13.2 ac (5.3 ha) in disturbed pine rocklands (Bradley 2009).

51

Carter’s small-flowered flax

Carter’s small-flowered flax first became a candidate on October 25, 1999. The followingdiscussion is summarized from the most recent species assessments (Service 2011 and 2012) andfrom recent research publications and monitoring reports. Carter’s small-flowered flax wasproposed as endangered on October 3, 2013. The proposed rule to list the species as endangeredmay be found at haps://www.federalregistei .gov/regulations/ 101 8-AZI 5/endangered andthreatened-wildlife-and-plants-listing-carter-s-small-flowered-flax-and-florida-brick. Criticalhabitat was also proposed. The proposed rule to designate critical habitat may be found athttps://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/ 101 8-AZ64/endangered-and-threatened-wildl ife-andplants-critical-habitat-designation-for-carter-s-small flower.


Carter’s small-flowered flax is ai~ annual or short-lived perennial herb that is endemic to MiamiDade County, where it grows in pine rockland, particularly disturbed pine rocklands (Bradley andGann 1999). Bradley and Gann (1999) described the species as follows, “Stems erect 23 to 36cmtall, commonly branched near the base, puberulent; leaves slender, 18-26mm long, 0.8 to 1.2mmwide, entire, alternate, closely overlapping at the base of the plant, more distant above; stipules withpaired dark glands; inflorescence an ascending or spreading cyme; pedicels 4.5 to 9 mm long infruit; sepals lanceolate, short-awned, glandular toothed, 3-nerved; petals orange yellow, broadlyobovate, 9 to 17 mm long, quickly deciduous; fruit straw-colored, ovoid, 4.1 to 4.6 mm long, 3.4 to3.7 mm diameter, dehiscing into five two seeded segments; seeds narrowly ovoid-elliptic, 2.3 to2.8 mm long, I to 1.3 mm wide. (Adapted from Rogers 1963 and 1968). In habit and flower theplant closely resembles Piriqueta caroliniana (pitted stripeseed) in the Turneraceae.”

Critical habitat is proposed for approximately 2,605 ac (1,054 ha) in Miami Dade County,Florida.

Life history

Carter’s small-flowered flax is found in pine rocklands, particularly those that are scarified orhave undergone some sort of soil disturbance (e.g., firebreaks, canal banks, edges of railwaybeds) (Bradley and Gann 1999). None of the known occurrences are from a completelyundisturbed pine rockland (Bradley and Gann 1999). Bradley and Gann (1999) indicated that alldocumented occurrences are within scarified pine rocklands, in disturbed areas adjacent to orwithin pine rocklands, or in completely disturbed areas. This species does not tolerate shading orlitter accumulation, and therefore may have been excluded from much of its former habitat byfire suppression (Bradley and Gann 1999).

The reproductive ecology and biology of this taxon is not well understood, but reproduction issexual (Bradley and Gann 1999). The magnitude and frequency of seed production is unknown;some fruits dehisce in a characteristic 5-parted star pattern, while others never dehisce (Fellows2002).

52

Maschinski and Walters (2008) studied in situ germination and growth-to-maturity of plantsgrowing in the wild at two sites, measuring height, number of branches, number of buds, flowers,and fruit of 32 seedlings. Of the total 32 seedlings tracked, only 6 set fruit (Maschinski andWalters 2008). The mean time to set first bud was 197 ± 2.4 days, while mean time to first fruitset was 226 ± 2.3 days (Maschinski and Walters 2008). The 226-day growth- to-maturity enablesCarter’s small-flowered flax to contribute seeds to a next generation in a relatively short period(Maschinski and Walters 2008). Once mature, individuals may live one to several yearsproducing multiple fruits (Maschinski and Walters 2008). Growth-to maturity may be influencedby season of germination; seeds germinating in the summer may grow to maturity more rapidlythan seedlings that germinate in the fall or winter (Maschinski and Walters 2008). Carter’ssmall-flowered flax is capable of flowering throughout the year, but tends to have mostabundant flowering and fruiting following rain (Maschinski and Walters 2008).

Carter’s small-flowered flax has typical behavior for an early successional species (Maschinski2006). In a recent study to examine population viability in response to disturbance, long-termdemography studies were initiated at disturbed and undisturbed sites in Miami-Dade County(Maschinski 2006; Maschinski and Walters 2007). These studies indicated Carter’s small-flowered flax occurred in higher densities at a mowed site where competition with other plantswas decreased. However, mowing can also eliminate reproduction entirely in very young plantsor delay reproductive maturation (Maschinski and Walters 2007). Disturbance from mowing wasfound to result in higher mortality, but greater fruit production (Maschinski 2006). Becausemowing had been a repeated pressure on one population for more than 50 years, it is possible thatmowing is also selecting for plants that can grow and reproduce more rapidly than the disturbedsite plants (Maschinski 2006). This work confirms, to a degree, the recommendation by Bradleyand Gann (1999) that “periodic mowing in these areas may partially replace fires, maintaining anopen, shrub free understory.”

Preliminary models indicated that population viability was greatly affected by reproduction andwhether there is a persistent seed bank (Maschinski 2006; Maschinski and Walters 2007).Fruiting was variable across years and sites, such that there was no clear effect of mowing onfruit production (Maschinski 2006; Maschinski and Walters 2007). Seedlings and juveniles(non-reproductive) had a higher probability of survival to adult stage at the undisturbed site thanat the mown site; however, the mown site had higher reproduction than the undisturbed site(Maschinski 2006). Models indicate that transitions from seedling to adult and adultreproduction greatly influence population trajectories (Maschinski and Walters 2007). Increasingthese vital rates is critical to improving population persistence (Maschinski and Walters 2007).Year-to-year variation was found to be extremely high across populations and subject to theunpredictability of weather (Maschinski and Walters 2007). Continued monitoring is needed todetermine whether disturbance regime has a persistent impact on life history (Maschinski 2006).

Population dynamics

Bradley and Gann (1999) estimated that the total population size was 101 to 1,000 plants (basedon a log10 scale) and that the population may be declining. Based on the latest available data, thetotal population size is estimated to be between 318 to 2,615 individuals, although a better

53

estimate of the upper range maybe 2,215 if all populations on private lands have been extirpated.Maschinski et al. (2003 and 2004) noted that this short-lived perennial has widely fluctuatingnumbers of individuals. Development, exotic plants, mountain biking, modification to fireregime, mechanical disturbance, and herbicide use were cited as threats (Bradley and Gann1999). Bradley and Gann (1999) stated that this taxon is in severe danger of extinction sincemost of the occurrences were not on conservation lands (at that time). Bradley and Gann (1999)also indicated that the conservation lands where this species occurs contained only a few dozenplants combined, one of which was damaged by maintenance crews. Since 1999, data from IRCand FTBG indicate that at least three additional occurrences (on private lands) have likely beenextirpated since most of those sites were destroyed (Cocoplum Development, Old Dixie Pineland[=Keg South Pineland], and Ponce and Riviera Pineland) (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007; J.Possley, pers. comm. 2012). However, populations at the Rockdale Pineland Preserve and theUSDA Subtropical Horticulture Research Station were found to have more individuals thanpreviously estimated (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007; J. Possley, pers. comm. 2012), and a newoccurrence was discovered (Montgomery Foundation) (J. Maschinski, pers. comm. 2006).


Historical Range/Distribution: John Kunkel Small and Joel J. Carter first collected this speciesin 1903 between Coconut Grove and Cutler; Small described it as a new species in 1905 (Gann etal. 2002). Bradley and Gann (1999) indicated it has been found at many widespread locations,from the Coconut Grove area of Miami (latitude 25° 43.8’) to southern Miami-Dade County,terminating near SW 280 Street (latitude 25° 30.4’), a range of about 24 mi (39 km) (Bradley andGann 1999). Since 1903, Carter’s small-flowered flax has been found in pine rocklands from asfar north as the Brickell Hammock area to as far south as the Naranja area (Gann et al. 2002).

Austin et al. (1980) mapped 17 stations for Carter’s small-flowered flax. Most of those stationsare likely to be historic (the report’s format did not allow the authors to clearly note where plantshad been found during field work). Bradley and Gann (1999) believe several occurrencesrepresented misidentifications—that the plants were either sand flax or Small’s flax (Linumcarteri var. smallii). For example, a previous report of the plant occurring at Homestead AirReserve Base site is now considered to be erroneous (K. Bradley, IRC, pers. comm. 2008).Based upon data from IRC, Carter’s small-flowered flax is extirpated from Brickell Hammock(owner unknown) due to development, Charles Deering Estate (owned by Miami-Dade County)for unknown reasons, and the Red Road and 114 Terrace locations (private land) due todevelopment (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007). Austin et al. (1980) noted that there were fourhistorical sites for this species in a study of southern Florida, including NKDR and Great WhiteHeron National Wildlife Refuge. However, in 1980, Austin et al. (1980) found only one siteremaining, representing a 75 percent reduction in number of sites, and attributed the reduction tourbanization. Gann et al. (2002) indicated most of its habitat has been destroyed.

Current Range, Population Estimates, and Status: Carter’s small-flowered flax is currently foundfrom R. Hardy Matheson Preserve (near Pinecrest) southwest to Naranja/Modello, with adistance of approximately 27.3 km (17 mi) between the farthest locations. The apparent

54

reduction in its historic range (11.2km (7.2 mi); 30 percent) has occurred entirely in the northernportion, between Pinecrest and Coconut Grove, primarily due to urban development. Similarly,much of the habitat within the variety’s current range has been destroyed (Gann et al. 2002). Atleast five known populations have been extirpated including: Brickell Hammock (site developed;last observation in 1911); Red Road/I 14 Terrace (site developed; last observation in 1969);Deering Estate at Cutler (not sighted since 1980s; unknown reason); Ponce and Riviera Pineland(site developed in 2004); and Cocoplum Development (site developed in 2005) (Bradley pers.comm. 2007; Bradley and van der Heiden 2013). Bradley and Gann (1999) described nineknown populations (only three of these occurring on conservation lands) with an estimated totalpopulation of 100-1,000 individuals; its status was thought to be possibly declining. Maschinskiet al. (2004) estimated the total population to be 10,300 plants across eight populations in 2003,with one population sustaining the vast majority (approximately 10,000 individuals). Carter’ssmall-flowered flax was not found during a 2-year project intended to survey and map nonnativeand rare plants along FDOT right-of-ways within Miami-Dade County (Gordon et al. 2007).

In 2012, Bradley and van der Heiden (2013) conducted a status survey for Carter’s small-flowered flax to include extant occurrences, historic locations, and new survey stations. Becausethey had previously conducted a cothprehensive survey of all pine rockland habitat in 2004-2005(during which, Carter’s small-flowered flax was not found on any new sites), this habitat wasexcluded from new surveys. Canals within urban Miami-Dade County that intersected with thepine rockland soils of the Miami Rock Ridge were surveyed, as were additional disturbed siteswith remnant native vegetation in close proximity to existing sites. Carter’s small-flowered flaxwas found at seven locations containing approximately 1,313 individuals; populations ranged insize from a single plant to 700 plants, with a median of 18 plants (Table 10; Bradley and van derHeiden 2013). One occurrence (at Gifford Arboretum Pineland), which had not been observedsince the l990s but whose habitat was still extant, was deemed “Historical” and may reappearthere (Bradley and van der Heiden 2013). Of the seven extant occurrences, five populations areon publicly owned lands but only three of these are managed for the conservation of naturalresources (Table 10). Four of the populations occur near the north end of the variety’s range(near R. Hardy Matheson Preserve) and three occur near the south end (near Camp OwaissaBauer), with an approximately 16km (10 mi) gap between the closest populations of thesegroups. Within each grouping, populations are approximately 1.3-4.3 km (0.8-2.7 mi) apart.

Because this variety is known to be a short-lived perennial with widely fluctuating numbers ofindividuals (Maschinski et al.2003, 2004), as well as being difficult to find when not in flower,we include an estimate of population range using the logarithmic scale (Table 10) to account forthese characteristics and to provide a comparison to the previous total population estimates.Using the logarithmic scale, the total population estimate is 337-3,310 plants. However, itshould be noted that most 2012 observations were at the low end of the correspondinglogarithmic range such that the resulting high end for the total population estimate may be a grossoverestimate of the actual population. Based strictly on 2012 observations, the total populaiionestimate may be closer to 1,300 individuals. Comparing these estimates to the 1999 and 2003population estimates generally supports the boom-and-bust nature of Carter’s small-floweredflax, although the decline since 2004 could also potentially indicate a declining trend for thelargest occurrence.

55

The species was not found during a two-year project intended to survey and map exotic and rareplants along FDOT right-of-ways within Miami-Dade and Monroe counties (Gordon et al. 2007).

TABLE 10. EXTANT AND HISTORICAL POPULATIONS OF CARTER’S SMALL-FLOWERED FLAXI OWNERSHIP

POPULATION POPULATION RANGE~ (° denotes lands managed for(Est. No. of plants in 2012)(NEC # if applicable (P-#))

~_conservation)

Extant: Population status confirmed in 2012 surveys conducted by IRC

State of Florida — SouthC-I 03 Canal Florida Water Management I -10 (1)

DistrictState of Florida — managed byCamp Owaissa Bauer Addition (P-255.4) 11-100 (13)Miami-Dade County°

Chapman Field, USDA Subtropical Horticultural Federal — U.S. Department of10 1-1000 (700)Research Station (portions are P-63) Agriculture

Private — MontgomeryMontgomery Botanical Center 11-100 (12)Botanical Center

Old Dixie Pineland Private 11-100 (18)

State of Florida — managed byR. Hardy Matheson Preserve (14-634) 101-1000 (374)Miami-Dade County°

Rockdale Pineland (P.52) Miami-Dade County° 101-1000 (195)

Historical: Population not observed for> 10 years, but habitat extant

clifford Arboretum Pineland Private 0

Source for number of plants is Bradley and van der Heiden (2013)

Threats: The number of known populations of Carter’s small-flowered flax has decreased bynearly 50 percent in recent years, and extant populations are small and isolated. Of the remainingspecies’ occurrences, four are on conservation lands; three of these have approximately100 individuals or fewer. Another site is owned by the U.S. government, but the site is notmanaged for conservation. On private lands, this species is threatened by on-going urbandevelopment (NatureServe 2012), and habitat destruction is a major threat (Gannet al. 2002) asdemonstrated by the recent probable extirpations of at least three populations on private lands(Table 10). The Service has determined that the threats to Carter’s small-flowered flax consistprimarily of habitat loss and modification through urban and agricultural development, firesuppression, proliferation of nonnative invasive plants, and sea level rise. Threats describedunder habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation resulting from development, fire suppression,and competition from nonnative invasive plants are believed to be the primary drivers in thehistoric and recent declines of Carter’s small-flowered flax and has also been threatened byanthropogenic disturbances which threaten populations in disturbed habitats such as firebreaksand road rights-of-way, and both taxa are suspected to be negatively affected by threats related tosmall, isolated populations. All of these threats are expected to continue to impact populationsof these taxa in the future. Current local, State, and Federal regulatory mechanisms areinadequate to protect these taxa from taking and habitat loss. Despite the existing regulatorymechanisms, Carter’s small-flowered flax continue to decline.

56

Remaining habitats are fragmented. Climatic changes, including sea-level rise, are long-termthreats that will further reduce the extent of habitat. Most occurrences are in low-lying areas andwill likely be affected by rising sea level. Carter’s small-flowered flax is vulnerable to naturaldisturbances, such as hurricanes, tropical storms, and storm surges. Due to the few remainingoccurrences within a restricted range and the small and isolated populations, this species isvulnerable to environmental (catastrophic hurricanes), demographic (potential episodes of poorreproduction), and genetic (potential inbreeding depression) threats. This species exists in suchsmall numbers at so few sites, that it may be difficult to develop and maintain viable occurrenceson the available conservation lands. Viable plant populations for small, short-lived herbs mayconsist of tens of thousands of plants. Although no population viability analysis has beenconducted for this plant, indications are that existing occurrences are at best marginal, and it ispossible that none are truly viable. Lack of dispersal between occurrences may also be a threat(Fellows et al. 2004).

Tiny polygala

The following discussion is summarized from the final listing rule (50 FR 29345), the SouthFlorida MSRP (Service 1999), the 5-year status review (Service 2007), and from recent researchpublications and monitoring reports.


Tiny polygala is 1 of 9 species of Polygala native to Miami-Dade County and 1 of 11 from PalmBeach County (Wunderlin and Hansen 2004). The most similar species is candyroot (Polygalanana) (Bradley and Gann 1995), which is distributed through much of Florida. Bradley andGann (1995) found existing identification keys were inadequate, but the two species could bedistinguished by seed size. The seed body length (not including the rostrum) of tiny polygala isbetween 1.2 and 1.4 mm; the length for candyroot is between 0.6 and 0.8 mm (Bradley and Gann1995). Bradley and Gann (1995) found both species occur at the Jupiter Ridge Natural Area inPalm Beach County, and the distribution maps in Wunderlin and Hanson (2004) show thedistribution of candyroot extending south to Broward County.

No critical habitat has been designated for tiny polygala.

Life history

The life span of tiny polygala is short, averaging only 180 days, with only 9 percent of wildplants living beyond 1 year (Koptur et al. 1998). Plants typically appear, flower, and thendisappear until the next fire or other suitable disturbance. Tiny polygala produces a seed bankthat persists within the soil for at least 2 years (Kennedy 1998). Seedling emergence peaks fromSeptember-November, but a few seedlings emerge from May-June. Seed germinationexperiments have been conducted in the field, but few demographic studies have been initiated(Wendelberger and Frances 2004). Kennedy (1998) found at situ seeds germinated within 3 weeks,and 80-100 percent of older, buried seeds germinated regardless of seasonal photoperiod (Kopturet al. 1998). Seeds buried to a depth of 1 cm for over 2 years had a high viability rate, suggesting

57

seeds may persist for 10 years or more when slightly buried (Kennedy 2006 in litt.). It is,therefore, important to manage not only for above-ground plants, but for the conservation of theseed bank.

Because seeds may remain dormant in the soil until fire disturbs the site, abundance andpopulation trends for this species are difficult to assess. Koptur et al. (1998) suggested that fireis a requirement for seed germination, because fresh seeds collected from the wild exhibited a50 percent greater germination rate following soaking in a smoke extract. Fellows (2002)repeated the experiment and found that initial germination rates of seeds treated with smokeextract averaged a rate that was 4.3 days faster than non-smoke treated seeds. Total percentgermination was similar. Due to fragmentation of populations and the short generation time oftiny polygala, Wendelberger and Frances (2004) believe that the species may experience lowgenetic diversity. Current knowledge of this species’ life history is presented in the ConservationAction Plan (Wendelberger and Frances 2004).


When tiny polygala was listed, it was known from sandy pine rockland and Florida scrubvegetation in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties (the Miami and Fort Lauderdale metro areas,respectively). A survey of 56 sites between Broward and Indian River Counties extended itsknown range into northern Palm Beach and south-central Martin Counties, but only at a few sites(Bradley and Gann 1995). Later, Bradley et al. (1999) conducted an endangered plant survey inFlorida scrub vegetation in Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River Counties, covering 25 properties.They found no new populations. Surveys for rare plants in Brevard County did not find tinypolygala (Kennedy 2003a, 2003b, 2004), although this was not a target species and may havebeen missed. In 2004, thirteen sites contained approximately 22 populations in Miami-Dade,Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin Counties grouped into four population clusters, with thehighest density of populations located in southern Miami-Dade County (Wendelberger andFrances 2004). Clusters of populations are separated by an average of 38 mi, and the distributionof this plant remains fragmented. The overall number of plants is estimated at approximately11,000, with the majority of these occurring on a single site in Miami-Dade County (Maschinski2010).

There have been no new finds of tiny polygala since 1995, despite surveys of possible scrub sites(Bradley and Gann 1995; Bradley et al. 1999; Woodmansee et al. 2007; Maschinski et al. 2008;FNAI 2010), as well as a project to map the pinelands of Miami-Dade County (IRC 2006). Thespecies is currently known from four sites in Miami-Dade County (Maschinski et al. 2008;Maschinski 2010), two sites in Palm Beach County, and single occurrences in Martin and St.Lucie Counties (Bradley and Gann 1995; Walesky 2005; Woodmansee et al. 2007; FNAI 2010).Seven of eight known occurrences are on publicly owned lands, and all these sites are currentlybeing managed for conservation of tiny polygala.

During 2008, FTBG conducted surveys for the species at all known sites within Miami-DadeCounty (Maschinski et al. 2008; Maschinski 2010). The four known sites where it remainsinclude the publicly owned Miami Metrozoo and adjacent U.S. Coast Guard property, both

58

located within the 2,100-acre Richmond pinelands (Maschinski et al. 2008; Maschinski 2010).The Coast Guard site contains the largest population of plants, which was estimated at over10,000 plants during a 2008 survey (Maschinski et al. 2008; Maschinski 2010). The species wasalso reported from the Deering Estate at Cutler (441 ac) and the Pine Shore Pineland Preserve(Pine Shore Park) (8 ac) (Maschinski 2005 in litt; Maschinski et al. 2008; Maschinski 2010;FNAI 2010). This survey failed to locate the plant at two previously documented sites, theCounty owned Ludlam pineland and the adjoining Florida Power and Light Company easement(Maschinski 2005 in litt.; IRC 2006; Maschinski et al. 2008; Maschinski 2010; FNAI 2010),suggesting the species may be extirpated from these sites. The survey also did not report findingthe species at former sites on University of Miami and Air Force lands, both occurring within theRichmond pinelands (Maschinski et al. 2008; Maschinski 2010). However, Woodmansee et al.(2007) indicate tiny polygala occurrences appear to be cyclic, suggesting historical occurrences,if given appropriate management, may reappear.

In Broward County, tiny polygala was known to occur only at one site, the 16.5-acre GopherTortoise Preserve at Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, managed by the City of Fort Lauderdale(FNAI 2010; Maschinski 2010). This site was surveyed in 2002 and no plants were found (Possley2006 in litt.), but it is presumed that seeds remain in dormancy. However, Woodmansee et al.(2007) also failed to locate the plant at this site during 2006 surveys and suggested that droughtconditions, exotic plants, and lack of fire may have hindered this population. The nearly adjoiningCypress Creek Scrub Preserve (8 ac), also managed by the City ~FNAI 2010), has not been surveyedfor tiny polygala (Possley 2006 in litt.; Maschinski 2006 in litt.), but plants may occur there.

Palm Beach County’s Department of Environmental Resources Management (Walesky 2005 inlitt.) reports that tiny polygala is found in two locations in the County. Walesky (2005 in litt.)indicates all of the locations are characterized by open patches of white sand with a ground watertable that is relatively near the surface. At Jupiter Ridge Natural Area (269 ac), which had100 plants when discovered by Gann in 1994, there were 12 plants in 2004 and 86 in August 2005.County biologists attribute the increased population in 2005 to the opening up of the site’s dryhammock (hardwood forest) from hurricane activity and above-normal spring and summerrainfall (Walesky 2005 in litt.; Woodmansee et al. 2007). Further surveys by Woodmansee et al.(2007) found smaller densities in 2006 and noted the species abundance at the site fluctuatesdramatically from year to year. Tiny polygala was also discovered at Limestone Creek NaturalArea in 2002. A survey conducted in July 2003 recorded 13 plants (Walesky 2005 in litt.). Since2006, the number of plants recorded at this site has ranged from 3 to 60, with 26 encountered duringApril 2010 (Woodmansee et al. 2007; Shearer 2010). Walesky (2005 in litt.) indicated theCounty’s oceanfront Diamondhead!Radnor Future Park Site (154 ac), discovered in 2001,maintained a population of about 50 plants. However, further surveys at this site determined thatthe plants reported from this site were candyroot, the closest congener of tiny polygala(Woodmansee et al. 2007; Bradley 2010).

In southern Martin County, tiny polygala is known to occur in Jonathan Dickinson State Park(JDSP) (17,314 ac). Surveys of the site conducted from 2000 to 2008 have recorded varyingnumbers of plants (Woodmansee et al. 2007; FNAI 2010). Woodmansee et al. (2007) indicatedthat while the species appears to be in decline at JDSP, it is expected plant numbers will increase

59

in the long run, provided fires are administered. In St. Lucie County, the species was determinedto occur at the privately owned Lynn University, based on a specimen collected in 1984 (Bradleyand Gann 1995). Woodmansee et al. (2007) located 14 plants at this site in 2006, further notingthe site had recently been burned and that exotics were being managed. Bradley and Gann(1995) documented the species at the Lynngate portion of Savanna Preserve State Park, also inSt. Lucie County. However, Woodmansee et al. (2007) reported no plants during a 2006 surveyand indicated fire suppression over time was the most likely cause for the plants’ disappearancefrom this site.

Everglades bully


Everglades bully is a decumbent or upright shrub, 3-6 ft (1-2 m) tall. The branches are smooth,slightly geniculate, and somewhat spiny. Leaves are thin, obovate or ovate, 0.8-2 inches (2-5 cm)long, evergreen, oblanceolate, and fuzzy on their undersides. The flowers are in axillary cymes(Long and Lakela 1971). Everglades bully is distinguished from the other two subspecies of S.reclinatum in Florida by its leaves, which are persistently pubescent (fuzzy) on their undersides,rather than smooth or pubescent only along the midvein (Wunderlin and Hansen 2003).

Life history

Everglades bully is restricted to pinelands with tropical understory vegetation on limestone rock(pine rocklands), mostly in the Long Pine Key area of ENP, which is an area of pine rocklandsurrounded by wetlands. In ENP and BCNP, Everglades bully is found in pinelands,pineland/prairie ecotones, and prairies (Gann et al. 2006; Bradley et al. 2013). Plants are foundin low elevation pinelands and pineland/marl prairie ecotones that flood each summer (Gann etal. 2006; Bradley et al. 2013). Bradley et al. (2013) conducted surveys in the Gum Slough regionof Lostman’s Pines in BCNP and reported finding the subspecies to have distribution within thestudy area.

Population dynamics

In 2005, IRC reported that more than 10,000 plants were found in surveys of Long Pine Key (K.Bradley, pers. comm. 2005). The baseline abundance estimate at Long Pine Key based on aloglO abundance estimate is 10,000-100,000 plants (Gannet al. 2006). Gannet al. (2006) found14 occurrences of this species recorded at 149 stations. Bradley et al. (2013) conducted surveysin the Gum Slough region of Lostman’s Pines in BCNP and reported finding Everglades bully tohave limited distribution within the study area. A total of 17 plants (representing 0.2 plants perha) were counted within pinelands plots (n = 3), that were associated with sawgrass andhardwood habitats (Bradley et al. 2013).

FTBG tagged 41 groups of plants, each group consisting of ito 6 individuals, for a total ofapproximately 73 individuals at Larry and Penny Thompson Park (Possley and McSweeney2005). This is probably the largest population outside of Long Pine Key. Estimated populationsizes for the other occurrences are noted in Table 11 (Hodges and Bradley 2006; Gann et al.2006; K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007; J. Possley, pers. comm. 201 la, 201 ib).

60


The rounded global status of Everglades bully is Ti, critically imperiled (NatureServe 2010).NatureServe (2010) indicates this taxon is a narrow, endemic subspecies occurring in sensitiveand highly fragmented pine rocklands of southern Florida. FNAI considers Everglades bully tohave a global rank of G4G5T1, meaning the species as a whole is “apparently” or “demonstrablysecure globally,” but the subspecies is “critically imperiled globally” (FNAI 2011). Evergladesbully was considered to be critically imperiled by IRC; however, based upon data collected in thefirst year of their study, IRC down-ranked this species to imperiled (Gann et al. 2006; Gann et al.200 1-2010). Everglades bully is not listed by the State.

Historical Range/Distribution: Everglades bully was long considered to be restricted to thetropical pinelands of Miami-Dade County. Gann et al. (2002) provided a history of collections:Everglades bully was first documented at Camp Jackson near what is now the main entrance toENP. It has been collected several times (starting in 1852) at Long Pine Key. The species hasbeen observed in pinelands east of ENP, the Nixon-Lewis Hammock (where the pinelands havesince been destroyed), privately-owned Grant Hammock, and privately-owned Pine RidgeSanctuary.

In Monroe County, this species is found only on the mainland (Hodges and Bradley 2006).Hodges and Bradley (2006) stated that if it had occurred in the Florida Keys, the most likelylocations would have been pine rocklands on Key Largo, Big Pine Key, Cudjoe Key or LowerSugarloaf Key, all of which were surveyed for this species. Hodges and Bradley (2006) indicatedthat most of the sites on Key Largo have been developed. There have been no records of thistaxon ever being collected there.

Current Range! Distribution: Everglades bully is extant at 11 sites (Table 11). One populationoccurs locally at BCNP along the edges of Gum Slough within Lostman’s Pines area (south ofLoop Road), on the mainland portion of Monroe County (Bradley et al. 2013). The largestpopulation is at Long Pine Key within ENP in Miami-Dade County (Hodges and Bradley 2006;Gann et al. 2006). New occurrences within ENP are expected to be found as work continues toestablish the limits of this species’ habitat requirements. Everglades bully appears to have amuch wider range than previously thought (Gann et al. 2006).

One occurrence is located at Larry and Penny Thompson Park in the Richmond Pinelandsadjacent to the Metrozoo in Miami-Dade County (Gann et al. 2002; Possley and McSweeney2005). This plant occurs at the privately-owned Pine Ridge Sanctuary in Miami-Dade Countyand possibly at a few non-protected pinelands, such as Grant Hammock (Gann et al. 2002). In2007, Bradley (pers. comm. 2007) reported small occurrences in Miami-Dade County at thefollowing locations: Lucille Hammock, South Dade Wetlands, NFC #P-300, and NFC #P-3 10.More recently, Possley (J. Possley, FTBG, pers. comm. 201 la) found two plants at Quail RoostPineland, an area that was formerly very overgro~’n, but was treated for manual hardwoodreduction in 2007 and then burned in 2009.

Possley (pers. comm. 201 Ib) reported populations from Navy Wells Pineland Preserve (four plants)and Sunny Palms Pinelands (two plants), both areas are Miami-Dade County conservation lands.

61

Table 11: Extant occurrences of Everglades bully (Hodges and Bradley 2006; Gannet al. 2006; K. Bradley, pers.comm. 2007; J. Possley, pers. comm. 201 Ia, 201 Ib; J. Sadie, pers. comm. 2011; Bradley et al. 2013).

Site Owner County Estimated Threatsabundance (site specific only)

Long Pine Key, ENP NPS Miami-Dade 10K — lOOK Sea level rise, exotic plants, firesuppression, hydrologicalterations

Big Cypress National NPS Monroe 17 Sea level rise, exotic plants, firePreserve suppression, hydrologic

alterationsLarry and Penny Miami-Dade Miami-Dade Approx 73 Sea level rise, exotic plants, fireThompson Park County suppression, hydrologic

alterationsNavy Wells Pineland Miami-Dade Miami-Dade 4 Sea level rise, exotic plants, firePreserve County suppression, hydrologic

alterationsSunny Palms Pineland Miami-Dade Miami-Dade 2 Sea level rise, exotic plants, fire

County suppression, hydrologicalterations

Pine Ridge Sanctuary private Miami-Dade Unknown Sea level rise, development, firesuppression, exotic plants

Lucille Hammock Miami-Dade Miami-Dade 11 - 100 Sea level rise, exotic plants, fireCounty suppression

South Dade Wetlands Partially acquired Miami-Dade Unknown Sea level rise, exotic plants, fireby Miami-Dade suppressionCounty

NFC #P-300 private Miami-Dade 2- 10 Sea level rise, development, firesuppression,_exotic_plants

NFC #P-3 10 private Miami-Dade 1 1 - 100 Sea level rise, development, firesuppression,_exotic_plants

Quail Roost Pineland Miami-Dade EEL Miami-Dade 2 Sea level rise, fire suppression,Preserve exotic plants

Florida bristle fern


The Florida bristle fern is a very small, mat-forming fern, superficially resembling someliverwort species. Wunderlin and Hansen (2000) described it as “Stem long-creeping, matforming, the trichomes (hair-like or bristlelike outgrowth) brownish black, of 2 types, 2-celledglandular and elongate rhizoidlike ones; roots absent. Leaves separated, the petiole 0.1-2 cmlong, usually shorter than the blade, pubescent above and below with trichomes like those of thestem but shorter, with stellate (star-shaped) trichomes few and distal on the winged upper part,the blade flabellate (fan-shaped), round, narrowly oblanceolate to nearly linear, entire orirregularly lobed at the apex, 0.5-2 cm long, 0.2-1.1 cm wide, the midrib wanting or less than halfthe blade length, the apex rounded to obtuse, the base narrowly cuneate (wedge-shaped), themargin entire to irregularly and flabellately lobed, lobes oblong and blunt to obscurely deltoid,frequently resembling proliferous outgrowths distally, with marginal black stellate trichomes,with 2-celled glandular trichomes on the veins, false veins few, the true veins not enlarged at

62

their apex. Involucres (a cup-shaped structure which houses the spore-bearing organs) 1.5-2 mmlong, 1-6 at the blade apex, immersed for half or more of their length to fully so, the lips distinctfrom the blade tissue, inconspicuously dark-margined, the receptacle included or exserted to lessthan about half the involucre length.”

Life history

Florida bristle fern is always associated with shaded limestone outcrops. Plants usually grow onbare limestone, but are occasionally found on tree roots growing on limestone. In Miami-DadeCounty, it has been found exclusively in oolitic (composed of minute rounded concretionsresembling fish eggs) limestone solution holes and rocky outcrops in rockland hammocks.Solution holes are formed by dissolution of subsurface limestone followed by a collapse above(Snyder et al. 1990). Solution holes vary in size, from shallow holes less than 0.5 m (1.6 ft) deepto those that cover over 100 m2 (1,076 ft2) and are several meters deep. The bottoms of mostsolution holes are filled with deep organic soils. Deeper solution holes penetrate the water tableand have (at least historically) standing water for part of the year. Humidity levels are higher inand around the solution holes because of standing water and moisture retained in the organic soils.

The canopy cover is typically very dense where Florida bristle fern occurs, and consists of a mixof temperate and tropical hardwood trees including lancewood (Ocotea coriacea), pigeon plum(Coccoloba divers~fo1ia), live oak, paradise tree (Simarouba glauca), strangler fig (Ficus aurea),and mastic (Sideroxylonfoetidissimum) (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007). Many tropical,epipetric plant species are associated with solution holes in rockland hammocks. Soils at theMiami-Dade County sites are classified as Matecumbe Muck (http://www.fgdl.org/). In SumterCounty, the plants occur in a mesic/hydric hammock on limestone boulders 1 - 2 m (3.3 - 6.6 ft)tall, under a canopy of live oak, cabbage palm, and American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana)(C. Werner, pers. comm. 2007). Florida bristle fern grows on boulders with tall, horizontal faceswith other rare fern species (e.g., hemlock spleenwort [Aspleniurn cristatunz], and widespreadpolypody [Pecluma dispersal). The hammocks where it has been found are surrounded by amosaic of wetlands. Soils at the Sumter County station are classified as Mabel Fine Sand,bouldery subsurface (http://www.fgdl.org/).

Little is known about the life history of this taxon, or for members of the genus in general. Likeall ferns, Florida bristle fern has two life history stages, a gametophyte stage and a sporophytestage. All populations that have been reported have been in the sporophyte stage. The initialstage, after a spore germinates, is the gametophyte stage. The gametophyte contains separatesperm and egg producing structures. In the presence of water or moisture, sperm reach the eggsfor fertilization. Fertilized eggs, under the proper conditions, develop into sporophytes — thetypical form most ferns are observed in. The sporophytes produce spores which in turn cangerminate to produce new gametophytes (Nelson 2000). Reproduction may also occur in twoother ways. Plants may reproduce by division, when rhizomes break, forming clones of theparent plant. They may also reproduce with the production of gemmae, propagules produced bygametophytes, which can grow into new gametophytes of the same genotype (Hill 2003).

63

Spores have been recorded in October (J. Possley, pers. comm. 2007), but plants probablyproduce spores during much of the summer wet season. During the dry season, sporophytes havebeen observed to desiccate, and probably do not produce spores. For Florida bristle fern, thereproductive requirements, such as moisture levels, needed for each stage of its life history areunknown. Data are needed on longevity, growth rates, recruitment rates, dispersal methods, andgenetic variation.

Population dynamics

Because Florida bristle fern grows in dense mats and is rhizomatous, it is difficult, if notimpossible, to accurately count individual plants. This difficulty has been encountered in otherTrichomanes species, such as Appalachian bristle fern (Trichomanes boscianum) (Hill 2003). InMiami-Dade County the taxon occurs at four sites in eight solution holes and several smallerholes and rocky outcroppings (J. Possley, pers. comm. 2008, 2011). Possley has estimated thatindividual colonies cover from 30 cm2 (4.7 square inches) to a maximum of 400 cm2 (62 squareinches) on the walls of solution holes. The total area covered by the colonies at the eight solutionholes is roughly 1620 cm2 (251.1 square inches). There are probably less than 500 total plants,and many plants may be genetically identical, since new plants can arise from broken rhizomes(Possley, pers. comm. 2011). In Sumter County, the single small colony grows on five or sixboulders and covers approximately 0.3 m2 (3.0 ft2) (C. Werner, pers. comm. 2007). There areprobably fewer than 1,000 total plants in existence, but this may be a large overestimate of theactual number (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007).


FNAI considers the State status of the Florida bristle fern to be Si, “critically imperiled inFlorida because of extreme rarity (five or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) orbecause of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor” (FNAI2011). NatureServe (2010) gives its global short-term trend as declining with a rounded globalstatus of Ti, critically imperiled, due to extreme rarity and threats from drainage, conversion ofhabitat, and exotic plants. The IRC considers its status as “critically imperiled” (Gann et al.2001-2008). The Florida bristle fern is listed as endangered by the State.

Historical Range/Distribution: The historical range of Florida bristle fern included southern(Miami-Dade County) and central (Sumter County) Florida. In Miami-Dade County it occurredhistorically in at least 12 hammocks (Castellow, Cox, Fuchs, Hattie Bauer, Meissner, Modelloarea, Nixon-Lewis, Ross, Royal Palm, Shields, Silver Palm, Snapper Creek area) (Gann et al.2002). The range extended from Royal Palm Hammock (now in ENP) at its southern limit, northto at least Snapper Creek, and possibly further north into the Miami area (Oann et al. 2002). Thisis a range of at least 45 km (28 mi).

John Kunkel Small called attention to the demise of this taxon because of habitat destruction in1938 (Small 1938). Sites that have been destroyed include a station (study location) near theCity of Miami, the Snapper Creek area, a hammock near Modello (in southern Miami-DadeCounty near the intersection of U.S. I and S.W. 288 Street), Shields Hammock, and a hammocknear Longview Camp (between Florida City and ENP). Some other hammocks still exist where

64

the taxon formerly occurred. These include Cox Hammock (privately-owned Monkey Jungletourist attraction) where it was last seen in 1989, Silver Palm Hammock (preserve owned byMiami-Dade County) where it was last seen around 1980, Nixon-Lewis Hammock (privately-owned, disturbed, and mostly destroyed) where it was collected in 1915, and Royal PalmHammock (in ENP) where it was last reported in 1917 or earlier (Gann et al. 2002). It has alsobeen reported for the Deering Estate at Cutler and Matheson Hammock Park, both Miami-DadeCounty Parks, but these reports were never confirmed (Gann et al. 2002).

In Sumter County, Florida bristle fern has been documented to occur only in a small area(Wunderlin and Hansen 2000). All of the known collections are from the vicinity of the town ofWahoo. However, most herbarium label data are imprecise. Essentially all verified collectionshave been made from the area just north of Wahoo, which is east of the Withlacoochee River.The only known population in Sumter County still occurs in this area and is approximately 2 km(1.2 mi) north of Wahoo.

Two specimens have label data that indicate that the specimens were not collected north ofWahoo, but the label data on both of these are suspect. One specimen in 1963, Lakela #26474(University of South Florida herbarium), was collected at “Indian Field Ledges west ofWithlacoochee River off #48.” If this label data are correct, this station was about 6.0-6.5 km(3.7 —4.0 mi) to the west of Wahoo. The statement that it was west of the river may be in error,as Darling (1961) stated that the Indian Field Ledges are north of Wahoo, a locality east of theriver. Another specimen collected in 1939 (three years after its discovery in Florida, when it wasthought to be T. sphenoides) has the label data “south of Floral City, FL. This is the onlyknown station in the United States.” It was collected by J.B. Mcfarlin (Florida State Universityherbarium). Wahoo is approximately 11.3 km (7.0 mi) southeast of Floral City. The label datamay be incorrect and probably refer to the population in the Wahoo area. Because of the newreport of the taxon from that area, McFarlin probably collected at the same locality where thetaxon was found in 1936 and incorrectly recorded the direction from Floral City as south insteadof southeast. The specimen has led to reports of the taxon in Citrus County (Wherry 1964;Nelson 2000).

Current Range! Distribution: There are currently five, and possibly six, extant occurrences ofFlorida bristle fern (Gann et al. 2002), four in Miami-Dade County and two in Sumter County(Table 12). The Sumter County occurrences are approximately 400 km (249 mi) north of thosein Miami-Dade County.

In Miami-Dade County, Florida bristle fern is known from Meissner Hammock in two solutionholes (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2009), from Fuchs Hammock Preserve in three solution holes,and from Castellow Hammock Park in two large solution holes and several smaller holes androcky outcroppings (J. Possley, pers. comm. 2008). Fuchs and Meissner Hammocks areimmediately adjacent to each other, and Castellow Hammock Park is 10.5 km (6.5 mi) to thenortheast. During 2011, eight small patches of Florida bristle fern were re-discovered at HattieBauer Hammock. Seven of the these patches occurred within a single solution hole, the eighthpatch was found a few meters away from the hole J. Possley (pers. comm. 2011). Hattie Bauer

65

Hammock is 2.5 mi south of Castellow Hammock and approximately 5 mi northeast of Fuchsand Meissner Hammocks. In Sumter County, it is known from one colony in the WithiacoocheeState Forest’s Jumper Creek Tract, north of Wahoo. Another occurrence consisting of twocolonies on private land just south of the State Forest may be extirpated.

While no comprehensive status survey has been conducted, rockland hammocks in Miami-DadeCounty with suitable habitat have been extensively explored, including sites where it wasformerly found. It is unlikely that additional surveys will reveal new occurrences in Miami-DadeCounty. However, it is possible Florida bristle fern occurs at some of the hammocks orhammock fragments that remain intact. It is possible three or four hammocks may be sufficientlyintact to support the species (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2009). Attempts to relocate the taxon inRoyal Palm Hammock in ENP have not been successful (Gann et al. 2006; J. Sadie, ENP, pers.comm. 2008a), and additional surveys there are not expected to be successful (J. SadIe, pers.comm. 2008b). It could not be found in surveys of Silver Palm Hammock in the late 1990s andearly 2000s (Gann et al. 2002). It could not be found in Nixon-Lewis Hammock in 2004,although what remains of the hammock is so disturbed that finding it was extremely unlikely (K.Bradley, pers. comm. 2007). Extensive surveys have not been undertaken at Cox Hammock, andthe species may persist there (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2008).

Also, new locations could be encountered in Sumter County. The soil type of the knownoccurrence in Sumter County covers 3,652 ac (1,478 ha), and these areas have not beensystematically surveyed. In August 2007, a boulder field in the Withlachoochee State Forest’sJumper Creek Tract called the Indian Fields was explored without success (C. Werner, pers.comm. 2007). The hammocks in the vicinity of the known colony have also been searchedwithout finding additional colonies (C. Werner, pers. comm. 2007). A systematic survey of allpotential and suitable habitat in and around Sumter County is needed.

Table 12: Summary of known, extant occurrences of Florida bristle fern. Data are from Gannet al. (2002), K.Bradley (pers. comm. 2009), and J. Possley (pers. comm. 2008, 2011).

Cotuitj Location Own aiship N of colonies StatusMiami- Meissner Hammock’ Public 2 ExtantDade Fuchs Hammock Preserve2 Public 3 Extant

Castellow Hammock Park2 Public 2÷ ExtantHattie Bauer Hammock4 Public 1 Extant

Sumter Withlacoochee State Forests Jumper Creek TractS Public 1 ExtantPrivate land south of Jumper Creek Tract° Private 2 Unknown

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

Status of the species/critical habitat within the action area

Florida bonneted bat — The Florida bonneted bat appears to be restricted to south and southwestFlorida. The core range may primarily consist of habitat within Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe,and Miami-Dade Counties. Recent data also confirm use of portions of Okeechobee and Polkcounties and possible use of areas within Glades County. Within the action area in Miami-DadeCounty, the Florida bonneted bat has been documented at the Richmond Pinelands (Larry andPenny Thompson Memorial Park and the Miami Metrozoo). The species has been documented

66

at the Miami Metrozoo within an urban public park (Ridgley 2012; Marks and Marks 2012). Adead specimen was found on the Miami Metrozoo grounds at the Asian Elephant barn in 2004(Marks and Marks 2008a). Miami-Dade County biologists observed seven bats similar in size toFlorida bonneted bats and heard chatter at the correct frequency a few years ago, but were unableto obtain definitive recordings (S. Thompson, Miami-Dade Park and Recreation Department,pers. comm. 2010) until a single call was recorded by Florida Bat Conservancy outside the sameenclosure in September 2011 (Ridgley 2012; Marks and Marks 2012). Florida bonneted bat callshave also been recorded at Larry and Penny Thompson Memorial Park (F. Ridgley, pers. comm.2013). The number and status of the bonneted bat at each location in the action area is unknown. Thepopulation is estimated to be in hundreds to low thousands (Marks and Marks 2008a; FWC 2011).

Eastern indigo snake — Because eastern indigo snakes are thought to be widely distributed insouth Florida, it is probable that they occur within the action area. Given their preference forupland habitats, eastern indigo snakes are not found in great numbers in the wetland complexesof the Everglades region, even though they are found in pinelands, tropical hardwood hammocks,and mangrove forests in extreme South Florida (Steiner et al. 1983). Eastern indigo snakes arehabitat generalists; they will use everything from the pristine uplands and wetlands to highlydisturbed residential areas (Bolt 2006). Even though the action area is in south Florida wheregopher tortoise burrows are not widespread, eastern indigo snakes will use a variety of den sites,such as other holes or burrows, tree stumps, root masses, and piles of yard or construction debris(Bolt 2006).

Reptile surveys were conducted in pine rockland habitat in six county parks in Miami-DadeCounty in 1996-97 and in 2001, but no eastern indigo snakes were detected (Enge et al. 2004).Enge et al. (2004) stated these parks may not have supported the prey base needed for largesnakes. Eastern indigo snakes were reported from pineland habitat in Long Pine Key, ENP(Dalrymple et al. 1991). Staff at the Miami Metrozoo have observed one eastern indigo snake inthe property’s undeveloped pinelands within the last 10 years (Conners 2002, as cited in Enge etal. 2004). Because they have been reported in pine rockland habitat in south Florida and thehabitat is suitable, eastern indigo snakes are expected to occur within the action area.

Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly — The Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly is currentlyknown to occur at Long Pine Key within ENP as well as several of the larger pine rocklandfragments outside ENP including Navy Wells Pineland Preserve, Camp Owaissa Bauer, and theRichmond Pinelands (Larry and Penny Thompson Park, Martinez Pineland, and the MiamiMetrozoo), all within the proposed action area associated with the FWC project (Salvato andHennessey 2004; Salvato, Service, pers. obs. 2008). Critical habitat is proposed within the actionarea for the FWC project in the Richmond Pinelands (Miami Metrozoo, Larry and PennyThompson, Luis B. Martinez), Navy Wells, Nixon Smiley Pineland, Boystown Pineland, CampOwaissa Bauer, Quail Roost Pineland, Sunny Palms Pineland, Tamiami Pineland ComplexAddition, Florida City Pineland, Navy Wells Pineland #39, Palm Drive Pineland, FuchsHammock Addition, Owaissa Bauer Addition, and Silver Palm Groves.

67

Florida leafwing butterfly — The Florida leafwing butterfly is currently known to occur only atLong Pine Key within ENP in Miami-Dade County (Salvato and Hennessey 2003; Salvato,Service, pers. obs. 2008). Until recently the species was also known to occur in several pinerockland fragments outside of ENP, as well the lower Florida Keys (Salvato and Hennessey2003). However, Salvato and Hennessey (2003) and Salvato (pers. comm. 2008) have generallyfailed to observe the Florida leafwing butterfly in these or other relict (surviving remnant) pinerockland areas outside ENP. During June 2007, one adult leafwing was observed within NavyWells within the proposed action area associated with the FWC project (Salvato, pers. comm.2008); however, no evidence of larval activity was encountered suggesting this observation was astray occurrence. In addition, no leafwing have been recorded outside of ENP since that time.Breeding Florida leafwing butterfly populations have not been documented in pine rocklandfragments adjacent to ENP for the past 25 years. Critical habitat is proposed within the actionarea for the FWC project in the Richmond Pinelands (Miami Metrozoo, Larry and PennyThompson, Luis B. Martinez) and on the Navy Wells site.

Crenulate lead-plant — The current range of this species, limited to four natural sites andtwo introduced sites, is almost fully contained within the action area. The sites in the actionproposed for management that contain natural populations of the plant are A.D. Barnes Park(22 ac), and Tropical Park (5 ac). There were 208 plants recorded at A.D. Barnes Park and130 plants recorded in Tropical Park in 2012 surveys (Maschinski et al. 2012). These are thetwo largest natural populations. R. Hardy Matheson, also proposed for management in the FWCproject, contained one of the four natural populations, but the most recent survey in 2010 foundno plants (Maschinski et al. 2012). The only other natural population of this species, at CoralPines Park, is very small (5 plants; Maschinski et al. 2012), but is not proposed for managementin these projects. The Deering Estate, where one of the introduced populations resides (67 plantsin 2011; Maschinski et al. 2011), is proposed for management in the FWC project (up to 137 ac).The other introduced population at Luis Martinez Army Reserve in the Richmond Pinelands(215 plants in 2012; Maschinski et al. 2012) is also part of the action area.

Blodgett’s silverbush — The current range for Blodgett’s silverbush includes Miami-Dade Countyand the Keys. According to data from IRC, the estimated population of Blodgett’s silverbush inMiami-Dade County is 375-13,650 plants (i.e., total of low and high estimates from loglO scale)(K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007); however, this may be an overestimate of the actual populationsize because it was based upon a loglO scale. “Blodgett’s silverbush is currently known fromcentral Miami-Dade County from Coral Gables (latitude 25° 43.45’) and southern Miami-DadeCounty to southwestern Long Pine Key in ENP (latitude 25° 24.2’). The range in Miami-DadeCounty has contracted approximately 12 mi, all at the northern end of its range, the heaviestdeveloped portion of Miami-Dade County” (Bradley and Gann 1999). Based upon Hodges andBradley (2006) and data from IR.C (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007), Blodgett’s silverbush hasbeen extirpated from at least 10 former sites within Miami-Dade County. However, several sitesin the action area retain Blodgett’s silverbush populations, including several proposed formanagement associated with the FWC project: Camp Owaissa Bauer, the Deering Estate(population potentially extirpated), Fuchs Hammock Addition, Richmond Pinelands (Larry andPenny Thompson Park and adjacent properties), Ned Glenn Pineland, and Owaissa BauerAddition.

68

Florida brickell-bush — All of the extant sites where this species is known to occur (Navy Wells,Pine Shore, Quail Roost, Richmond Pinelands [Larry and Penny Thompson Park and MiamiMetrozooj, Rockdale Pineland, Ron Ehman Park, and West Biscayne Pineland) are within theaction area of the FWC project, as well as 2 of the 10 sites that are presumed extant (confirmedwithin the last 10 years; Richmond Pinelands- Martinez and Nixon Smiley Pineland). There arealso three of five populations where the habitat remains extant but the species status was lastconfirmed 10 to 15 years ago that are part of the action area in both projects (Camp OwaissaBauer, SWP, and Tamiami Pinelands Complex Addition). The majority of the population isgrowing on the extant sites referenced above.

Deltoid spurge — Deltoid spurge is a Miami-Dade County endemic that was historically known tooccur in pine rocklands of the Miami rock ridge from the Goulds area north to the center of thecity of Miami. Currently the species is known to remain on 14 public lands (12 County, 1 State,1 Federal) and an undetermined number of private lands from southern Miami to Homestead(K. Bradley, IRC, pers. comm. 2010). Within the action area of the FWC project, it occurs onthe following 10 sites: Bill Sadowski Park, the Deering Estate, Ludlum Pineland, Ned GlennPineland, Pine Shore, Quail Roost, Richmond Pinelands, Rockdale Pineland, Ron Ehman Park,and Trinity Pineland. The current number of individuals in wild populations is not known.

Pineland sandmat — The pineland sandmat is known only from the southern portion of the MiamiRock Ridge in southern Miami-Dade County, Florida (Small 1933; Long and Lakela 1971;Wunderlin 1998), and south through Long Pine Key in ENP (Bradley and Gann 1999) where themajority of the population resides (more than 10,000 plants). Most of the former habitat outsideof ENP has been lost and only small remnants remain. Within the action area of both the FWCand FDACS projects, pineland sandmat occurs on the Florida City Pineland (100-1,000 plants),Navy Wells (1,000-10,000 plants), Palm Drive Pineland (10-100 plants), Rock Pit #39 (11-100plants), SWP (100-1,000 plants), Fuchs Hammock Addition (11-100 plants), and Sunny PalmsPineland (100-1,000 plants).

Garber’s spurge — Garber’s spurge is currently known from about 17 populations, including 2 withinMiami-Dade County: Long Pine Key and the Deering Estate at Cutler. Fire suppressionhistorically has been a problem at the Deering Estate at Cutler. With a long interval betweenfires, populations of Garber’s spurge will probably decline due at least in part to increasinghardwood and palm densities and accumulations of leaf litter. The Deering Estate is one of thesites now proposed for habitat management associated with the FWC project. This site containsup to approximately 137 ac that may receive management treatment. At the Deering Estate,DERM (1993) reported a population size of 250-500 plants based on 4 days of searchesspecifically for this species. Herndon (2002) estimated a population size of 600-6,000 plants. Incontrast, J. Possley (FTBG, pers. comm. 2007) estimated that only 100-200 plants were presentin 2004. However, neither the Herndon nor Possley estimates were based on thorough surveys.The total rangewide population size has not yet been determined. Numbers of individuals inpopulations vary widely. Some populations have fewer than 20 plants (e.g., Crawl Key rockbarren, Cudjoe Key, Key Largo, Lower Matecumbe Key). Two populations are extremely large.On Northwest Cape Sable (ENP), there may be over I million plants (Green et al. 2007b). OnLong Pine Key (ENP), there may be over 100,000 plants (Green et al. 2007a).

69

Florida prairie-clover - Florida prairie-clover is currently known from two occurrences in CollierCounty, one occurrence in Monroe County, and seven occurrences in Miami-Dade County. Thespecies is present at the Deering Estate and R. Hardy Matheson Preserve within the action area(Bradley and Gann 1999; data from IRC [K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007]; data from FNAI [A.Jenkins, pers. comm. 2007]; and data from FTBG [J. Maschinski, pers. comm. 2007]). Thesetwo occurrences represent approximately 550 to 700 plants. Overall, the population at the R.Hardy Matheson Preserve was previously declining, likely due to fire suppression for decades(Possley and Maschinski 2009). However, the population rebounded to 50 to 200 plants in 2010,apparently as a result of managers raking away pine straw and using a string trimmer (weedeater) on competing plants in the immediate area (J. Possley, pers. comm. 2011).

Florida pineland crabgrass — Florida pineland crabgrass is currently known from the Long PineKey area of ENP and BCNP (Bradley and Gann 1999; Gann et al. 2006). Bradley and Gann(1999) indicated that this species occurred in an area “stretching from near the park entrance (Justeast of Long Pine Key), southwest to the Mahogany Hammock turnoff at the western end of LongPine Key,” an area of about 31 mi2 (8,000 ha). Florida pineland crabgrass appears to have amuch wider range than previously thought (Gann et al. 2006) and ongoing studies within theaction area are expected to find additional populations. No populations are known to occur in theproposed project sites; however ongoing surveys may find additional locations for the specieswithin the action area.

Small’s milkpea —Small’s milkpea is found in the Redland region and a few sites at the southernend of the Biscayne region in Miami-Dade County (O’Brien 1998). The most current assessmentof NFCs in Miami-Dade County recorded the species on 8 public sites and 15 private sites (IRC2006; Bradley 2009, 20 lOa). Within the action area of both the FWC and FDACS projects, it isfound on Navy Wells (data unavailable), Ingram Pineland (11-100 plants), SWP (dataunavailable), Palm Drive Pineland (11-100 plants), Sunny Palms Pineland (100-1,000 plants),and Rock Pit #39 (11-100 plants).

Sand flax - Sand flax is currently known from four occurrences in the Keys and six occurrencesin Miami-Dade County (Bradley 2006; K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2007, 2011). In 1996, thespecies’ mainland range was from just north of SW 184 Street south to SW 288 Street and westto SW 264 Street and 177 Avenue; a distance of approximately 11.5 mi (18.5 km) northeast tosouthwest (Kernan and Bradley 1996). The geographic range on the mainland has contractedapproximately 61 percent (Kernan and Bradley 1996). This species is present at several siteswithin the action area (Bradley and Gann 1999; Hodges and Bradley 2006; K. Bradley, pers.comm. 2007), including the Richmond Pinelands (Luis B. Martinez U.S. Army Reserve Station),Camp Owaissa Bauer, and Owaissa Bauer Addition. These are all populations of 100 or fewerplants, compared to the population at the Homestead Air Reserve Base and adjacent land inMiami-Dade County which is estimated to be approximately 74,000 plants.

Carter’s small-flowered flax — Carter’s small-flowered flax was recently found at seven locationscontaining approximately 1,313 individuals; populations ranged in size from a single plant to700 plants, with a median of 18 plants (Bradley and van der Heiden 2013). Four of thepopulations occur near the north end of the variety’s range (near R. Hardy Matheson Preserve)

70

and three occur near the south end (near Camp Owaissa Bauer), with an approximately 16 km(10 mi) gap between the closest populations of these groups. Within the action area for the FWCproject, this variety occurs on the Owaissa Bauer Addition (11-100 plants), R. Hardy Matheson(101-1,000 plants), and the Rockdale Pineland (101-1,000 plants). R. Hardy Matheson and theRockdale Pineland appear to contain two of the three largest occurrences of the subspecies.

Tiny polygala — The species current range encompasses areas in four counties, including Miami-Dade County (Maschinski et al. 2008; Maschinski 2010). Within Miami-Dade County tinypolygala occurs entirely on protected sites, several of which are managed by Miami-Dade Countyand are sites proposed for habitat management associated with the FWC project. The largest site(not the largest population) is the publicly-owned pineland at The Deering Estate at Cutler,followed by the Miami Metrozoo portion of the County-owned pineland at Richmond and theadjacent U.S. Coast Guard property at Richmond. The Coast Guard site contains the largestpopulation of plants (Maschinski et al. 2008; Maschinski 2010). The Deering Estate andRichmond Pinelands (Metrozoo) are two of the sites proposed for habitat management associatedwith the FWC project. These sites contain up to approximately 691 ac that may receivemanagement treatment. Additionally, management is proposed on the Pine Shore site (8 ac) wherethis species occurs and the Ludlum Pineland (10 ac) where the species was previously documented.

Everglades bully — Everglades bully is extant at 11 sites in Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties(Bradley et al. 2013). This subspecies occurs within the action area for the FWC project in theRichmond Pinelands at Larry and Penny Thompson Park adjacent to the Metrozoo (73 plants;Gann et al. 2002; Possley and McSweeney 2005). Possley (J. Possley, FTBG, pers. comm.201 la) found two plants at Quail Roost Pineland, an area that was formerly very overgrown, butwas treated for manual hardwood reduction in 2007 and then burned in 2009. This site is alsowithin the action area for the FWC project for receiving additional treatment. Possley (pers.comm. 201 ib) reported populations from Navy Wells Pineland Preserve (four plants) and SunnyPalms Pinelands (two plants); both areas are Miami-Dade County conservation lands and withinthe action area for the FWC project.

Florida bristle fern — There are currently five, and possibly six, extant occurrences of Floridabristle fern (Gann et al. 2002), four in Miami-Dade County and two in Sumter County. Withinthe action area for the FWC project in Miami-Dade County, Florida bristle fern is known fromFuchs Hammock Preserve in three solution holes (J. Possley, pers. comm. 2008). While nocomprehensive status survey has been conducted, rockiand hammocks in Miami-Dade Countywith suitable habitat have been extensively explored, including sites where it was formerlyfound. It is unlikely that additional surveys will reveal new occurrences in Miami-Dade County.However, it is possible that Florida bristle fern occurs at some of the hammocks or hammockfragments that remain intact. It is possible that three or four hammocks may be sufficiently intactto support the species (K. Bradley, pers. comm. 2009).

Factors affecting the species habitat within the action area

The action area contains appropriate habitat for listed and candidate plants, bats, butterflies, andeastern indigo snakes. However, the rapid urbanization of Miami-Dade County has resulted inthe virtual elimination of extensive pine rocklands, the preferred habitat for several listed and

71

candidate species. Based on IRC surveys, pine rockland habitat in urban Miami-Dade Countyhas been reduced to about 1.8 percent of its natural extent. Of the original 127,000 ac, only2,273 ac of largely fragmented pine rocklands remain throughout Miami-Dade County, outside ofENP. The primary factors now affecting listed and candidate plants within pine rocklandfragments are exotics and natural fire suppression. Altogether, 79 species of naturalized exoticplants have been recorded in pine rocklands, the most problematic being Burmareed andBrazilian pepper. Pine rocklands are dependant on natural fires to maintain scrub and herb layersas well as to prevent succession. Without natural fires or adequate prescribed burns, pinerocklands can be replaced by hardwood hammock and invasive plant species. Pineland croton,the plant on which both proposed endangered butterflies depend for reproduction, is quickly out-competed by exotic plants or reduced in pine rocklands when fire is restricted.

Many of these remaining pine rocklands and pine rockland-containing disturbed areas such asparks, pastures, and vacant lots are geographically distinct and, therefore, do not providecontiguous habitat for the snake, bat, listed and candidate plants, and butterflies. They arefragmented by highly urbanized and suburban areas making it difficult to manage these parcelsand difficult for snakes or butterflies to move from one area to another. Breeding and foragingopportunities may be limited. In wildland urban interface areas, residential housing is also athreat to eastern indigo snakes because it increases the likelihood of snakes being killed byproperty owners and domestic pets. Collecting pressure may affect some of the species on publiclands. Other factors affecting the species within the action area include another ongoingfederally-funded restoration project for privately-owned pine rocklands that will benefit thespecies.

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

This section includes an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on thespecies and/or critical habitat and its interrelated and interdependent activities. This project willrestore degraded habitat, improve habitat conditions for listed and candidate species, andreintroduce and establish new populations of candidate and listed plants in pine rocklands.However, some remaining adverse effects will occur to the covered species as described below.This project is expected to have long-term beneficial effects for the Florida bonneted bat, easternindigo snake, Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly, Florida leafwing butterfly, crenulate leadplant, Blodgett’s silverbush, Florida brickell-bush, deltoid spurge, pineland sandmat, Garber’sspurge, Florida prairie-clover, Florida pineland crabgrass, Small’s milkpea, sand flax, Carter’ssmall-flowered flax, tiny polygala, Everglades bully, and Florida bristle fern.

Factors to be considered

Physical disturbance (including noise)All of the covered actions, either directly or indirectly, have the potential to produce someadditional level of physical disturbance because they involve the physical presence of humansand/or associated equipment, vehicles or machinery. Although effects are not quantitativelyknown, the literature suggests some form of physical effects from presence and associated noisewill create a disturbance response to individuals of each of the covered species.

72

The net effect of the physical disturbance including sustained sources of noise may be a localizedreduction of survival or productivity, avoidance of otherwise suitable habitat, and/or reduction ofbreeding frequency. These effects are expected to rarely occur and are not expected to producesubstantial changes in species distribution and abundance. However, some small level ofmortality is expected.

Temporary soil disturbance and vegetation removalTemporary soil disturbance and vegetation removal are expected from the implementation ofprescribed fire activities. This disturbance may result in loss or temporary change in habitatconditions for the covered species. Sources of the disturbance would include use of equipment(tractors, and other machinery) as well as practices that involve manipulation of vegetation (e.g.,fire break installation, mechanical treatment, and prescribed burning). The ground disturbancemay involve minor surface disturbance such as tracked vehicles or tires. Common potentialadverse effects identified by the Service include short term degradation of habitat conditions andthe potential for increased habitat fragmentation if the scale of the disturbance is large enoughand the potential to create opportunities for colonization of these disturbed sites by invasive plants.

Temporary adverse effects on individuals can include increased levels of stress hormones, increasedrecesses during incubation (i.e., may increase detection by predators and predation risk), ordisturbance/flushing of young. If these risks are realized, individual fitness is reduced and mayhave population level effects if disturbance is over a broad enough spatial or temporal scale.

Permanent removal/loss of suitable habitatThis adverse effect is a result of permanent removal of habitat conditions and specific vegetativeloss caused by the proposed actions or the expectation that, once implemented, permanentdegradation of habitat conditions for any of the covered species will have resulted.

The primary adverse effect is the permanent loss of habitat which can lead to a subsequentdecline in populations of the covered species. However, any permanent loss of habitat isexpected to be small in scale and will not substantially affect population trends or result inquantifiable additional habitat fragmentation effects.

Increased potential of accidental mortality to individualsProposed actions may include accidental mortality from collisions with vehicles or, in the case ofplants, loss of individual plants due to crushing or as a result of vegetative manipulation.Prescribed burning could potentially cause mortality or injury to listed species. Accidental injuryor mortality of individual members of the covered species may occur if the burn is conductedduring the nesting or brood-rearing seasons. Fires that burn too fast or hot may not provideindividuals seeking refuge/cover, time to escape, causing mortality. While fire may “top kill”covered plant species, these plants are fire adapted and have various strategies for responding tofire events, including vigorous re-sprouting from roots stock or seed banks. A temporaryreduction of habitat may occur and persist until the habitat recovers. In almost all cases, recoveryof habitat is rapid with improvement in habitat conditions resulting in a net conservation benefitfor both plants and animals. Conversely, in the absence of fire, habitat will degrade and reach apoint where conditions are no longer suitable for the covered species resulting in an overall lossof population numbers.

73

Increased potential for predationCertain proposed actions may increase the potential for predation on individuals through themodification of existing habitat conditions. The affected actions include those that involvehabitat manipulations. For example, some practices may create habitat for raptor perching. Inaddition, some practices will temporarily reduce available cover and food sources, making thecovered species more vulnerable to predation.

Species response to the proposed actions

Florida bonneted batThe Florida bonneted bat is known to forage along wetlands and open water and roost withinpine flatwoods and other habitats. This species is endangered. Specific natural roost sites areunknown. Potential effects to Florida bonneted bats due to the proposed action include a numberof direct and indirect effects on the bat and its habitat. Potential direct effects to the bat or itshabitat include: (1) direct mortality from fire or other proposed activities; (2) harassment byproposed activities; and (3) destruction of roosting sites. Potential indirect effects includebeneficial long-term improvements in habitat quality. Bats may be disturbed by fire pretreatment and herbicide application. Because it is thought they roost in tree hollows and infoliage of palm trees, bats may be injured or killed during prescribed fire or fire-related activities.

Habitat loss and alteration in forested and urban areas are substantial threats to the Floridabonneted bat (Belwood 1992; NatureServe 2009). In natural areas, this species may be impactedwhen forests are converted to other uses or when old trees with cavities are removed (Belwood1992; NatureServe 2009). In urban settings, this species may be impacted when buildings withsuitable roosts are demolished (Robson 1989; NatureServe 2009) or when structures are modifiedto exclude bats. Small population size, restricted range, low fecundity, and few and isolatedoccurrences are considerable on-going threats. This species is also vulnerable to prolongedextreme cold weather events. The cold spell experienced in Florida in early 2010 may havecaused a decline in the Florida bonneted bat population. A colony in Lee County once includedapproximately 20 to 24 individuals in two houses (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2008a, 2008b), butonly 9 remained after the prolonged cold temperatures in early 2010 (5. Trokey, pers. comm.2010a, 2010b).

Eastern indigo snakeFire crew members supported by this project will be trained to identify the species, learn abouthabitat needs that pertain to the health of the population, and learn about specific managementpractices that will avoid detrimental impacts to individuals. Personnel will use caution to avoidrunning over individuals when operating vehicles during preparations for prescribed burns. Ringfires, which could trap indigo snakes inside the burn area, will not be used. if an indigo snake isobserved inside the burn unit, ignition will cease and the snake will be allowed to leave the unit.if that is not successful, fire activities will be delayed to give the snake time to find refugeunderground before burning is continued, if fire threatens to burn over an individual, crewmembers will attempt to extinguish the fire to avoid impacts to the snake. Any eastern indigosnake in a burn project area may incur a brief period of disturbance to its patterns of feeding,

74

breeding, or sheltering. Disturbance from prescribed burns will occur for only 1 to 2 days oneach of the burn units, and the burns will be conducted in mosaic patterns, providing areas ofrefuge for indigo snakes. Fire treatments could conceivably kill or injure snakes, but theprecautions to be taken make it very likely that snakes would successfully flee fires or escape intounderground refugia. However, juvenile eastern indigo snakes use dense vegetation for coverrather than underground refugia and may be injured or killed during firebreak construction,mechanical treatment, and application of prescribed fire. Prescribed fires are expected toimprove prey species abundance in the re-growing vegetation. The eastern indigo snake inhabitsfire-adapted vegetation, so the proposed activities are expected, over a term of several years to adecade, to be beneficial to the eastern indigo snake.

Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterflyPrescribed burns could result in disturbance to the butterfly or its habitat and larval host plant,pineland croton, but pine rocklands will be burned in a mosaic pattern over time, thereby easingthe butterfly’s dispersal from and return to treatment areas. Immature Bartram’s scrubhairstreaks will likely be killed by prescribed fires. Similarly, adult Bartram’s scrub- hairstreaksare largely sedentary, rarely dispersing farther than 5 m from their host plant. As a result, onlyadult butterflies at the periphery of treatment areas are likely to escape prescribed burns.However, prescribed fires will restore and increase the distribution of pineland croton intreatment areas, providing more habitat for butterfly use. In addition, efforts will be made toavoid the largest stands of pineland croton to provide refugia for the butterflies and theirimmature stages. Mechanical treatment may also result in disturbance and/or mortality to thebutterfly and herbicide treatment may damage its host plant. Adverse modification of proposedcritical habitat is not expected to occur.

Florida leafwing butterflyPrescribed burns could result in disturbance to the butterfly or its habitat and larval host plant,pineland croton, but pine rocklands will be burned in a mosaic pattern over time, thereby easingthe butterfly’s dispersal from and return to treatment areas. Immature Florida leafwingbutterflies will likely be killed by prescribed fires. However, the strong flight abilities of theadult Florida leafwing butterfly will allow the subspecies to both escape fires, as well as toquickly re-colonize an area after treatment. Prescribed fires will restore and increase thedistribution of pineland croton in treatments areas, providing more habitat for butterfly use. Inaddition, efforts will be made to avoid the largest stands of pineland croton to provide refugia forthe butterflies and their immature stages. Mechanical treatment may also result in disturbanceand/or mortality to the butterfly and herbicide treatment may damage its host plant. Adversemodification of proposed critical habitat is not expected to occur.

Crenulate lead-plantPrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. When

75

conducting prescribed fires, equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. if herbicide is applied directly to the plant orif overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanical equipmentcould run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plant resproutsafter fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor. Patchy firesmay allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after a fire viadormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In the absence offire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost. Therefore,fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but with potentialfor re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a net conservationbenefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

Blodgett’s silverbushPrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. Whenconducting prescribed fires, equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. If herbicide is applied directly to the plant orif overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanical equipmentcould run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plant resproutsafter fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor. Patchy firesmay allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after a fire viadormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In the absence offire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost. Therefore,fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but with potentialfor re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a net conservationbenefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

Florida brickell-bushPrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. Whenconducting prescribed fires,.equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. If herbicide is applied directly to the plant orif overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanical equipmentcould run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plant resproutsafter fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor. Patchy fires

76

may allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after a fire viadormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In the absence offire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost. Therefore,fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but with potentialfor re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a net conservationbenefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

Deltoid spurgePrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. Whenconducting prescribed fires, equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. If herbicide is applied directly tothe plant or if overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanicalequipment could run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plantresprouts after fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor.Patchy fires may allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after afire via dormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In theabsence of fire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost.Therefore, fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but withpotential for re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a netconservation benefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

Pineland sandmatPrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. Whenconducting prescribed fires, equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. If herbicide is applied directly to the plant orif overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanical equipmentcould run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plant resproutsafter fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor. Patchy firesmay allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after a fire viadormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In the absence offire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost. Therefore,fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but with potentialfor re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a net conservationbenefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

77

Garber’s spurgePrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. Whenconducting prescribed fires, equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. If herbicide is applied directly to the plant orif overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanical equipmentcould run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plant resproutsafter fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor. Patchy firesmay allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after a fire viadormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In the absence offire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost. Therefore,fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but with potentialfor re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a net conservationbenefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

Florida prairie-cloverPrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. Whenconducting prescribed fires, equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. if herbicide is applied directly to the plant orif overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanical equipmentcould run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plant resproutsafter fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor. Patchy firesmay allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after a fire viadormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In the absence offire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost. Therefore,fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but with potentialfor re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a net conservationbenefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

Florida pineland crabgrassPrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. When

78

conducting prescribed fires, equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. if herbicide is applied directly to the plant orif overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanical equipmentcould run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plant resproutsafter fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor. Patchy firesmay allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after a fire viadormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In the absence offire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost. Therefore,fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but with potentialfor re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a net conservationbenefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

Small’s milkpeaPrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. Whenconducting prescribed fires, equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. if herbicide is applied directly to the plant orif overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanical equipmentcould run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plant resproutsafter fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor. Patchy firesmay allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after a fire viadormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In the absence offire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost. Therefore,fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but with potentialfor re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a net conservationbenefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

Sand flaxPrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. Whenconducting prescribed fires, equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. If herbicide is applied directly tothe plant orif overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanical equipmentcould run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plant resproutsafter fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor. Patchy fires

79

may allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after a fire viadormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In the absence offire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost. Therefore,fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but with potentialfor re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a net conservationbenefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

Carter’s small-flowered flaxPrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. Whenconducting prescribed fires, equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. If herbicide is applied directly to the plant orif overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanical equipmentcould run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plant resproutsafter fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor. Patchy firesmay allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after a fire viadormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In the absence offire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost. Therefore,fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but with potentialfor re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a net conservationbenefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

Tiny polygalaPrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. Whenconducting prescribed fires, equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. If herbicide is applied directly to the plant orif overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanical equipmentcould run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plant resproutsafter fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor. Patchy firesmay allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after a fire viadormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In the absence offire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost. Therefore,fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but with potentialfor re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a net conservationbenefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

80

Everglades bullyPrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. Whenconducting prescribed fires, equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. If herbicide is applied directly to the plant orif overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanical equipmentcould run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plant resproutsafter fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor. Patchy firesmay allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after a fire viadormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In the absence offire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost. Therefore,fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but with potentialfor re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a net conservationbenefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

Florida bristle-fernPrescribed fire and associated fire preparation work may include the creation and maintenance offire breaks by mechanical means. Land managers and other personnel will maintain andconstruct where necessary fire breaks using mechanical measures such as chopping mulching,logging, mowing, disking, and plowing using rubber-tired or tracked equipment. Hand tools mayalso be used. Depending on need, the least disruptive method possible will be selected. Whenconducting prescribed fires, equipment may be rubber tired or tracked. In the event of a spotover, suppression equipment often includes the use of a tracked fire plow. Mowing could destroystems of this shrub but should encourage regrowth. If herbicide is applied directly to the plant orif overspray or drift occurs, plants could be killed. During any activities, mechanical equipmentcould run over plants killing them. Fire will kill all above-ground stems but this plant resproutsafter fire and may require periodic disturbance (fire or mowing) to retain its vigor. Patchy firesmay allow survival of individual plants. Populations will probably recover after a fire viadormant seeds in a soil seed bank. Unburned or unmowed plants lose vigor. In the absence offire, the habitat for the plant will degrade and populations could eventually be lost. Therefore,fire is expected to be highly beneficial to this plant. Individuals may be lost, but with potentialfor re-sprouting, recovery of plants from seed banks, and improved habitat, a net conservationbenefit is expected to be attained from implementation of activities.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local, or private actions that arereasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. FutureFederal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this sectionbecause they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act.

81

State, local, and private actions, such as development, are likely to continue throughout theaction area. These activities are likely to result in varying degrees of adverse and beneficialeffects to Florida bonneted bat, eastern indigo snake, Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly,Florida leafwing butterfly, crenulate lead-plant, Blodgett’s silverbush, Florida brickell-bush,deltoid spurge, pineland sandmat, Garber’s spurge, Florida prairie-clover, Florida pinelandcrabgrass, Small’s milkpea, sand flax, Carter’s small-flowered flax, tiny polygala, Evergladesbully, and Florida bristle fern.

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

Implementation of the proposed action is intended to utilize the prescribed fire and relatedactivities to conduct important habitat management, restoration, and enhancement actions. Byimproving habitat conditions, these actions will directly eliminate or reduce a primary threat tothe covered species. The targeted benefit of the proposed action is to create improvements to thestatus of the species on eligible lands receiving section 6 financial assistance. The proposedaction is expected to benefit the covered species by.maintaining, enhancing, and restoringpopulations and their habitats as well as by reducing the risk of adverse effects.

We expect the majority of incidental take will be in the form of death, injury, or temporaryharassment (via displacement) during proposed activities. For some activities, a portion ofincidental take is expected over the life of the practice. The scale of the effect will be landscapespecific, but will most likely involve mortality of some members of the species covered in thisOpinion.

The overwhelming conservation benefits of implementation of the proposed action within theselected priority areas, maintenance of existing habitat, and enhancement of marginal habitat willoutweigh short-term negative impacts to individual members of the covered species. Theimplementation of the proposed action will result in management the threats that adversely affectpopulations, and more habitat for these species under the appropriate management prescriptions.

Cumulatively, the Service finds effective implementation of the proposed habitat management isanticipated to result in a positive population response by the species. This positive response isexpected as threats are reduced, notably in addressing habitat fragmentation and improvement ofhabitat conditions in pine rockland habitat. Additionally, the proposed action is expected to limitunfavorable impacts to the species, and to maintain and enhance habitat at both the populationand landscape level. In conclusion, the anticipated levels of adverse effects are more than offsetby the implementation of the proposed action resulting in a net conservation benefit to thecovered species.

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the status of the Florida bonneted bat, eastern indigo snake, Bartram’s scrubhairstreak butterfly, Florida leafwing butterfly, crenulate lead-plant, Blodgett’s silverbush,Florida brickell-bush, deltoid spurge, pineland sandmat, Garber’s spurge, Florida prairie-clover,Florida pineland crabgrass, Small’s milkpea, sand flax, Carter’s small-flowered flax, tiny

82

polygala, Everglades bully, and Florida bristle fern, the environmental baseline for the actionarea, the effects of the proposed action and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s biologicaland conference opinion that providing funding, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of these species or produce adverse modification to proposed critical habitat.

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Sections 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the takeof endangered and threatened species, respectively, without a special exemption. Take is definedas to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt toengage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitatmodification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantlyimpairing essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is definedby the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listedspecies to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns, which include, butare not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that isincidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Under theterms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as partof the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that suchtaking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement.

Section 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act generally do not apply to listed plants and candidatespecies. However, limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that theAct prohibits the removal and reduction to possession of Federally listed endangered plants orthe malicious damage of such plants on areas under Federal jurisdiction, or the destruction ofendangered plants on non-federal areas in violation of state law or regulations, or in the course ofany violation of a state criminal trespass law, if this project is on private land and the landowneris not the project proponent, in addition to landowner permission, a FDACS permit for plantsmay be needed. TQ determine if such a permit is necessary or to apply for this permit, contact:

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer ServicesFlorida Division of ForestryPlant Conservation3125 Conner BoulevardTallahassee, Florida 32399-1650Telephone: 850-414-8293Fax: 850-921-6724

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE


The Service anticipates incidental take of the Florida bonneted bat will be difficult to detect forthe following reasons: (1) patchy distribution within suitable habitats; (2) suitable habitat maynot be occupied; (3) no known locations of natural roost sites; and (4) limited information onmovements, dispersal capabilities, diet, and prey base. Roosting and foraging areas appear

83

varied, with the species occurring in forested, suburban, and urban areas. This species roosts intrees, foliage, and other structures. It may use tree cavities, palm fronds, other vegetation, rockycrevices and outcrops on the ground, and other natural or artificial structures.

Uncertainty regarding the location of natural and artificial roost sites may contribute to thespecies’ vulnerability. Since the location of key roost sites is not known, inadvertent impacts toand losses of roosts may be more likely to occur, placing the species at greater risk. Removal ofold or live trees with cavities during activities associated with forest management (e.g., thinning,pruning), prescribed fire, or exotic species treatment may inadvertently remove roost sites, ifsuch sites are not known. Loss of an active roost or removal during critical life-history stages(e.g., when females are pregnant or rearing young) can have severe ramifications, considering thespecies’ small population size and low fecundity.

Where roost sites occur in natural habitat, adults and especially young may be vulnerable to fire.Roost sites may be destroyed by fire and bats may be injured or killed during prescribed fire orfire-related activities. Harassment to Florida bonneted bats may occur during herbicideapplication, prescribed fires, mechanical treatment, human activity, and smoke, fire, heat, andnoise from activities. However, it is difficult to estimate how many bats may be disturbedbecause little is known about their natural or artificial roost sites, nightly and seasonalmovements, dispersal capabilities, and dietary requirements. Therefore, the Service anticipatesone colony of Florida bonneted bats may be injured or killed during prescribed fire andassociated activities.


The Service anticipates incidental take of the eastern indigo snake will be difficult to detect forthe following reasons:

(1) Wide-ranging distribution,(2) Patchy distribution within suitable habitat,(3) Apparently suitable habitat may not be occupied, and(4) Difficulty in locating snakes on-site that may occur in gopher tortoise burrows or holes.

However, the Service anticipates incidental take of the eastern indigo snake with habitatrestoration. The incidental take is expected to be in the form of harassment and/or directmortality. Due to the lack of surveys, in conjunction with the wide-ranging activity and use of avariety of habitat types by the indigo snake, it is difficult to determine the exact number of snakesthat will be taken. However, the Service anticipates incidental take of the indigo snakeassociated with exotics removal and prescribed burn activities on up to 1,695 ac. The level ofincidental take will be monitored by the acres of habitat treated for exotic removal and prescribedburn activities. The incidental take is expected to be in the form of harassment and direct mortality.

Bartraiu’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly

We do not have a current population estimate of Bartram’s hairstreak or assessment of currenthabitat conditions for each site; however these sites are believed to have received only limitedfire management, historically. Butterflies, if present, may be scarce and locally distributed.

84

Factors associated with the burn (e.g., seasonality of the burn, if site is burned in entirety, natureof the fire prescription, etc.) will affect the extent of injury or mortality. The Bartram’shairstreak occurs throughout the year with variable annual peaks in abundance, so there is no“preferred” window for treatments. However, prescribed fires will restore and increase thedistribution of pineland croton in treatment areas, perhaps also increasing the distribution of thebutterfly. Due to the wide array of factors associated with limited butterfly distribution, habitatconditions, and timing of prescribed fire, butterflies may be taken during burns conductedthroughout select sites within the relict pine rockland fragments of central Miami-Dade County.The Service anticipates incidental take of the Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly associated withexotics removal and prescribed burn activities on up to 1,695 ac. The incidental take is expectedto be in the form of harassment and direct mortality.


Breeding populations have not been documented on mainland Florida outside of the Evergladesin several decades. Therefore, we do not believe any Florida leafwing butterflies currently occurwithin the project area. However, restoration efforts within these conservation areas may allowthe Florida leafwing butterfly to ultimately re-colonize conservation lands outside of theEverglades. Prescribed fires will restore and increase the distribution of pineland croton intreatments areas, perhaps also increasing the distribution of the butterfly. Due to the wide arrayof factors associated with limited butterfly distribution, habitat conditions, and timing ofprescribed fire, butterflies may be taken during burns conducted throughout select sites within therelict pine rockland fragments of central Miami-Dade County. The Service anticipates incidentaltake of the Florida leafwing butterfly associated with exotics removal and prescribed burnactivities on up to 1,695 ac. The incidental take is expected to be in the form of harassment anddirect mortality.

EFFECT OF THE TAKE

In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined this level of anticipated take isnot likely to result in jeopardy to the species. Critical habitat has been proposed for theBartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly and Florida leafwing butterfly, but these projects will notresult in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary andappropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of the Florida bonneted bat, eastern indigosnake, Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly, and Florida leafwing butterfly:

1. In pine rocklands, retain pineland croton.2. Retain cavity trees, old trees, and snags, wherever possible.3. Conduct prescribed burns in small burn units using a mosaic pattern over time. Since

many pine rockland habitats are fragmented and isolated from one another, partial Ismaller burns will provide some on-site refugia for imperiled species and facilitaterecolonization.

85

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, FWC and FDACS must comply withthe following that outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms andconditions are nondiscretionary.

1. Notify the Service if any listed species is injured or killed during routine project activities.Contact the Endangered Species Program Supervisor at the SFESO at 772-562-3909 toprovide this notification.

2. Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick listed species, initial notification must be made to thenearest Service Law Enforcement Office (Fish and Wildlife Service; 9549 Koger Boulevard.,Suite 111; St. Petersburg, Florida 33702; 727-570-5398). Secondary notification should bemade to the FWC; South Region, 3900 Drane Field Road, Lakeland, Florida, 33811-1299; 1-800-282-8002. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured specimens to ensureeffective treatment and care or in the handling of dead specimens to preserve biologicalmaterial in the best possible state for later analysis as to the cause of death. In conjunctionwith the care of sick or injured specimens or preservation of biological materials from a deadanimal, the finder has the responsibility to carry out instructions provided by LawEnforcement to ensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed.If not specifically instructed by Service law enforcement to submit dead specimens, all deadspecimens and snake sheds should be offered to the Florida Museum of Natural History,Gainesville, Florida. The museum should be contacted with regard to details for preservationand transport.

3. Notify every vehicle and equipment operator to avoid adverse impacts to all covered species,if possible. All on-site personnel will be educated to recognize covered species and wheresuch species occur on the burn unit to the extent practicable. Information will be madeavailable on listed, proposed, and candidate species habitats and reproductive seasons. if anycovered species is encountered, it will be avoided to the extent practicable. Covered animalspecies will be allowed to leave the immediate area of disturbance on their own beforevehicle or equipment use is resumed.

4. Use a mosaic pattern and leave refugia of pineland croton when treating pine rocklands withknown Florida leafwing butterfly and Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly populations.

5. Mark and avoid any known or suspected Florida bonneted bat roosts. In areas where Floridabonneted bats occur, retain old trees and snags with hollows or cavities, If dead or old treesmust be removed, examine them first to make sure they are not being used by roosting batsbefore removal.

6. Protect old trees and snags with hollows or cavities from fire. Rake and/or clear vegetationaround the base of known or suspected roost sites to remove fuel load before conductingprescribed burns (Use similar guidance as provided for protection of red-cockadedwoodpecker (RCW) cavity trees in the RCW Recovery Plan).

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further thepurposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered andthreatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to further

86

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, tohelp implement recovery plans, or to develop information.

1. Survey for covered species and for their nests, dens, host plants, or cover that could beaffected by treatment when projects are proposed within their ranges.

2. Document the location of any covered species and nest/roost/den/cover sites and provideinformation to the Service.

3. Consider important seasonal vulnerabilities for all covered species occurring in the area to beburned and limit burn activity during those times.

4. Seek opportunities for collaborative research. This may include pre- and post-fire surveys forcovered species followed by continued monitoring at pre-determined time intervals post fire.Findings may aid in developing adaptive management programs.

5. Use prescribed fire at appropriate, but varying, intensities and intervals to encouragevegetative diversity and habitat heterogeneity. Adjust fire frequency, intensity, and spatialextent in individual landscapes by using vegetation height, openings, tree cover, and otherstructural features to aid in determining burning objectives (adaptive management).

6. Incorporate growing season burning into the planning process. However, fires conductedduring the non-growing season are better than none at all.

7. Use firing patterns to provide escape routes for wildlife (i.e., avoid ring fires and fast-movingheadfires). Ideally, the rate of spread of the fire should be no more than 10 ft per minute.

8. Whenever possible, do not burn or treat an entire population of a covered plant at each site.Allow for 30-50 percent of the (each) population to go unaffected by fire or treatment.

9. In known or suspected occupied areas, conduct prescribed burns carefully, especially duringthe Florida bonneted bat breeding season (Jan-Mar; June-Oct). Where prescribed fire is to beused near known active roosts, consider avoiding if there are high fuel loads, to reduce therisk of losing roosts during intense fires.

10. Adjust mowing height higher to provide protection for covered species.11. Consider timing mechanical treatments to avoid sensitive periods in the life history of listed,

proposed, and candidate species.12. Survey and mark pineland croton.13. Continue to conduct recovery actions throughout pine rocklands in Miami-Dade County.

For the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects orbenefiting listed species or their habitats, we request notification of the implementation of anyconservation recommendations.

REINITIATION NOTICE

This concludes the conference for provision of funds. You may ask the Service to confirm theconference opinion as a biological opinion issued through formal consultation if the candidatespecies are listed. The request must be in writing, If the Service reviews the proposed action andfinds there have been no significant changes in the action as planned or in the information usedduring the conference, the Service will confirm the conference opinion as the biological opinionon the project and no further section 7 consultation will be necessary. After listing of the

87

candidate species as endangered I threatened and any subsequent adoption of this conferenceopinion, the Federal agency shall request reinitiation of consultation as outlined below.This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in the request. As provided in 50 CFR§ 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agencyinvolvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) theamount or extent of incidental take, to be monitored by the restoration of up to 200 ac of exotichabitat, is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affectlisted species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) theaction is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or criticalhabitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designatedthat may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take isexceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.

If you have any questions, please contact Marilyn Knight at 772-469-4297.

cc: electronic onlyService, Jacksonville, Florida (Annie Dziergowski)Service, Tallahassee, Florida (Jerry Ziewitz)FV/C, Tallahassee, Florida (Stasey Whichel)FFSIFDACS, Tallahassee, Florida (Michael Jenkins)Miami-Dade County, Miami, Florida (Joe Maguire)Johnson Engineering, Inc., Pembroke Pines, Florida (Sarah Webber)

88

LITERATURE CITED

General

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2012. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy li~itiative:Florida’s State Wildlife Action Plan. Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

Gann, George D., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2002. Rare plants of South Florida:Their history, conservation, and restoration. The Institute for Regional Conservation.Miami, Florida.

Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management. 1995. Restorationplan for Dade County’s pine rockland forests following Hurricane Andrew. Dade CountyDepartment of Environmental Resource Management. Miami, Florida.

Mojica, Raymond, M. Knight; ID. Clark, and B. Donahue. 2005. Reproducible PanoramicPhoto-point Guidelines. Environmentally Endangered Land Programs. Brevard County,Florida. 26pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Guidelines for conducting and reporting botanicalinventories for federally listed, proposed, and candidate plants. Sacramento, California.2pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Pine Rocklands in the Multi-species recovery plan forSouth Florida. Atlanta, Georgia. 2,172 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Small’s Milkpea (Galactia smallii) 5-Year Review:Summary and Evaluation. South Florida Ecological Services Field Office. Vero Beach,Florida.


Arwood, R. 2012. Email to Paula Halupa. Inside-Out Photography, Inc. Everglades City,Florida. March 5, 2012.

Arwood, R. 20l3a. Email to Paula Halupa. Inside-Out Photography, Inc. Everglades City,Florida. April 13, 2013.

Arwood, R. 2013b. Email to Paula Halupa. Inside-Out Photography, Inc. Everglades City,Florida. June 6, 2013.

89

Belwood, J.J. 1981. Wagner’s mastiff bat, Eu;nops glaucinusfioridanus (Molossidae) insouthwestern Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 62(2) :411-413.

Beiwood, J.J. 1992. Florida mastiff bat Eumops glaucinusfioridanus. Pages 216-223 in S.R.Humphrey (ed.), Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Vol. I. Mammals. UniversityPress of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative.Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011. Supplemental information for theFlorida bonneted (mastiff) bat biological status review report. March 31, 2011. FloridaFish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Natural AreasInventory. 2010. FNAI Element Tracking Summary. Tallahassee, Florida. [Accessed:January 6, 2010. http://www.fnai.org/PDF/ Element_tracking_summary_2009 1 2.pdf]

Hipes, D., D.R. Jackson, K. NeSmith, D. Printiss, and K. Brandt. 2001. Field guide to the rareanimals of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Tallahassee, Florida.

Humphrey, S.R. 1975. Nursery roosts and community diversity of nearctic bats. Journal ofMammalogy 56(2):32l-346.

Marks, G.E. and C.S. Marks. 2008. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Bat Conservancy. BayPines, Florida. May 27, 2008.

Marks, G.E. and C.S. Marks. 2008a. Status of the Florida bonneted bat (Eunzopsfloridanus).Final report. Submitted by the Florida Bat Conservancy under grant agreement number401815G192. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida.

Marks, G.E. and C.S. Marks. 2008b. Status of the Florida bonneted bat (Eumopsfloriclanus).Supplemental report. Submitted by the Florida Bat Conservancy under grant agreementnumber 40181 5G 192. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida.

Marks, G.E. and C.S. Marks. 2008c. Bat conservation and land management Kissimmee RiverWMA. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida.

Marks, G.E. and C.S. Marks. 2012. Status of the Florida bonneted bat (Eumopsfloridanus).Submitted by George E. Marks and Cynthia S. Marks of the Florida Bat Conservancy forthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under grant agreement number 40181AG121. May 4,2012. Florida Bat Conservancy. Bay Pines, Florida.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.(Accessed: July 27, 2009).

90

Robson, M. 1989. Status survey of the Florida mastiff bat. Final performance report. FloridaGame and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Nongame Wildlife Section. Tallahassee,Florida.

Robson, M.S., F.J. Mazzotti, and T. Parrott. 1989. Recent evidence of the mastiff bat insouthern Florida. Florida Field Naturalist 17(4):81-82.

Snow, S. 201 la. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida.December 13, 2011.

Snow, 5. 201 lb. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida.December 30, 2011.

Snow, S. 2012a. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. January3,2012.

Snow, S. 2012b. Email (with recorded calls) to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park.Homestead, Florida. March 30, 2012.

Snow, S. 2012c. Email (with map) to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead,Florida. March 30, 2012.

Snow, S. 2012d. Email (with data) to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead,Florida. April 12, 2012.

Snow, S. 2012e. Email (with summary) to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead,Florida. May 9, 2012.

Timm, R. and J. Arroyo-Cabrales. 2008. Eu;nopsfloridanus. lit IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Version 2010.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 23 March2010.

Timm, R.M. and H.H Genoways. 2004. The Florida bonneted bat, Eumopsfloridanus(Chiroptera: Molossidae): distribution, morphometrics, systematics, and ecology. Journalof Mammalogy 85(5):852-865.

Trokey, S. 2008a. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ding DarlingNational Wildlife Refuge. Sanibel, Florida. October 18, 2008.

Trokey, S. 2008b. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ding DarlingNational Wildlife Refuge. Sanibel, Florida. February 5, 2008.

Trokey, S. 2010a. Telephone conversation with Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. Sanibel, Florida. March 15, 2010.

91

Trokey, S. 2010b. Email to Paula Halupa. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ding DarlingNational Wildlife Refuge. Sanibel, Florida. March 16, 2010.


Babis, W.A. 1949. Notes on the food of the indigo snake. Copeia 1949 (2): 147.

Bolt, M.R. 2006. Presentation to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on May 24, 2006. TheDynamac Corporation, Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

Breininger, D.R., M.L. Legare, and R.B. Smith. 2004. Edge effects and population viabilityof eastern indigo snakes in Florida. Pgs. 299-311 in: H.R. Akcakaya, M. Burgman,0. Kindvall, P. Sjorgren-Gulve, J. Hatfield, and M. McCarthy, editors. SpeciesConservation and Management: Case Studies. Oxford University Press, New York,New York.

Carson, H.L. 1945. Delayed fertilization in a captive indigo snake with note of feeding andshedding. Copeia 1945(4): 222-224.

Conant, R. and J.T Collins. 1998. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians Eastern andCentral North America. Third Edition, Expanded. Houghton Mifflin Company;New York, New York.

Cox, J.A. and R.S. Kautz. 2000. Habitat conservation needs of rare and imperiled wildlife inFlorida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; Tallahassee, Florida.

Dalrymple, G.H., TM. Steiner, R.J. Nodell, and F.S. Bernardino, Jr. 1991. Seasonal activity ofthe snakes of Long Pine Key, Everglades National Park. Copeia 199 1(2):294-302.

Diemer, J.E. and D.W. Speake. 1983. The distribution of the eastern indigo snake, Drytha;-choncorais couperi, in Georgia. Journal of Herpetology l7(3):256-264.

Enge, KM., M.S. Robson, and K.L. Krysko. 2004. Reptile surveys of six Miami-Dade Countyparks. Florida Scientist 67(3): 194-204.

Keegan;H.L. 1944. Indigo snakes feeding upon poisonous snakes. Copeia 1944 (1):59.

Kochman, H.I. 1978. Eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi. Pages 68-69 inR.W. McDiarmid, ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. University Pressesof Florida; Gainesville, Florida.

Landers, J.L. and D.W. Spealce. 1980. Management needs of sandhill reptiles in southernGeorgia. Proceedings of the annual conference of the Southeastern Association of Fishand Wildlife Agencies 34: 5 15-529.

Lawler, H.E. 1977. the status of Drymarchon corals couperi (Holbrook), the eastern indigosnake, in the southeastern USA. Herpetological Review 8(3): 76-79.

92

Layne, J.N. and T.M. Steiner. 1996. Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi):summary of research conducted on Archbold Biological Station. Report prepared underOrder 43910-6-0134 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Jackson, Mississippi.

Lazell, Jr. J.D. 1989. Wildlife of the Florida Keys: a natural history. Island Press;Washington, D.C.

Moler, P.E. 1 985a. Distribution of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi,in Florida. Herpetological Review 16(2): 37-38.

Moler, P.E. 1 985b. Home range and seasonal activity of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchoncorais couperi, in northern Florida. Final Performance Report, Study E-1-06, rn-A-S.Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission; Tallahassee, Florida.

Moler, P.E. 1992. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume ifi. Amphibians and reptiles.University presses of Florida; Gainesville, Florida.

Moler, P.E. 1998. Personal communication. Biologist. Comments dated January 9, 2006, tothe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the technical/agency draft Multi-Species RecoveryPlan for South Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission;Tallahassee, Florida.

Shaw, C.E. 1959. Longevity of snakes in the United States as of January 1, 1959.Copeia 1959(4): 336-337.

Smith, C.R. 1987. Ecology of juvenile and gravid eastern indigo snakes in north Florida.M.S. thesis, Auburn University; Auburn, Alabama.

Smith, R.L. 2003. Personal communication. Biologist. Presentation to the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service on February 24, 2003. Dynamac Corporation; Kennedy Space Center,Florida.

Speake, D.W., D. McGlincy, and C. Smith. 1987. Captive breeding and experimentalreintroduction of the eastern indigo snake. Pages 84-90 in R.R. Odom,K.A. Riddleberger, and J.C. Ozier eds. Proceedings of the 3rd Southeastern Nongameand Endangered wildlife symposium, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Gameand Fish Division.

Steiner, T.M., O.L. Bass, Jr., and J.A. Kushlan. 1983. Status of the eastern indigo snakein Southern Florida National Parks and vicinity. South Florida Research CenterReport SFRC-83-0l, Everglades National Park; Homestead, Florida.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1999. South Florida multi-species recovery plan. Fishand Wildlife Service; Atlanta, Georgia.

93

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2004. Standard protection measures for the easternindigo snake. South Florida Ecological Services Office; Vero Beach, Florida.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 2008. Eastern Indigo Snake, 5-Year Review. Fish andWildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

Zeigler, M. 2006. Personal communication. Citrus grove operations manager. Meeting withthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on August 1, 2006. Agricultural ResourceManagement; Vero Beach, Florida.

Bartram’s scrub-hairstreak butterfly

Anderson, C. 2012. Email to Paula Halupa (comments on Bartram’s hairstreak speciesassessment). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Keys National Wildlife RefugeComplex. Big Pine Key, Florida. February 16, 2012.

Baggett, H.D. 1982. Order Lepidoptera. In R. Franz (ed.), Invertebrates. In P. C. Pritchard (ed.)Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume 6. Invertebrates, pages 78-81. UniversityPress, Gainesville, Florida.

Emmel, T.C. R.A. Worth and K. Schwarz. 1995. The relationships between host plant andhabitat for the distribution of three potentially endangered south Florida butterfly species.Report to the National Biological Survey.

Hennessey, M.K., and D.H. Habeck. 1991. Effects of mosquito adulticiding on populations ofnon-target, terrestrial arthropods in the Florida Keys. United States Department ofAgriculture - Agricultural Research Service. Miami, Florida.

Land, A. 2012. Email to Paula Halupa (comments on Bartram’s hairstreak species assessment).National Park Service, Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. January 26, 2012.

Minno, M. 2009. Email to Paula Halupa. Eco-Cognizant, Inc. Gainesville, Florida. February 16,2009.

Minno, M.C., and T.C. Emmel. 1993. Butterflies of the Florida Keys. Scientific Publishers, Inc.,Gainesville, Florida.

Minno, M., and M. Minno. 2009. A plan to conserve rare butterflies in the Florida Keys.Submitted to: Edsel M. Fussel, Director, Florida Keys Mosquito Control District. EcoCognizant, Inc. Gainesville, Florida.

Opler, P.A., and G.O. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies east of the Great Plains. The John HopkinsUniversity Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

94

Salvato, M.H. 1999. Factors influencing the declining populations of three butterfly species inSouth Florida and the lower Florida Keys. M.S. Thesis. University of Florida,Gainesville, Florida.

Salvato, M.H., and M.K. Hennessey. 2004. Notes on the status and fire-related ecology ofStrynion acis bartrarni. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 58(4):223-227.

Salvato, M.H., and H.L. Salvato. 2008. Notes on the feeding ecology of Stryinon ads bartramiand Anaea troglodytafloridalis. Florida Scientist. 71: 323-329.

Salvato, M.H., and H.L. Salvato. 2010. Notes on the status of Anaea troglodyta florida/is on BigPine Key. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society. 52: 139-140.

Schwartz, A. 1987. The butterflies of the Lower Florida Keys. Milwaukee Public Museum,Contributions in Biology and Geology 73:1-34.

Smith, D.S., L.D. Miller, and J.Y. Miller. 1994. The Butterflies of the West Indies and SouthFlorida. Oxford University Press, New York.

Worth, R.A., K.A. Schwarz, and T.C. Emmel. 1996. Notes on the biology of Strymon acisbartrami and Anaea troglodytafloridalis in south Florida. Holarctic Lepidoptera 3(2):62-65.


Baggett, H.D. 1982. Order Lepidoptera. In R. Franz (ed.), Invertebrates. In P.C. Pritchard(ed.)Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. 6. Invertebrates, 78-8 1. University Press,Gainesville, Florida.

Hennessey, M.K., and D.H. Habeck. 1991. Effects of mosquito adulticiding on populations ofnon-target, terrestrial arthropods in the Florida Keys. United States Department ofAgriculture - Agricultural Research Service. Miami, Florida.

Land, A. 2012. Email to Mark Salvato. National Park Service. Everglades National Park.Homestead, Florida. August 8, 2012.

Minno, M. 2009. Email to Paula Halupa. Eco-Cognizant, Inc. Gainesville, Florida. February 16,2009.

Minno, M.C., and T.C. Emmel. 1993. Butterflies of the Florida Keys. Scientific Publishers, Inc.,Gainesville, Florida.

Opler, P.A., and G.O. Krizek. 1984. Butterflies east of the Great Plains. The John HopkinsUniversity Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

95

Salvato, M.H. 1999. Factors influencing the declining populations of three butterfly species inSouth Florida and the lower Florida Keys. M.S. Thesis. University of Florida,Gainesville, Florida.

Salvato, M.H. 2008. Comments on species assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SouthFlorida Ecological Services Office. Vero Beach, Florida. March 13-16, 2008.

Salvato, M.H., and M.K. Hennessey. 2003. Notes on the historic range and natural history ofAnaea troglodyta floridalis. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society 57(3):243-249.

Salvato, M.H., and H.L. Salvato. 2010a. Notes on the status and ecology of Anaca troglodyta.floridalis in Everglades National Park. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society. 64: 91-97.

Salvato, M.H., and H.L. Salvato. 2010b. Notes on the status of Anaea troglodyta floridalis on BigPine Key. News of the Lepidopterists’ Society. 52: 139-140.

Salvato, M.H., and H.L. Salvato. 2OlOc. Parasitic mite larvae (Acari) on adult Strymon acisbartrami (Lycaenidae). News of the Lepidopterists’ Society. 52: 71.

Worth, R.A., K.A. Schwarz, and T.C. Emmel. 1996. Notes on the biology of Strymon acisbartrami and Anaea troglodytaflorkialis in south Florida. Holarctic Lepidoptera 3(2):62-65.

Crenulate lead-plant

Fisher, J.B. 2000. Demography of pine rockland endangered plant taxa in Miami-Dade County.Final report for contract # 4743 to the Florida Plant Conservation Program, FloridaDepartment of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, Florida.

Florida Department of Transportation. 1997. Technical memorandum: endangered andthreatened species assessment for State Road 90/Tamiami Trail! S.W. 8 Street from S.R.826/Palmetto Expressway to S.W. 27 Avenue, Miami-Dade County, Florida. FloridaDepartment of Transportation District Six; Miami, Florida

Koptur, 5. 2006. The conservation of specialized and generalized pollination systems insubtropical ecosystems: a case study. Pages 340-36 1 in N.M. Waser and J. Ollerton, eds.Plant-Pollinator Interactions from Specialization to Generalization. The University ofChicago Press, Chicago, filinois.

Maschinski, J., S.J. Wright, K.S. Wendelberger, J. Possley, and J. Fisher. 2005. Conservation ofSouth Florida Endangered and Threatened Flora: 2004-2005 Program at FairchildTropical Botanic Garden. Final Report Contract #009064. Florida Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida.

96

Maschinski, J., S.J. Wright, I. Possley, D. Powell, and V. Pence. 2012. Conservation ofSouthFlorida Endangered and Threatened Flora: 2011-2012 Program at Fairchild TropicalGarden. Final Report Contract #017162. Florida Department of Agriculture andConsumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida.

Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management. 1993. Endangeredplants of Dade County’s pine rocklands. Technical Report 93-5. Unpublished reportprepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida.

Roncal, J., J.B. Fisher, M.Q.N. Fellows, K.S. Wendelberger, J. Maschinski, and M.W. Fidelibus.2006. Propagation protocol for the endangered crenulate lead plant, Amorpha het-baceavar. crenulata. Native Plants Journal 7(l):89-93.


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Crenulate lead-plant (Amoipha crenulata). 5-yearreview: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South FloridaEcological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida.

Blodgett’s silverbush

Bradley, K.A. 2007. Email to Paula Halupa. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. March 6, 2007.

Bradley, K.A., and G.D. Gann. 1999. Status summaries of 12 rockiand plant taxa in southernFlorida. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.

Hodges, S.R., and K.A. Bradley. 2006. Distribution and population size of five candidate planttaxa in the Florida Keys: Argythamnia blodgettii, Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis,Indigofera mucronata var. keyensis, Linum arenicola, and Sideroxylon reclinatum subsp.austrofloridense. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Final Report Contract Number40181 5G0 11, submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.

Sadie, J. 2007. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. November29, 2007.

Sadie, J. 2008a. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida.December 15, 2008.

Sadie, 3. 2008b. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. February2, 2008.

97

Sadie, J. 2010. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. January28, 2010.

Sadie, J. 2011. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. January3 1, 2011.

Small, J.K. 1933. Manual of the southeastern flora. University of North Carolina Press, ChapelHill, North Carolina.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form.Argythamnia blodgettii. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida EcologicalServices Office, Vero Beach, Florida.

Florida brickell-bush

Bradley, K.A., and G.D. Gann. 1999. Status summaries of 12 rockland plant taxa in southernFlorida. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.


Chafin, L.G. 2000. Field guide to the rare plants of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory.Tallahassee, Florida.

Gordon, D.R., G.D. Gann, S.E. Green, K.A. Bradley, A.M. Jenkins, and S. Travis. 2007.Mapping of invasive exotic plants and rare native plants on Florida Department ofTransportation District 6 right-of-way in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida.Final report prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation District 6. FinancialManagement Number: 404278-1-32-07. University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida.

NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer[Accessed: November 15, 2012].

Possley, J. 2008. Email to Paula Halupa. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Miami, Florida.August 1, 2008.

Possley, J. 2013a. Email to Heather Tipton. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Miami, Florida.February 7,2013.

Possley, J. 2013b. Email to Heather Tipton. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Miami, Florida.February 14, 2013.

98

Possley, J. 2013c. Email to Heather Tipton. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Miami, Florida.February 14,2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form.Brickellia mosieri. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological ServicesOffice, Vero Beach, Florida.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form.Brickellia mosieri. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological ServicesOffice, Vero Beach, Florida.

Deltoid spurge

Bradley, K. A. 2010. Email to Mark Salvato. Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. March 18, 2010.

Ehrenfeld, J. 1976. Reproductive biology of three species of Euphorbia subgenus Chamaesyce(Euphorbiaceae). American Journal of Botany 63(4):406-4l3.

Ehrenfeld, J. 1979. Pollination of three species of Euphorbia subgenus Chamaesyce(Euphorbiaceae), with special reference to bees. American Midland Naturalist 101:87-98.

Herndon, A. 2002. Monitoring protocol development and seed germination requirements inendemic plants of the Miami Rock Ridge Pinelands. Unpublished final report preparedfor the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.

Institute for Regional Conservation. 2006. Plant lists of Natural Forest Communities in Miami-Dade County, exclusive of Everglades National Park. Prepared in cooperation with U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida. Project funded under a Memorandum ofAgreement between Miami-Dade County and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Maguire, J. 2006. Peer review comments on 5-year review of deltoid spurge to U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida. October 31.

Maschinski, J. 2005. Personal communication. Letter from Joyce Maschinski, FairchildTropical Botanic Garden to Cindy Schulz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach,Florida. Status updates for Galactia smallii, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea,Folygala smallii, Amoipha crenulata, and Jacquem.ontia reclinata.

Maschinski, J., M.Q.N. Fellows, J. Fisher, C. Lane, M. Fidelibus, S. Wright, P. Anderson, G.Guala, J. Pipoly, and J. Possley. 2002. Conservation of south Florida endangered andthreatened flora. Final Report to Florida Department of Agriculture and ConsumerServices, Gainesville, Florida.

99

Maschinski, J., S.J. Wright, J. Possley, J. Goodsman, J. Roncal, V. Pence, D. Walters, S. Lewis,and N. Spencer. 2008. Conservation of south Florida endangered and threatened flora:2007-2008. Program at Fairchild Tropical Garden. Final Report to Florida Departmentof Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida.Contract #0 12863 to Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden.

Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management. 1993. Endangeredplants of Dade County’s pine rocklands. Technical Report 93-5. Unpublished reportprepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida.

Pemberton, R.W. 1988. Myrmechorchory in the introduced range weed, leafy spurge(Euphorbia esula L.). American Midland Naturalist 1 19(2):43 1-435


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Deltoid spurge (Chamaesysce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea).5-year review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South FloridaEcological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida.

Webster, R.L. 1967. Genera of Euphorbiaceae. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 48.

Pineland sandmat

Bradley, K. 2006. Email to Paula Halupa. The Institute for Regional Conservation, Miami,Florida. August 8, 2006.



Long, R.W. and 0. Lakela. 1971. A flora of tropical Florida; a manual of the seed plants andferns of southern peninsular Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida.

Small, J.K. 1933. Manual of the southeastern flora. University of North Carolina Press, ChapelHill. 1,554 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1996. Soil survey of Dade County Area, Florida.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form.Chamaecyse deltoidea ssp. pinetoruin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South FloridaEcological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida.

100

Wendelberger, K.S. 2003. Conservation Action Plan - Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. pinetorum.Conservation of South Florida Endangered and Threatened Flora (ETFLORA) Project.Research Department, Fairchild Tropical Garden, Miami, Florida.

Wendelberger, K., and J. Maschinski. 2006. Portion of work on National Park Service TaskOrder No. 03-02 Under Cooperative Agreement H262303W060 Progress ReportNovember 2006. Center for Plant Conservation and Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden,Miami, Florida.

Wunderlin, R.P. 1998. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida. University Press of Florida,Gainesville, Florida. 806 pp.

Garber’s spurge

Ehrenfeld, J. 1976. Reproductive biology of three species of Euphorbia subgenus Chamaesyce(Euphorbiaceae). American Journal of Botany 63(4):406-413.


Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAfl. 2006. Element occurrence polygon data layer.Tallahassee, Florida.

Green, S.E., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2007a. Status survey of the Federallythreatened Chanzaesyce garberi in south Florida. Quarterly Report 2. The Institute forRegional Conservation, Miami, florida. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Vero Beach, Florida.

Green, S.E., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2007b. Status survey of the Federallythreatened Clzamaesj--cèg arberi in south Florida. Quarterly Report 3. The Institute forRegional Conservation, Miami, Florida. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Vero Beach, Florida.

Herndon, A. 2002. Development of monitoring protocols and reintroduction strategies. FinalReport. Cooperative Agreement 1448-0004-96-9 1 98. Report to U. S. Fish and WildlifeService, Vero Beach, FL.

Long, R.W., and 0. Lakela. 1971. A flora of tropical Florida. University of Miami Press,Coral Gables, Florida.

Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM). 1993.Endangered Plants of Dade County’s Pine Rocklands. Dade County Department ofEnvironmental Resources Management, Technical Report 93-5. Miami, FL.

101

Pemberton, R.W. 1988. Myrmechorchory in the introduced range weed, leafy spurge(Euphorbia esula L.). American Midland Naturalist 1 l9(2):43 1-435.

Possley, J. 2007. Email to Keith A. Bradley, The Institute for Regional Conservation, Miami,Florida. April 24, 2007.

Ross, M.S., J.J. O’Brien, and L.J. Flynn. 1994. Sea-level rise and the reduction of pine forests inthe Florida Keys. Ecological Applications 4W: 144-156.

Small, J.K. 1933. Manual of the southeastern flora. University of North Carolina Press, ChapelHill, North Carolina.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Gaiter’s spurge (Chamaesyce garberi). 5-year review:summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida EcologicalServices Office, Vero Beach, Florida.

Wanless, H.R., R.W. Parkinson, L.P. Tedesco. 1994. Sea level control on stability ofEverglades wetlands. Pages 199—223 in S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (eds.)

Webster, R.L. 1967. Genera of Euphorbiaceae. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum. 48.

Florida prairie-clover



Carroll, T. 2005. Seed scarification and germination in Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana.Manuscript provided by J. Maschinski, Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden, Miami,Florida.

Chafin, L.G. 2000. Field guide to the rare plants of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory.Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2007. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Element occurrencerecords. Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana. Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2011. FNAI Element Tracking Summary. Tallahassee,Florida. April 7,2011.http://www.fnai.org/PDFmlementjrackingsummaryj01103.pdf [Accessed: May 2,20111.

102

Gann, G.D., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2002. Rare plants of south Florida: theirhistory, conservation, and restoration. The Institute for Regional Conservation, Miami,Florida.

Gann, G.D., K.N. Hines, E.V. Grahi, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2006. Rare plant monitoring andrestoration on Long Pine Key, Everglades National Park. Year End Report, YEAR 3,Cooperative Agreement #H5284-03-0044. Submitted by The Institute for RegionalConservation to Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida.

Isely, D. 1990. Vascular flora of the southeastern United States. Vol. 3, part 2: Leguminosae(Fabaceae). University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. xvii, 258 p.

Jenkins, A. 2007. Email to Paula Halupa. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Tallahassee,Florida. March 5, 2007.

Maschinski, J. 2007. Email to Paula Halupa. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Coral Gables,Florida. March 12, 2007.

Maschinski, J., S.J. Wright, J. Possley, D. Powell, L. Krueger, V. Pence and J. Pascarella. 2010.Conservation of south Florida endangered and threatened flora: 2009-20 10 program atFairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Final Report Contract #0 14880. Florida Departmentof Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida.

Possley, J. 2008. Email to Paula Halupa. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Coral Gables,Florida. August 1, 2008.

Possley, J. 2009. Email to Paula Halupa. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Coral Gables,Florida. January 27, 2009.

Possley, J. 2011. Email to Paula Halupa. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Coral Gables,Florida. January 11, 2011.

Possley, J., and J. Maschinski. 2009. Year 6 report: biological monitoring for plantconservation in Miami-Dade County natural areas. Miami-Dade County Resolution #R808-07.

Sadie, J. 2007. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida.November 29, 2007.

Sadle, J. 2011. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida.January 31, 2011.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form.Dalea carthagenensis var.Jloridana. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South FloridaEcological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida.

103

Florida pineland crabgrass

Avery, G. N. 1983. Digitaria pauciflora a very particular grass. Fairchild Tropical GardenBulletin 38 (3):30-31.

Bradley, K. A. 2005. Email to Dave Martin. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. April 21, 2005.

Bradley, K.A. 2007. Email to Paula Halupa. Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. March 6, 2007.

Bradley, K.A. 2009. Status survey of Everglades bully and Florida pineland crabgrass in the BigCypress National Preserve, Florida. Proposal submitted to the South Florida EcologicalServices Office. Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami, Florida. July 31, 2009.

Bradley, K.A. and G.D. Gann. 1999. Status summaries of 12 rockland plant taxa in southernFlorida. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida. TheInstitute for Regional Conservation. Miami, Florida.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2007. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Element occurrencerecords. Digitaria pauciflora. Tallahassee, Florida.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2011. FNAI element tracking summary. Tallahassee, Florida.April 7,2011. http://www.fnai.oig/PDF/Element tracking summaty 201 l03.pdi[Accessed: April 13, 2011].

Gann, G.D., K.N. Hines, E.V. Grahi, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2006. Rare plant monitoring andrestoration on Long Pine Key, Everglades National Park. Year End Report, YEAR 3,Cooperative Agreement #H5284-03-0044. Submitted by The Institute for RegionalConservation, Miami, Florida to Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida.

Herndon, A. 1998. Life history studies of plants endemic to South Florida. Final report to theNational Park Service under cooperation agreement number CA5280-5-90l9. October 1,1995 to April 30, 1998.

Institute for Regional Conservation (IRC). 2009. The Institute for Regional Conservation FloridaInventory of South Florida Database Online. Digitaria pauciflora.http://regionalconservation.orglircs/database/plantslPlantPage.asp?TXCODE=Digipauc.March 16, 2009.

SadIe, J. 2010. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida.January 28, 2010.

Sadie, J. 2011. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida.January 31, 2011.

104

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1996. Soil survey of Dade County Area, Florida [cited inBradley and Gann 1999].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form.Digitaria pauciflora. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological ServicesOffice, Vero Beach, Florida.

Webster, R.D. and S.L. Hatch. 1990. Taxonomy of Digitaria section Aequiglumae (Poaceae:Paniceae). Sida 14: 145-167 [cited in Bradley and Gann 19991.

Wendelberger, K., and J. Maschinski. 2006. Portion of work on National Park Service TaskOrder No. 03-02 Under Cooperative Agreement H262303W060 Progress ReportNovember 2006. Center for Plant Conservation and Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden.

Wipff. J. K. 2004. Digitaria, in Flora of North America, grass manual online.http://herbarium.usu.edu/grassmanual/. Accessed June 6, 2004.

Wunderlin, R. P. and B. F. Hansen. 2004. Digitaria pauciflora in Atlas of Florida vascularplants. http://www.plantatlas.usf.edu/main.asp?plantlD= 1108 Accessed June 6, 2004.

Small’s milkpea

Bradley, K., and J. Possley. 2002. Conservation Action Plan for Galactia snzallii. InMaschinski, J., M.Q.N. Fellows, J. Fisher, C. Lane, M. Fidelibus, S. Wright, P. Anderson,G. Guala, J. Pipoly, and J. Possley. 2002. Conservation of south Florida endangered andthreatened flora: Final Report to the Endangered Plant Advisory Council, FDACSContract #006466. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Divisionof Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida.

Bradley, K. A. 2009. Assessment of Rare Plant Species and Pine Rockland Habitat at ProposedU.S. Army Special Operations Command South Headquarters Adjacent to the U.S. AirReserve Base, Homestead, Florida. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Mobile, Alabama.

Bradley, K. A. 2010a. Email to Mark Salvato. Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. March 18, 2010.

Bradley, K. A. 2010b. Email to Mark Salvato. Assistant Director. Institute for RegionalConservation. Miami, Florida. March 30, 2010.

Fisher, J.B. 2000. Demography of pine rockland endangered plant taxa in Miami-Dade County.Final report for contract # 4743 to the Florida Plant Conservation Program, FloridaDepartment of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, Florida.

Guerra, C. 2010. Email to Mark Salvato. Program Director. Endangered Environmental LandsProgram. Miami, Florida. April 1, 2010.

105

Herndon, A. 1981. Galactia smallii: A new name for Galactia pmstrata Small. Rhodora83:47 1-472.


Maschinski, J. 2005. Personal communication. Letter from Joyce Maschinski, FairchildTropical Botanic Garden to Cindy Schulz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach,Florida. Status updates for Galactia smallii, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea,Polygala sma liii, Ainorpha crenulata, and Jacquemontia reclinata.

O’Brien, J.J. 1998. The distribution and habitat preferences of rare Galactia species (Fabaceae)and Charnaesyce deltoidea subspecies (Euphorbiaceae) native to southern Florida pinerockland. Natural Areas Journal 18:208-222.

O’Brien, J.J. 2006. Peer review comments on 5-year review of Small’s milkpea to U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida. December 5.


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Small’s milkpea (Galactia smallii). 5-year review:summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida EcologicalServices Office, Vero Beach, Florida.

Sand flax

Alexander, T.R., and J.D. Dickson. 1972. Vegetational changes in the National Key DeerRefuge II. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 35:85-96.

Bradley, K.A. 2006. Distribution and population size for three pine rockland endemic candidateplant taxa on Big Pine Key, Florida. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Reportsubmitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.

Bradley, K. 2007. Email to Paula Halupa. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. March 6, 2007.

Bradley, K. 2008. Email to Paula Halupa. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. November 17, 2008.

Bradley, K.A. 2009. Assessment of rare plant species and pine rockland habitat at proposedU.S. Army Special Operations Command South Headquarters adjacent to the U.S. AirReserve Base, Homestead, Florida. Contract No. W91278-09-P-0278. The Institute forRegional Conservation. Report submitted to Ralph Etheridge, U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Mobile District, Mobile, Alabama.

106

Bradley, K.A. 2011. Email to Paula Halupa. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. April 12, 2011.


Bradley, K.A., and S. Saha. 2009. Post-hurricane responses of rare plant species and vegetationof pine rocklands in the lower Florida Keys. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service. Big Pine Key, Florida.

Carlson, P. R., G.W. Tanner, J.M. Wood, and SR. Humphrey. 1993. Fire in Key Deer habitatimproves browse, prevents succession and preserves endemic herbs. Journal of WildlifeManagement 57:914 - 928.

Department of Defense, Special Operations Command South. 2009. Letter to U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida. March11, 2009.

Dickson, J.D., ifi. 1955. An ecological study of the Key Deer. Florida Game and FreshwaterFish Commission. Pittmann-Robertson Project Technical Bulletin 3.

Gann, G.D., K.A. Bradley and S.W. Woodmansee. 2001-2010. The floristic inventory of southflorida database online. The Institute for Regional Conservation, Miami, Florida.http://regionalconservation.org/ircs/database/plants/PlantPage.asp?TXCODE=Linuaren[Accessed: May 2, 20111.

Hodges, S.R., and K.A. Bradley. 2006. Distribution and population size of five candidate planttaxa in the Florida Keys: Argythamnia blodgettii, Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis,Indigofera mucronata var. keyensis, Linum arenicola, and Sideroxylon reclinatum subsp.austrotloridense. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Final Report ContractNumber 401815G01 1, submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.

Kernan, C. and K. A. Bradley. 1996. Conservation survey of Linum arenicola in Dade County,Florida. Fairchild Tropical Garden. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, VeroBeach, Florida.

Maschinski, J. 2007. Email to Paula Halupa. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Miami,Florida. March 12, 2007.

Maschinski, J. 2011. Email to Marilyn Knight. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Miami,Florida. April 19, 2011.

107

Maschinski, J., M.Q.N. Fellows, J. Possley, and J. Pipoly. 2002. COnservation of south Floridaendangered and threatened flora. Final report to the Endangered Plant Advisory Council,Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Fairchild Tropical Garden,Miami, Florida. December 2002.

Possley, J. 2011. Email to Paula Halupa. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Miami, Florida.January 11, 2011.

Rogers, C. M. 1963. Yellow flowered species of Linum in eastern North America. Brittonia 15:97-122.

Ross, M.S., and P.L. Ruiz. 1996. A study of the distribution of several south Florida endemicplants in the Florida Keys. Southeast Environmental Research Program, FloridaInternational University. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach,Florida.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Biological opinion on the proposed construction of theSpecial Operations Command Center (SOCSOUTH) in Homestead, Florida. U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form.Linum arenicola. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological ServicesOffice, Vero Beach, Florida.

Carter’s small-flowered flax

Austin D.E., C.E. Nauman, and B.E. Tatje. 1980. Final report: endangered and threatened plantspecies survey in southern Florida and the National Key Deer and Great White HeronNational Wildlife Refuges, Monroe County, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;Atlanta, Georgia.


Bradley, K.A., and C. van der Heiden. 2013. Status survey of Linum arenicola and Linuincarteri var. carteri in South Florida. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Draftreport submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.


Bradley, K.A. 2008. Email to Paula Halupa. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. November 17, 2008.

108

Fellows, M. 2002. Demography of Linum carteri var. carteri. In: Conservation of south Floridaendangered and threatened flora. Final report to the Endangered Plant Advisory Council,Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FDACS Contract #006466.December 2002.

Fellows, M., J. Possley, C. Lane, and J. Maschinski, 2004. Conservation action plan - Linumcarteri Small var carteri. In: Maschinski, J., K.S. Wendelberger, S.J. Wright, H.Thornton, A. Frances, J. Possley and J. Fisher. 2004. Conservation of south Floridaendangered and threatened flora: 2004 program at Fairchild Tropical Garden. Finalreport contract #007997. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida.

Gann, G.D., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2002. Rare plants of south Florida: theirhistory, conservation, and restoration. The Institute for Regional Conservation; Miami,Florida. 1056 pages.

Gordon, D.R., G.D. Gann, S.E. Green, K.A. Bradley, A.M. Jenkins, and S. Travis. 2007.Mapping of invasive exotic plants and rare native plants on Florida Department ofTransportation District 6 right-of-way in Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida.Final report prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation District 6. FinancialManagement Number: 404278-1-32-07. University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida

Maschinski, J., S.J. Wright, K. Wendelberger, and A. Muir (ed.) 2003. Conservation of southFlorida endangered and threatened flora. Contract #007182. Final report to FloridaDepartment of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry,Gainesville, Florida. October 2003.

Maschinski, J., K.S. Wendelberger, S.J. Wright, H. Thornton, A. Frances, J. Possley and J.Fisher. 2004. Conservation of south Florida endangered and threatened flora: 2004Program at Fairchild Tropical Garden. Final report contract #007997. Florida Departmentof Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida.June 2004.

Maschinski, J. 2006. Demography of Linum carteri var. carteri growing in disturbed andundisturbed sites. In: Maschinski, J., K.S. Wendelberger, S.J. Wright, J. Possley, D.Walters, J. Roncal, and J. Fisher. 2006. Conservation of south Florida endangered andthreatened Flora: 2005 program at Fairchild Tropical Garden. Final report contract#009706. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of PlantIndustry, Gainesville, Florida. June 2006.

Maschinski, J. and D. Walters. 2007. Demography of Linum carteri var. carteri growing indisturbed and undisturbed sites. In: Maschinski, J., S.J. Wright, K.S. Wendelberger, J.Possley, D. Walters, J. Roncal, J. Stolt, C. Walters, and J. Fisher. 2007. Conservation ofsouth Florida endangered and threatened flora: 2006-2007 program at Fairchild TropicalGarden. Final report contract #011299. Florida Department of Agriculture and ConsumerServices, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida. July 2007.

109

Maschinski, J. and D. Walters. 2008. Growth to maturity of Linum carteri var. carteri at twosites. In: Maschinski, J., S.J. Wright, J. Possley, J. Goodman, J. Roncal, V. Pence, D.Walters, S. Lewis, and N. Spencer. 2008. Conservation of south Florida endangered andthreatened flora: 2007-2008 program at Fairchild Tropical Garden. Final report contract#0 12863. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of PlantIndustry, Gainesville, Florida. July 2008.

NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer[Accessed: November 15, 2012].

Possley, J. 2012. Email to Heather Tipton. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Miami, Florida.October 15, 2012.

Rogers, C. M. 1963. Yellow-flowered species of Linum in Central America and western NorthAmerica. Brittonia 20:107-135.

Rogers, C. M. 1968. A reassessment of Linurn rigiduin and L. carteri (Linaceae) in Florida.Brittonia 4: 209-2 10.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form.Litium carteri var. carteri. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida EcologicalServices Office, Vero Beach, Florida.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form.Linum carted var. carteri. November, 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SouthFlorida Ecological Services Office, Vero Beach, Florida.

Tiny polygala

Bradley, K. A. 2010. Email to Mark Salvato. Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. April 28, 2010.

Bradley, K., and G. Gann. 1995. Endangered species status survey: Polygala sinallii Smith &Ward, tiny polygala. Unpublished report prepared by The Institute for RegionalConservation for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida.

Bradley, K., S. Woodmansee, and G. Gann. 1999. Rare plants of Florida scrub in Martin, St.Lucie, and Indian River Counties, Florida. Unpublished report prepared by TheInstitutefor Regional Conservation for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach,Florida.

Fellows, M. 2002. Appendix CS: Smoke treatment of Polygala smallii seeds. In: Conservationof south Florida endangered and threatened flora. Final report to the Endangered PlantAdvisory Council, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FDACScontract #006466. December 2002. Fairchild Tropical Garden.

110

Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2010. Element occurrence records for Folygala small/i.Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Tallahassee, Florida.


Kennedy, S. 1998. The seed bank and seedling dynamics of Polygala small/i, the tiny polygala.M.S. Thesis. Florida International University. Miami, Florida.Kennedy, S. 2003a.Status Survey for Dicerandra thinicola Miller, Titusville Mint,in Brevard County,Florida. Unpublished report prepared by Brevard County Board of CountyCommissioners Natural Resources Management Office for U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Jacksonville, Florida.

Kennedy, S. 2003a. Status Survey for Dicerandra thinicola Miller, Titusville Mint, in BrevardCounty, Florida. Unpublished report prepared by Brevard County Board of CountyCommissioners Natural Resources Management Office for U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Jacksonville, Florida.

Kennedy, S. 2003b. Florida Plant Conservation Program E-9-l 1 Final Report: Federally ListedEndangered Scrub Plant Species Survey in Brevard County ( Warea carteri, Nolinabrittoniana, and Polygala lewtonii). Pages 25-27 in Florida Statewide endangered andthreatened plant conservation program, E-9-1 I final report 2002-2004. FloridaDepartment Of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry, Tallahassee,Florida.

Kennedy, 5. 2004. Florida Plant Conservation Program E-9-l 1 Final Report: Federally ListedEndangered Scrub Plant Species Survey for Deeringothamnus rugelii andDeeringothamnus pulchellus in Brevard County. Pages 28-29 in Florida Statewideendangered and threatened plant conservation program, E-9- 11 final report 2002-2004.Florida Department Of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry,Tallahassee, Florida.

Kennedy, 5. 2006. Peer review comments to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. November 21.

Koptur, S., C. Kernan, and S. Kennedy. 1998. Final Report for the Project: Feasibility ofrelocating tiny polygala. State Study No. 0745, WPI# 0510745, State Job No. 99700-3308-010, Contract No. B-9919.

Maschinski, J. 2005. Personal communication. Letter from Joyce Maschinski, FairchildTropical Botanic Garden to Cindy Schulz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach,Florida. Status updates for Galactia small/i, Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoidea,Polygala small/i, Amoipha crenulata, and Jacquemontia reclinata.

111

Maschinski, J., S.J. Wright, J. Possley, J. Goodsman, J. Roncal, V. Pence, D. Walters, S. Lewis,and N. Spencer. 2008. Conservation of south Florida endangered and threatened flora:2007-2008. Program at Fairchild Tropical Garden. Final Report to Florida Departmentof Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida.Contract #012863 to Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden.

Maschinski, J. 2010. Email to Mark Salvato, Fairchild Tropical Botanical Garden, Miami,Florida. April 26, 2010.

Possley, J. 2006. Electronic mail to David Martin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach,Florida.

Shearer, R. 2010. Email to Mark Salvato, Palm Beach County Environmental ResourceManagement, West Palm Beach, FL. April 29, 2010.


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Tiny polygala (Folygala smallii). 5-year review:summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida EcologicalServices Office, Vero Beach, Florida

Walesky, R.E. 2005. Letter from Palm Beach County Department of Environmental ResourcesManagement to James Slack, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.

Wendelberger, K., and A. Frances. 2004. Updated Conservation Action Plan for Folygalasinalliifroin M. Fellows, J. Possley, H. Thornton, K. Wendelberger, and A. Frances,Pages 95-102 in Maschinski, J., S.J. Wright, K.S. Wendelberger, J. Possley, and J.Fisher.2005. Conservation of south Florida endangered and threatened flora: 2004-2005Program at Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Final Report Contract #009064. FloridaDepartment of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry,Gainesville, Florida.

Woodmansee, S. W., M. J. Barry, K. A. Bradley, S. E. Green, and J. M. Mahoney. 2007. Post-hurricane Field Assessments of six federally endangered and candidate plant species.Final Report to the Service, Vero Beach, Florida. Contract #401815G156 to the Institutefor Regional Conservation.

Wunderlin, R.P., and B.F. Hansen. 2004. Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants(http://www.ylantatlas.usf.edu/). [S.M. Landry and K.N. Campbell (applicationdevelopment), Florida Center for Community Design and Research.] Institute forSystematic Botany, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.

112

Everglades bully

Bradley, K.A. 2005. Email to Dave Martin. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. October 11,2005.


Bradley, K.A., G.D. Gann, and C. Heiden. 2013. Status survey of Everglades bully and Floridapineland crabgrass in the Big Cypress National Preserve, Florida. Draft report submittedto the South Florida Ecological Services Office. Institute for Regional Conservation.Miami, Florida. March 4, 2013.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2011. Unpublished element occurrence point data. Submittedto the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Vero Beach, Florida. July 22, 2011,

Gann, GD., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2002. Rare plants of south Florida: theirhistory, conservation, and restoration. The Institute for Regional Conservation; Miami,Florida. 1056 pages.

Gann, G.D., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2001-2010. The floristic inventory of southflorida database online. The Institute for Regional Conservation, Miami, Florida.http://regionalconservation.org/ircs/database/plants/PlantPage.asp?TXCODE=Sidereclaus

[Accessed: May 5, 2011]

Gann, G.D., K.N. Hines, E.V. Grahl, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2006. Rare plant monitoring andrestoration on Long Pine Key, Everglades National Park. Year End Report, YEAR 3,Cooperative Agreement #H5284-03-0044. Submitted by The Institute for RegionalConservation, Miami, Florida to Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida.

Hodges, S.R., and K.A. Bradley. 2006. Distribution and population size of five candidate planttaxa in the Florida Keys: Argythamnia blodgettii, Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis,Indigofera mucronata var. keyensis, Linum arenicola, and Sideroxylon reclinatum subsp.austrofloridense. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Final Report ContractNumber 401815G0l 1, submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach, Florida.

Long, R.W., and 0. Lakela. 1971. A flora of tropical Florida. University of Miami Press, CoralGables, Florida.

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer[accessed March 23, 2011].

Possley, J. 201 la. Email to Paula Halupa. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Coral Gables,Florida. April 26, 2011.

113

Possley, J. 201 lb. Email to Paula Halupa. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Coral Gables,Florida. December 2, 2011.

Possley, J., and E. McSweeney. 2005 . Critically imperiled Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp.austrofloridense in Larry and Penny Thompson Park—2003.

Sadie, J. 2011. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. January31, 2011.

Wunderlin, R.P. and B. Hansen. 2003. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida, second edition.University Presses of Florida; Gainesville, Florida. 787 pages.

Florida bristle fern

Bradley, K. 2007. Email to Paula Halupa. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. September 12, 2007.

Bradley, K. 2008. Email to Paula Halupa. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. December 9, 2008.

Bradley, K. 2009. Email to Paula Halupa. The Institute for Regional Conservation. Miami,Florida. May 20, 2009.

Darling, T. 1961. Florida rar ties. American Fern Journal 51(1): 1-15.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2011. FNAI element tracking summary. Tallahassee, Florida.April 7, 2011. http://www.fnai.org/PDF/Element_tracking_summary_203.pdf[Accessed: April 13, 20111.

Gann, G.D., K.A. Bradley, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2002. Rare Plants of South Florida: TheirHistory, Conservation, and Restoration. Institute for Regional Conservation, Miami,Florida.

Gann, GD., K.A. Bradley and S.W. Woodmansee. 2001-2008. The floristic inventory of southflorida database online. The Institute for Regional Conservation, Miami, Florida.http://regionalconservation.org/ircs/database/plants/PlantPage.asp?TXCODE=Tricpuncflor [Accessed: April 12, 2010]

Gann, G.D., K.N. Hines, E.V. Grahi, and S.W. Woodmansee. 2006. Rare plant monitoring andrestoration on Long Pine Key, Everglades National Park. Report submitted to EvergladesNational Park. The Institute for Regional Conservation, Miami, Florida.

114

Hill, S.R. 2003. Conservation assessment for Appalachian Bristle Fern (Trichomanesboschianum) Sturm. Report submitted to U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Eastern Region byIllinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois.

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web applicationi.Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.[Accessed: April 8,2011].

Nelson, G. 2000. The Ferns of Florida — A Reference and Field Guide. Pineapple Press,Sarasota, Florida.

Possley, J. 2007. Email to Keith Bradley. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Coral Gables,Florida. July 13, 2007.

Possley, J. 2008. Email to Paula Halupa. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Coral Gables,Florida. October 10, 2008.

Possley, J. 2011. Email to Paula Halupa. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden. Coral Gables,Florida. December 30, 2011.

Sadie, J. 2008a. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida.October 10, 2008.

Sadie, J. 2008b. Email to Paula Halupa. Everglades National Park. Homestead, Florida. January23, 2008.

Small, J.K. 1938. Ferns of the Southeastern States. The Science Press, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Snyder, J.R., A. Herndon, and W.B. Robertson, Jr. 1990. South Florida rocklands. Pages 230-277 in R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel, eds. Ecosystems of Florida. University of CentralFlorida Press, Orlando, Florida.

Werner, C. 2007. Email from Withlacoochee State Forest to Keith Bradley, Institute forRegional Conservation, Miami, Florida.

Wherry, E.T. 1964. The Southern Fern Guide. Doubleday and Company, New York.

Wunderlin, R.P., and B.F. Hansen. 2000. Flora of Florida, Volume 1: Pteridophytes andGymnosperms. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

115

Figure 1. Pine rockland habitat.

Everglades National Park

‘V

II

4’,’

LegendCurrent Pine Rockland

Historical Pine Rockland

Figure 2. Map of Miami-Dade County Pine Rockland Preserves. Navy Wells PinelandPreserves are #s 2 and 15. Deering Estate Preserve is #3. Camp Owaissa Bauer Preserveis #26. Richmond Pinelands is # 1. Nixon Smiley Pineland is #4. — See below for KEY

141 0

434

~24

45 26 j31~ 43614?4 323

429

254 421

- 35433,~

24

184 122

2O4-~9 1214

30

4 Data 510 NOAh US Nay, Oh C[UCC~2flISV~,nnV

~ öO ~ (

KEY for Figure 2 Map of Miami-Dade County Pine Rockland Preserves:

OWNE ACRE# R NAME LOCATION S

RICHMONDPINELANDS (ZOO, SW 184 ST &

1 PE LPT, MARTINEZ) 125 AVE 554SW 356 ST &

2 PE NAVY WELLS 192 AVE 250CHARLES DEERING SW 168 ST & 72

3 PE ESTATE AVE 137NIXON SMILEY

PINELAND & EEL SW 128 ST &4 E ADDITION SW 130 AVE 112

BOYSTOWN SW 120 ST &5 E PINELAND SW 142 AVE 80

CAMP OWAISSA SW 264 ST &6 PE BAUER 170 AVE 64

QUAIL ROOST SW 200 ST &7 E PINELAND SW147AVE 49

SW 224 ST &8 E GOULDS PINELAND SW 120 AVE 42

SUNNY PALMS SW 368 ST &9 E PINELAND SW 202 AVE 401 ROCKDALE SW 144 ST &0 E PINELAND SW 92 AVE 291 TAMIAMI PINELAND SW 134 ST &1 E COMPLEXADDITION SW122AVE 261 SEMINOLE WAYSIDE SW 300 ST & US2 P & EEL ADDITION 1 261 FLORIDACITY SW3445T&3 E PINELAND SW 185 AVE 241 SW4OST&724 PE AD BARNES AVE 221 NAVY WELLS SW 360 ST &S E PINELAND#39 SW212AVE 201 PALM DRIVE SW 344 ST &6 E PINELAND SW 212 AVE 201 SW184ST&7 E EACHUS PINELAND SW 142 AVE 171 WEST BISCAYNE SW 288 ST &8 E PINELAND SW 190 AVE 151 FUCHS HAMMOCK SW 304 ST &9 E ADDITION SW 202 AVE 152 E NORTHROP 5W2965T& 12

118

0 SW 207 Ave

2 NEDGLENN SW188ST&1 E PINELAND SW 87 AVE 112 SW2885T&2 E INGRAM PINELAND SW 167 AVE 102 SW146ST&3 E LUDLAMPINELAND SW67AVE 102 SW74ST&SW4 E TRINITY PINELAND 74 AVE 102 SW18OST&S E WILKINS-PIERSON SW 163 AVE 102 OWAISSA BAUER SW 264 ST &6 E ADDITION SW 177 AVE 92 SILVERPALM SW232ST&7 E GROVES SW139AVE 92 SW128ST&8 PE PINE SHORE 112 AVE 82 5W1765T&799 PE BILL SADOWSKI AVE 73 SW336ST&0 E ROCK PIT #39 SW 192 AVE 73 SW112ST&97i P RON EHMAN AVE 73 ANDREWDODGE SW248ST&2 E PINELAND SW 127 AVE S3 BLACKCREEK SW216ST$SW3 E FOREST 112 AVE S3 SW4OST&794 PE TROPICAL AVE 53 SW2O8ST&5 P MEDSOUTH PARK 129 AVE 43 R. HARDY SW 112 ST&6 PE MATHESON OLD CUTLER 43 SW186ST&887 P WHISPERING PINES CT 3

119

Figure 3. Seminole Wayside Park, Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Seminole Wayside -

UnitsHaPineland

IZI EctIc Dominated Nakiel flees Ib.wgentrd100 0 100 Feet Unit8I DIII 013107 MrDedecotnty 3.1

Unitô4.1

Unit 74.1

Unit 41.9 Unit 3

3.2

Units1.4

Unit 20.7

Unit I3.1

—I.

Documents

To: Mike Piccirilli, Chief, Federal Aid, Southeast