Jekyll Island Conservation Plan 2020 - Appendices

2020 CONSE RVAT ION PL A N APPEN DICE S

CONTENTS APPENDIX A JEKYLL ISLAND – STATE PARK AUTHORITY, ENABLING STATUTE LIMITING DEVELOPMENT....................3

APPENDIX B

PRIORITY SPECIES LIST..................................................7

APPENDIX C PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES REFERENCED IN THE CONSERVATION PLAN.....................12

APPENDIX D

VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS........................18

APPENDIX E COASTAL GA – COOPERATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT AREA, PRIORITY INVASIVE SPECIES..........28

APPENDIX F

SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES......................119

APPENDIX G BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LITERATURE SPECIFIC TO JEKYLL ISLAND...................................... 130

APPENDIX H COMPREHENSIVE FIRE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM...........................................139

APPENDIX I

WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN..................................145

APPENDIX J PREDICTED UPLAND CONVERSION IN RESPONSE TO SEA LEVEL RISE................................165

APPENDIX K

DUKE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR STUDY................................167

APPENDIX L A GEODESIGN APPROACH TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ON JEKYLL ISLAND............................ 239

APPENDIX M

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE OCTOBER 2020 DRAFT CONSERVATION PLAN UPDATE...................................258

2

APPENDIX A JEKYLL ISLAND – STATE PARK AUTHORITY, ENABLING STATUTE LIMITING DEVELOPMENT

3

Laws & Legal Resources.

View the 2019 Georgia Code | View Previous Versions of the Georgia Code

2016 Georgia Code Title 12 - Conservation and Natural Resources Chapter 3 - Parks, Historic Areas, Memorials, and Recreation Article 7 - Public Authorities Part 1 - Jekyll Island--State Park Authority ยง 12-3-243. Subdivision, improvement, lease, or sale of island by authority -Limitations on developed area; beaches to remain free and open; protected areas; disposition of proceeds of sale; creation of reserve fund; signing conveyances Universal Citation: GA Code ยง 12-3-243 (2016)

APPENDIX A 4

(a) (1) (A) The authority is empowered to convert no more than 1,675 acres of the total land area of Jekyll Island into developed land. All residual acreage shall forever be retained as undeveloped area. For purposes of this subparagraph, the 1,597 acres of Jekyll Island that, as of January 1, 2014, have been subdivided, leased, or improved according to the 2013 master plan shall be deemed as already converted to developed land.

(B) After July 1, 2014, undeveloped area shall be converted to developed land only as follows: (i) Twelve acres to be used solely for the expansion of the existing campground; (ii) Forty-six acres to be used solely for public health, public safety, or public recreation. As used in this division, the term "public recreation" specifically excludes residential and commercial development; and (iii) Twenty acres to be available for unrestricted uses.

(C) After July 1, 2014, the proposed conversion of any undeveloped area to developed land shall be subject to the amendment procedure outlined in subsection (c) of Code Section 123-243.1.

(2) (A) The authority may survey, subdivide, and lease any acreage which may be converted to developed land in accordance with paragraph (1) of this subsection, provided that the authority shall in no way sell or otherwise dispose of any riparian rights; and provided, further, that the beach areas of Jekyll Island shall never be leased but shall be kept free and open for the use of the people of this state.

(B) That portion of Jekyll Island lying south of 31 degrees, 1 minute, 34 seconds north latitude as such latitude is depicted on the 1993 USGS topographic survey 7.5 minute series quadrangle map shall always be retained as undeveloped area, and the authority shall not enter into, renew, or extend any agreement or otherwise take any action regarding such southern portion of the island on or after May 30, 2007, except as otherwise provided in this subparagraph. The removal of any improvement on such southern portion of the island which was completed prior to May 30, 2007, shall not be required. Upon the expiration or termination of any lease of a lot for a single-family residence on such southern portion of the island, the authority may again lease such lot to the same or another lessee for a singlefamily residence or noncommercial purpose or the authority may set aside the lot for public use; but the lot shall not be further subdivided, and the authority shall not lease such lot for any multifamily residence or commercial purpose. Those properties used for the Jekyll Island 4-H center and soccer complex may continue to be used and improved for the same

APPENDIX A 5

or similar purposes under an extension or renewal of an existing lease or under a new lease.

This subparagraph shall not prohibit the construction and use of any public bicycle trails, public nature trails, or public picnic areas on such southern portion of the island by the authority. This subparagraph shall not be applied to impair the obligation of any valid contract entered into prior to May 30, 2007. (b) The authority shall deduct and retain as income from the amounts received for any sales of lots the value of its leasehold estate in such property, which shall be determined by agreement between the authority and the Governor. The remainder of such amounts shall be paid into the state treasury to the credit of the general fund. Ninety percent of the income received by the authority from the sale of lots shall be paid into a reserve fund to be set up by the authority to be used for general improvements or capital improvements, or both, on Jekyll Island. (c) All conveyances for the sale of lots shall be signed by the authority on its own behalf and by the Governor on behalf of the state.

Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Georgia may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.

APPENDIX A 6

APPENDIX B PRIORITY SPECIES LISTS

7

I d en t i f i c at i o n Barking Tree Frog Hyla grat iosa East ern Newt Not opht halmus viridescens Cope's Gray Tree Frog Hyla chrysoscelis Pine Woods Tree Frog Hyla femoralis Two-t oed Amphiuma Amphiuma means Hummock Crawfish Procambarus lundzi Mole Crawfish Procambarus t alpoides

St at u s A m p h i b i an

J ek y l l Ef f o r t

Local Concern

Act ive Monit oring

Local Concern

Passive Monit oring

Local Concern

Act ive Monit oring

Local Concern

Act ive Monit oring

Local Concern

Wat chlist

A q u at i c I n v er t eb r at e St at e Vulnerable

Passive Monit oring

Local Concern

Passive Monit oring

A v i an ֍ denot es t he possibilit y of t his species t o nest on J ekyll Island based on habit at American Black Duck SNAB - Wat chlist Wat chlist Anas rubripes American Oyst er Cat cher ֍ St at e Imperiled Act ive Monit oring Haemat opus palliat us American Woodcock SNAB - Wat chlist Passive Monit oring Scolopax minor Bachman's Sparrow ֍ St at e Imperiled Wat chlist Peucaea aest ivalis Bald Eagle ֍ St at e List ed - Threat ened Act ive Monit oring Haliaeet us leucocephalus Barn Owl ֍ SWAP - Priorit y Passive Monit oring Tyt o alba Black Necked St ilt ֍ St at e Imperiled Passive Monit oring Himant opus mexicanus Black Rail ֍ Federally List ed - Threat ened Wat chlist Lat erallus jamaicensis Black-billed Cuckoo St at e Vulnerable Wat chlist Coccyzus eryt hropt halmus Bobolink Wat chlist SNAB - Wat chlist Dolichonyx oryzivorus Cape May Warbler Passive Monit oring SNAB - Wat chlist Set ophaga t igrina Chuck-will's-widow ֍ Passive Monit oring Local Concern Ant rost omus carolinensis Common Night wawk ֍ Passive Monit oring Local Concern Chordeiles minor Connect icut Warbler Passive Monit oring SNAB - Wat chlist Oporornis agilis

APPENDIX B 8

East ern Whip-poor-will Ant rost omus vociferus Gull Billed Tern ֍ Gelochelidon nilot ica Horned Grebe Podiceps aurit us Kent ucky Warbler Geot hlypis formosa King Rail ֍ Rallus elegans Kirt land's Warbler Set ophaga kirt landii Least Bit t ern ֍ Ixobrychus exilis Least Tern ֍ St ernula ant illarum Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa Flavipes Lit t le Blue Heron ֍ Egret t a caerulea Loggerhead Shrike ֍ Lanius ludovicianus Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa Nelson's Sparrow Ammospiza nelsoni Nort hern Bobwhit e ֍ Colinus virginianus Nort hern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus Paint ed Bunt ing ֍ Passerina ciris Pect oral Sandpiper Calidris melanot os Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Prairie Warbler ֍ Set ophaga discolor Prot honot ery Warbler ֍ Prot onot aria cit rea Red Knot Calidris canut us Reddish Egret Egret t a rufescens Sout heast ern American Kest rel Falco sparverius paulus

SNAB - Wat chlist

Passive Monit oring

St at e Crit ically Imperiled

Passive Monit oring

SNAB - Wat chlist

Passive Monit oring

SNAB - Wat chlist

Passive Monit oring

St at e Vulnerable

Wat chlist

Federally List ed - Threat ened

Wat chlist

St at e Vulnerable

Passive Monit oring

St at e Imperiled

Passive Monit oring

SNAB - Wat chlist

Passive Monit oring

SNAB - Wat chlist

Passive Monit oring

St at e Vulnerable

Passive Monit oring

SNAB - Wat chlist

Act ive Monit oring

St at e Vulnerable

Act ive Monit oring

St at e Vulnerable

Ext ernal Research

SWAP - Priorit y

Wat chlist

St at e Vulnerable

Wat chlist

St at e Imperiled

Passive Monit oring

SNAB - Wat chlist

Act ive Monit oring

St at e Crit ically Imperiled

Passive Monit oring

Federally List ed - Threat ened

Act ive Monit oring

SNAB - Wat chlist

Passive Monit oring

SNAB - Wat chlist

Wat chlist

Federally List ed - Threat ened

Act ive Monit oring

SNAB - Wat chlist

Passive Monit oring

St at e Imperiled

Passive Monit oring

APPENDIX B 9

Salt marsh Sparrow Ammoodramus caudact us Seaside Sparrow ֍ Ammoodramus caudact us macgrillvraii Semipalmat ed Sandpiper Calidrus pusilla Short -billed Dowit cher Limnodromus griseus Swallow-t ailed Kit e ֍ Elanoides forficat us Swainson's Warbler Limnot hlypis swainsonii Tricolored Heron ֍ Egret t a t ricolor Willet ֍ Tringa semipalmat a Wilson's Plover ֍ Charadrius wilsonia Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus Wood St ork ֍ Myct eria americana Wood Thrush ֍ Hylocichla must elina

St at e Vulnerable

Ext ernal Research

St at e Vulnerable

Ext ernal Research

SNAB - Wat chlist

Act ive Monit oring

SNAB - Wat chlist

Act ive Monit oring

St at e Imperiled

Passive Monit oring

St at e Vulnerable

Wat chlist

SWAP - Priorit y

Passive Monit oring

SNAB - Wat chlist

Act ive Monit oring

St at e List ed - Threat ened

Act ive Monit oring

St at e Vulnerable

Act ive Monit oring

Federally List ed - Threat ened

Passive Monit oring

SNAB - Wat chlist

Passive Monit oring

Mam m al Bobcat Lynx rufus Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargent eus Nort hern Yellow Bat Lasiurus int ermedius Tri-colored Bat Perimyot is subflavus Bart ram's Airplant Tillandsia bart ramii Black Tupelo Nyssa sylvat ica But t on Bush Cephalant hus occident alis Climbing Buckt horn Sageret ia minut iflora Dwarf Pawpaw Asimina parviflora Florida Wild Privet Forest iera segregat a var. segregat a Greenfly Orchid Epidendrum magnoliae Hop Tree Pt elea t rifoliat a Lime-fleeing Sedge Carex calcifugens

Local Concern

Act ive Monit oring

Local Concern

Passive Monit oring

St at e Vulnerable

Act ive Monit oring

SWAP - Priorit y

Act ive Monit oring

Pl an t St at e Imperiled

Wat chlist

Local Concern

Passive Monit oring

Local Concern

Passive Monit oring

St at e List ed - Threat ened

Passive Monit oring

Local Concern

Passive Monit oring

St at e Imperiled

Passive Monit oring

St at e Vulnerable

Wat chlist

Local Concern

Passive Monit oring

St at e Imperiled

Passive Monit oring

APPENDIX B 10

Loblolly Bay Gordonia lasiant hus Muhly Grass Muhlenbergia capillaris var filipes Pignut Hickory Carya glabra Rouge Plant Rivina humilis Soapberry Sapindus saponaria var. marginat us Widgeon Grass Ruppia marit ima Box Turt le Terrapene carolina carolina Canebrake Rat t lesnake Crot alus horridus Coachwhip Mast icophis flagellum Diamondback t errapin Malaclemys t errapin East ern Coral Snake Micrurus fulvius East ern Diamondback Rat t lesnake Crot alus adamant eus East ern Kingsnake Lampropelt is get ula Green Sea Turt le Chelonia mydas Island Glass Lizard Ophisaurus compressus Kemp's Ridley Sea Turt le Lepidochelys kempii Leat herback Sea Turt le Dermochelys coriacea Loggerhead Sea Turt le Caret t a caret t a Pygmy Rat t lesnake Sist rurus miliarius Monarch But t erfly Danaus plexippus Bluefin Killifish Lucania goodei

Local Concern

Passive Monit oring

Local Concern

Act ive Monit oring

Local Concern

Act ive Monit oring

St at e Crit ically Imperiled

Passive Monit oring

Local Concern

Passive Monit oring

Local Concern

Passive Monit oring

Rep t i l e Local Concern

Research

Local Concern

Research

Local Concern

Passive Monit oring

SWAP - Priorit y

Research

St at e Vulverable

Wat chlist

SWAP - Priorit y

Research

Local Concern

Act ive Monit oring

Federally List ed - Endangered

Research

St at e Imperiled

Wat chlist

Federally List ed - Endangered

Passive Monit oring

Federally List ed - Endangered

Research

Federally List ed - Threat ened

Research

Local Concern

Wat chlist

T er r es t r i al I n v er t eb r at e SWAP - Priorit y

Act ive Monit oring

Fi sh St at e Crit ically Imperiled

Wat chlist

APPENDIX B 11

APPENDIX C PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES REFERENCED IN THE CONSERVATION PLAN

12

Amphibian

Common Name barking treefrog Cope's gray tree frog Cuban treefrog Eastern newt pinewoods treefrog two-toed amphiuma

Family Hylidae Hylidae Hylidae Salamandridae Hylidae Amphiumidae

Common Name American black duck American oystercatcher American woodcock Bachman's sparrow bald eagle barn owl black rail black-billed cuckoo black-necked stilt bobolink Cape May warbler chuck-will's-widow common nighthawk Connecticut warbler Eastern whip-poor-will gull-billed tern horned grebe Kentucky warbler king rail Kirtland's warbler least bittern least tern lesser yellowlegs little blue heron loggerhead shrike long-billed curlew marbled godwit Nelson's sparrow Northern bobwhite painted bunting pectoral sandpiper peregrine falcon piping plover prairie warbler prothonotary warbler red knot reddish egret red-headed woodpecker saltmarsh sparrow seaside sparrow semipalmated sandpiper short-billed dowitcher

Family

Bird

Anatidae Charadriidae Scolopacidae Passerellidae Accipitridae Tytonidae Rallidae Coccyzidae Charadriidae Icteridae Parulidae Camprimulgidae Caprimulgidae Parulidae Caprimulgidae Laridae Podicipedidae Parulidae Rallidae Parulidae Ardeidae Laridae Scolopacidae Ardeidae Laniidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Emberizidae Odontophoridae Cardinalidae Scolopacidae Falconidae Charadriidae Parulidae Parulidae Scolopacidae Ardeidae Picidae Emberizidae Emberizidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae

Genus Hyla Hyla Osteopilus Notophthalmus Hyla Amphiuma Genus

Anas Haematopus Scolopax Peucaea Haliaeetus Tyto Laterallus Coccyzus Himantopus Dolichonyx Setophaga Antrostomus Chordeiles Oporonis Caprimulgus Gelochelidon Podiceps Geothlypis Rallus Setophaga Ixobrychus Sterna Tringa Egretta Lanius Numenius Limosa Ammodramus Colinus Passerina Calidris Falco Charadrius Dendroica Protonotaria Calidris Egretta Melanerpes Ammodramus Ammodramus Calidris Limnodromus

Species gratiosa chrysoscelis septentrionalis viridescens femoralis means Species

rubripes palliatus minor aestivalis leucocephalus alba jamaicensis erythropthalmus mexicanus oryzivorus tigrina carolinensis minor agilis vociferus nilotica auritus formosa elegans kirtlandii exilis antillarum flavipes caerulea ludovicianus americanus fedoa nelsoni virginianus ciris melanotos peregrinus melodus discolor citrea canutus rufescens erythrocephalus caudacutus maritimus pussilla griseus

APPENDIX C 10 13

short-eared owl Southeastern American kestrel Swainson's warbler swallow-tailed kite tricolored heron whimbrel willet Wilson's plover wood stork wood thrush

Strigidae Falconidae Parulidae Accipitridae Ardeidae Scolopacidae Scolopacidae Charadriidae Ciconiidae Turdidae

Common Name bluefin killifish

laurel wilt

Common Name

Asio Falco Limnothlypis Elanoides Egretta Numenius Catoptrophorus Charadrius Mycteria Hylocichla

flammeus sparverius swainsonii forficatus tricolor phaeopus semipalmatus wilsonia americana mustelina

Family Fundulidae

Genus Lucania

goodei

Family Ophiostomataceae

Genus Raffaelea

lauricola

Pieridae Nymphalidae Cambaridae Cambaridae Nymphalidae Formicidae Curculionidae

Phoebis Agraulis Procambarus Procambarus Danaus Solenopsis Xyleborus

sennae vanillae lundzi talpoides plexippus invicta glabratus

Fish

Fungi

Invertebrate

cloudless sulfur gulf fritillary hummock crayfish mole crayfish monarch butterfly red imported fire ant redbay ambrosia beetle Common Name

bobcat coyote feral cat feral pig gray fox nine-banded armadillo Northern yellow bat raccoon tri-color bat white-tailed deer

Mammal

Family

Felidae Canidae Felidae Suidae Canidae Dasypodidae Vespertilionidae Procyonidae Vespertilionidae Cervidae

Genus

Lynx canis Felis sus Urocyon Dasypus Dasypterus Procyon Perimyotis Odocoileus

Species

Species

Species

rufus latrans catus scrofa cinereoargenteus novemcintus intermedius lotor subflavus virginianus

APPENDIX C 14

Common Name American beautyberry American holly American sweetgum Bartram’s airplant beach croton beach elder beach morning-glory bitter panicgrass black cherry black needlerush black tupelo blackberry bluestem butterfly pea buttonbush cabbage palmetto Camphor Tree Carolina willow catbriar chinaberry tree Chinese privet Chinese tallow cinnamon fern climbing buckthorn coral bean dahoon holly deerberry dog fennel dune fingergrass dune prickly-pear dune primrose dwarf pawpaw Eastern brackenfern Eastern gammagrass Eastern prickly-pear Eastern red cedar elephant's foot erect prickly-pear fetterbush fleabane Florida wild privet foxtail grass frogbit giant foxtail glasswort greenfly orchid groundseltree hempweed hercules club hop tree

Plant

Family Lamiaceae Aquifoliaceae Hamamelidaceae Bromeliaceae Euphorbiaceae Asteraceae Convolvulaceae Poaceae Rosaceae Juncaceae Nyssaceae Rosaceae Poaceae Fabaceae Rubiaceae Arecaceae Lauraceae Salicaceae Smilacaceae Meliaceae Oleaceae Euphorbiaceae Osmundaceae Rhamnaceae Fabaceae Aquifoliaceae Ericaceae Asteraceae Poaceae Cactaceae Onagraceae Annonaceae Dennstaedtiaceae Poaceae Cactaceae Cupressaceae Asteraceae Cactaceae Ericaceae Asteraceae Oleaceae Poaceae Hydrocharitaceae Poaceae Amaranthaceae Orchidaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Rutaceae Rutaceae

Genus Callicarpa Ilex Liquidambar Tillandsia Croton Iva Ipomea Panicum Prunus Juncus Nyssa Rubus Andropogon Centrosema Cephalanthus Sabal Cinnamomum Salix Smilax Melia Ligustrum Triadica Osmunda Sageretia Erythrina Ilex Vaccinium Eupatorium Eustachys Opuntia Oenothera Asimina Pteridium Tripsacum Opuntia Juniperus Elephantopus Opuntia Lyonia Erigeron Forestiera setaria Limnobium Setaria Salicornia Epidendrum Baccharis Mickania Zanthxylum Ptelea

Species

americana opaca styraciflula bartramii punctatus imbricata stolonifera amaram serontina roemerianus sylvatica spp. spp. virginianum occidentalis palmetto camphora caroliniana spp. azedarach sinense sebifera cinnamomea minutiflora herbaceae cassine stamineum capillifolium petraea pusilla humifusa parviflora aquilinum dactyloides humifusa virginiana tomentosus stricta lucida spp. segregata var. segregata spp. spongia magna spp. conopseum halimifolia scandens clava-herculis trifoliata

APPENDIX C 15

Japanese climbing fern knotweed lantana large-flowered hibiscus largeleaf pennywort laurel oak lime-fleeing sedge live oak lizard's tail loblolly bay loblolly pine marsh elder mistflower muhly grass muscadine pennywort peppervine pigeon wings pignut hickory plume grass poison ivy pond pine powderpuff mimosa ragweed railroad vine red bay red maple red mulberry resurrection fern rockrose rougeplant rustweed rusty staggerbush salt cedar salt grass saltmarsh mallow saltmeadow cordgrass sand cordgrass sand live oak sandmat sandspur

Lygodiaceae Polygonaceae Verbenaceae Malvaceae Araliaceae Fagaceae Cyperaceae Fagaceae Saururaceae Theaceae Pinaceae Asteraceae Asteraceae Poaceae Vitaceae Araliaceae Vitaceae Fabaceae Juglandaceae Poaceae Anacardiaceae Pinaceae Fabaceae Asteraceae Convolvulaceae Lauraceae Aceraceae Moraceae Polypodiaceae Cistaceae Phytolaccaceae Tetrachondraceae Ericaceae Tamaricaceae Poaceae Malvaceae Poaceae Poaceae Fagaceae Euphorbiaceae Poaceae

Lygodium Polygonum Lantana Hibiscus Hydrocotyle Quercus carex Quercus Saururus Gordonia Pinus Iva Conoclinium Muhlenbergia Vitis Hydrocotyle Ampelopsis Clitoria Carya Saccharum toxicodendron Pinus Mimosa Ambrosia Ipomoea Persea Acer Morus Polypodium Helianthemum Rivina Polypremum Lyonia Tamarix Distichlis Kosteletzkya Spartina Spartina Quercus Chamaesyce Cenchrus

japonicum pensylvanicum spp. grandiflora bonariensis hemispherica calcifugens virginiana cernus lasianthus taeda frutescens coelestinum sericea rotundifolia spp. arborea mariana glabra giganteum radicans serotina pudica artemisiifolia pes-caprae borbonia rubrum rubra polypodioides corymbosum humilis procumbens ferruginea gallica spicata virginica patens bakeri geminata spp. tribuloides

APPENDIX C 16

saw palmetto sawgrass sea oats sea oxeye daisy sea rocket seashore dropseed silkgrass slash pine slender woodoats smooth cordgrass soapberry Southern red cedar Southern saltwort Spanish bayonet Spanish dagger Spanish moss sparkleberry St. Andrew's cross stinging nettle sugarberry swamp bay switchcane thistle tough bully trumpet vine Virginia chainfern Virginia creeper wavyleaf basket grass wax myrtle whip nutrush widgeon grass witchgrass yaupon holly

Arecaceae Cyperaceae Poaceae Asteraceae Brassicaceae Poaceae Asteraceae Pinaceae Poaceae Poaceae Sapindoideae Cupressaceae Bataceae Agavaceae Agavaceae Bromeliaceae Ericaceae Clusiaceae Euphorbiaceae Ulmaceae Lauraceae Poaceae Asteraceae Sapotaceae Bignoniaceae Blechnaceae Vitaceae Poaceae Myricaceae Cyperaceae Ruppiaceae Poaceae Aquifoliaceae

Serenoa Cladium Uniola Borrichia Cakile Sporobolus Pityopsis Pinus Chasmanthium Spartina Sapindus Juniperus Batis Yucca Yucca Tillandsia Vaccinium Hypericum Cnidoscolus Celtis Persea Arundinaria Cirsium Sideroxylon Campsis Woodwardia Parthenocissus Oplismenus Myrica Scleria Ruppia Dichanthelium Ilex

repens jamaicense paniculata frutescens harperi virginicus spp. elliotti laxum alterniflora marginatus silicicola maritima aloifolia gloriosa usneoides arboreum hypericoides stimulosus laevigata palustris tecta spp. tenax radicans virginica quinquefolia undulatifolius cerifera triglomerata maritima commutatum vomitoria

Common Name American alligator canebrake rattlesnake diamondback terrapin Eastern box turtle Eastern coachwhip Eastern coral snake Eastern diamondback rattlesnake Eastern kingsnake island glass lizard Kemp's ridley sea turtle leatherback sea turtle loggerhead sea turtle pygmy rattlesnake green tea turtle

Family Alligatoridae Viperidae Emydidae Emydidae Colubridae Elapidae Viperidae Colubridae Anguidae Cheloniidae Dermochelyidae Cheloniidae Viperidae Cheloniidae

Genus Alligator Crotalus Malaclemys Terrapene Masticophis Micrurus Crotalus Lampropeltis Ophisaurus Lepidochelys Dermochelys Carretta Sistrurus Chelonia

Species mississippiensis horridus terrapin carolina flagellum fulvius adamanteus getula compressus kempii coriacea caretta miliarius mydas

Reptile

APPENDIX C 17

APPENDIX D VEGETATIVE COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS

18

APPENDIX D Georgia Coastal Assessment: Jekyll Island, Georgia Jacob Thompson and Eamonn Leonard GA-DNR, WRD, Nongame Conservation Section

I. National Vegetation Classification (NVC) and Local Descriptions of Plant Communities

A. Forest communities: 1. Red-Cedar - Live Oak - Cabbage Palmetto Marsh Hammock - These hammocks occur in salt marsh along the western side of Jekyll Island. Often dominated by Quercus virginiana and Juniperus virginiana with a moderately open to very open canopy. Serenoa repens is usually present and dense in the shrub layer. Sabal palmetto, Ilex vomitoria, Sideroxylon tenax, and Disticlis spicata were found. Salt marsh species may occur along the edge of the hammock.

Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable Association: Coastal Red-cedar - (Live Oak, Cabbage Palmetto) Forest (CEGL007813); Juniperus virginiana var. silicicola - (Quercus virginiana, Sabal palmetto) Forest Alliance: Quercus virginiana - (Sabal palmetto) Forest Alliance Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh 2. Loblolly-bay Forest - Pinus elliottii, Gordonia lasianthus, along with lesser amounts of Persea palustris and Nyssa biflora dominate the canopy of this forest community. The shrub layer is sparse with Morella cerifera covering only 10% of the tall shrub layer, while Sabal palmetto and Lyonia lucida make up a short shrub layer. Herbs are few, with scattered Andropogon sp. and Chasmanthium laxum. This seepage-fed community is located between an upland oak maritime community and a lowland Red maple-dominated forested wetland.

Global Status: G4 – Apparently Secure Association: Loblolly-bay - Sweetbay - Swampbay / Peatmoss species Forest (CEGL007044); Gordonia lasianthus-Magnolia virginiana-Persea palustris/Sphagnum spp. Forest Alliance: Magnolia virginiana - Persea palustris Saturated Forest Alliance Ecological System: Atlantic Coastal Plain Streamhead Seepage Swamp, Pocosin, and Baygall 3. Maritime Live Oak Hammock – The dominant forest community on Jekyll Island, it is characterized by the canopy-dominance of Quercus virginiana, Appendix I - 1 APPENDIX D 19

Quercus hemisphaerica, and sometimes Pinus elliottii. Several tree species may be found in the diverse subcanopy including Persea palustris, Sabal palmetto, Morella cerifera, Ilex vomitoria, Juniperus virginiana. Other species found in the tall shrub/subcanopy layers include Celtis laevigata, Prunus serotina, Sideroxylon tenax, Ilex opaca, Lyonia ferruginea, and Camphora cinnamomum. The shrub layer can be floristically diverse and relatively open compared to other maritime communities found on Jekyll Island and include Persea palustris, Sabal palmetto, Serenoa repens, Callicarpa americana, Vaccineum arboreum, Morella cerifera, and Ilex vomitoria. The herb layer is generally dense with vines, Quercus seedlings, and graminoids. Characteristic species include Rubus trivialis, Smilax bona-nox, Oplismenus hirtellus. Mitchella repens and Houstonia procumbens.

Scleria triglomerata, Chasmanthium laxum, and Setaria sp. are dominant graminoids.

In some examples, Quercus hemisphaerica is the dominant/co-dominant canopy tree species, making for a more open canopy. Slash pine (P. elliottii) and Live oak (Q. virginiana) may be co-dominant. Slash pine is often the tallest tree, sticking out above the oak canopy. Persea palustris is the dominant subcanopy tree. Lyonia ferruginea, Vaccineum arboreum, Ilex opaca, and Morella cerifera are often dominant tall and short shrubs. The short shrub layer may be open and park-like to somewhat dense with Serenoa repens and Lyonia ferruginea. In these examples, the herb layer is sparse with Scleria triglomerata, Chasmanthium laxum, and Smilax pumila. Ilex vomitoria may also be present. In some examples, Live oak (Q. virginiana) is the only canopy dominant and the shrub layer is dense with Saw palmetto (S. repens). Persea palustris, Liquidambar styraciflua and Sabal palmetto were noted in the canopy and subcanopy. Where Serenoa repens is less dense in the shrub layer, heaths such as Vaccineum (arboreum and stamineum) and Lyonia ferruginea were found along with Morella cerifera, Ilex opaca, and Ilex vomitoria. Herb layer species are few or lacking due to the oftendense cover of Serenoa repens, although Scleria triglomerata has been noted.

Global Status: G2 - Imperiled Association: Live Oak - (Slash Pine, Cabbage Palmetto) / Redbay - Beautyberry Forest (CEGL007032); Quercus virginiana – (Pinus elliottii var. elliottii, Sabal palmetto)/Persea borbonia – Callicarpa americana Forest Alliance: Quercus virginiana – (Sabal palmetto) Forest Alliance Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest 4. Mid- to Late-Successional Loblolly Pine – Sweetgum Forest – In this successional community, Pinus taeda dominates the canopy densely with 60-70% cover. Camphor tree (Camphora cinnamomum) forms a sparse subcanopy.

Morella cerifera and Ilex vomitoria are dominant in the tall shrub layer. Few Persea seedlings and Morella cerifera individuals can be found in the open shrub layer. The vines, Rubus trivialis, Smilax (pumila and bona-nox), and Vitis rotundifolia, form patchy mats in the herb layer. Sabal palmetto seedlings were also found.

Appendix I - 2

APPENDIX D 20

Global Status: GNA Association: Loblolly Pine - Sweetgum Semi-natural Forest (CEGL008462); Pinus taeda - Liquidambar styraciflua Semi-natural Forest Alliance: Pinus taeda Forest Alliance Ecological System: NA 5. Outer Coastal Plain Sweetbay Swamp Forest - Large Nyssa biflora dominate the canopy, while Persea palustris forms a distinct understory layer. Persea palustris and Lyonia ferruginea make up a tall shrub layer. Ilex (cassine and opaca) may also be scattered in the tall shrub layer. Morella cerifera and Persea palustris dominate the short shrub layer. In some areas, the shrub layer becomes dense with Serenoa repens and Lyonia lucida. Few or no herbs are present, although Woodwardia areolata and Woodwardia virginica were noted where shrubs were less dense.

Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable Association: Sweetbay - Swampbay / Shining Fetterbush Forest (CEGL007049); Magnolia virginiana - Persea palustris / Lyonia lucida Forest Alliance: Magnolia virginiana - Persea palustris Saturated Forest Alliance Ecological System: Atlantic Coastal Plain Streamhead Seepage Swamp, Pocosin, and Baygall 6. Red Maple - Tupelo Maritime Swamp Forest - Acer rubrum is the dominant species in this seasonally flooded community. Co-dominant or less dominant species vary. Hollies (Ilex cassine, I. opaca, and I. vomitoria) are usually present in the subcanopy layer. Nyssa biflora or Gordonia lasianthus may also be present.

Morella cerifera and Ilex vomitoria are typically scattered in the shrub layers.

Very few species exist in the herb layer, although Chasmantheum spp., Sabal palmetto, Dichanthelium spp., Hydrocotyle bonariensis, Rubus spp., and Woodwardia virginica were found. In a south Jekyll Island example, Persea palustris, Juniperus virginiana, Osmunda regalis, and Smilax laurifolia were present.

Global Status: G2 - Imperiled Association: Red Maple - Swamp Tupelo - (Sweetgum, Ash species) Maritime Swamp Forest (CEGL004082); Acer rubrum - Nyssa biflora - (Liquidambar styraciflua, Fraxinus sp.) Maritime Swamp Forest Alliance: Liquidambar styraciflua - (Acer rubrum) Seasonally Flooded Forest Alliance Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest 7. Southeastern Florida Maritime Hammock - In this forest community, the dominant tree, Quercus geminata, is scrubby and short in stature (10-15m) forming a dense thicket with Saw palmetto (S. repens). Large emergent Pinus elliottii (20-35m) may be scattered throughout, sticking out of the oak canopy.

Lyonia ferruginea although not dense, forms a distinct tall shrub layer (5-10m).

Appendix I - 3

APPENDIX D 21

Serenoa repens creates a dense short shrub layer along with scattered Lyonia lucida.

Global Status: G2 - Imperiled Association: Sand Live Oak - (Live Oak) / Saw Palmetto - Rusty Fetterbush Forest (CEGL007020); Quercus geminata – (Quercus virginiana)/Serenoa repens – Lyonia fruticosa Forest Alliance: Quercus geminata Forest Alliance Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest

B. Woodland Communities 8. Maritime Slash Pine – Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods - Several examples found on Jekyll Island. Canopy is often completely dominated by Pinus elliottii (sometimes with P. taeda) and ranges from closed to relatively open. Persea palustris is a subcanopy dominant often along with Magnolia grandiflora, Quercus virginiana, and in some examples, the invasive Camphora cinnamomum.

The tall shrub layer can range from sparse to dense with Morella cerifera, Ilex vomitoria, Sabal palmetto, and Persea palustris. Serenoa repens is often the patchy to dense dominant in the short shrub layer. Herb layer poorly developed with some tree seedlings and vines (Rubus spp, Smilax bona-nox) present. Some wetter areas may contain fern species (Woodwardia spp). Sandy-loam soil is moderately to well-drained. This vegetation type is sometimes found on pinedominated hammocks on north and northwest parts of the island. One example contained Quercus nigra, Rhus copallinum, and Vitis rotundifolia.

In some examples, Pinus taeda may be present. Serenoa repens is dominant and dense in the short shrub (1-2m) layer w/ scattered Lyonia lucida and some Lyonia ferruginea. Vines such as Smilax (glauca and auriculata) were found in one example. The forest floor contains thick layers of pine needle litter and very few species are found in the herb layer. ***Note- Examples questionable and some may fit be better placed in Mid- to Late-Successional Slash Pine Managed Forest (CEGL007171).

Global Status: G2 - Imperiled Association: Slash Pine - (Longleaf Pine) / Yaupon - Saw Palmetto - Wax-myrtle Woodland (CEGL004658); Pinus elliottii var. elliottii – (Pinus palustris)/Ilex vomitoria – Serenoa repens – Morella cerifera Woodland Alliance: Pinus palustris Woodland Alliance Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest 9. South Atlantic Coastal Shell Midden Woodland – An example of this calciphilic community occurs on a southwestern marsh hammock on Jekyll Island. The canopy consists mainly of Juniperus virginiana var. silicicola although Sabal palmetto and Zanthoxylum clava-herculis were present as well.

Shrubs are prominent and included Ilex vomitoria, Forestiera segregata, Baccharis halimifolia, and others. Rouge plant (Rivina humilis) was found in Appendix I - 4

APPENDIX D 22

abundance in the herb layer of this community. Another example was located on a marsh hammock near the Jekyll Island causeway and included Georgia special concern plants Sapindus marginatus (subcanopy dominant), Forestiera segregata, and Sageretia minutiflora (shrub dominant).

Global Status: G2 - Imperiled Association: Coastal Red-cedar - Toothache-tree - Live Oak - (Cabbage Palmetto) / Small-flower Mock Buckthorn - (Tough Bumelia) Woodland (CEGL003525); Juniperus virginiana var. silicicola - Zanthoxylum clava-herculis - Quercus virginiana - (Sabal palmetto) / Sageretia minutiflora - (Sideroxylon tenax) Woodland Alliance: Quercus virginiana - Juniperus virginiana - (Sabal palmetto) Woodland Alliance Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest 10. Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Carolina Willow Dune Swale These seasonally flooded wetlands are found imbedded in live oak-dominated maritime forests in swales between coastal dunes in coastal Georgia and northern Florida. They are characterized by a short (5-10 m) Salix caroliniana-dominated overstory with Hibiscus grandiflorus in the shrub layer. Morella cerifera may also be found scattered in the shrub layer. The herbaceous cover depends on season and water levels in the stand. Polygonum punctatum, Boehmeria cylindrica, and Teucrium canadense are dominant herbs; Ptilimnium capillaceum, Saururus cernuus, Hydrocotyle bonariensis, and others may also be present in the herb layer. Ampelopsis arborea and Mikania scandens are common vines. Quercus virginiana and Sabal palmetto may be overhanging but are not typically rooted in the community.

Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable Association: Carolina Willow / Swamp Rosemallow / Dotted Smartweed Woodland (CEGL004272); Salix caroliniana / Hibiscus grandiflorus / Polygonum punctatum Woodland Alliance: Salix caroliniana Seasonally Flooded Woodland Alliance Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Dune and Maritime Grassland

C. Shrubland Communities 11. Atlantic Coast Interdune Swale - This vegetation is dominated by Morella cerifera, sometimes intermixed with Juniperus virginiana var. silicicola. On Jekyll Island, this community sometimes forms dense bands. Shrubs range from 2-8m tall. Other shrub species include Baccharis halimifolia and Ilex vomitoria.

The herbaceous layer is characterized by Spartina patens. Other ground flora associates include Andropogon virginicus, Smilax spp., Vitis spp. Small openings may have wetland graminoids, such as Juncus roemerianus, Spartina patens, Eleocharis sp., Fimbristylis castanea, Andropogon glomeratus var. pumilus, and forbs, such as Hydrocotyle bonariensis, Polygonum hydropiperoides, and others.

Appendix I - 5

APPENDIX D 23

In many cases, few herbs are present, because of the dense, thicket-like shrub layer.

Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable Association: Wax-myrtle / Saltmeadow Cordgrass Shrubland (CEGL003839); Morella cerifera / Spartina patens Shrubland Alliance: Morella cerifera Saturated Shrubland Alliance Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Dune and Maritime Grassland 12. Coastal Salt Shrub Thicket - This shrubland type, dominated by the nominal species, occurs in slightly elevated areas in salt marshes as well as along salt marsh edges. The most common species are typically Baccharis halimifolia, Morella cerifera, Iva frutescens ssp. frutescens, Juniperus virginiana var. silicicola, and Ilex vomitoria. Other species found included Borrichia frutescens, Fimbristylis castanea, Persea palustris and invasive Tamarix along edges.

Global Status: G4 – Apparently Secure Association: Groundsel-tree - Maritime Marsh-elder - Wax-myrtle - (Yaupon) Shrubland (CEGL003920); Baccharis halimifolia - Iva frutescens - Morella cerifera - (Ilex vomitoria) Shrubland Alliance: Baccharis halimifolia - Iva frutescens Tidal Shrubland Alliance Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Fresh and Oligohaline Tidal Marsh 13. Live oak – Yaupon holly - (Wax Myrtle) Shrubland Alliance - A more stable shrub community than the Atlantic Coast Interdune Swale, this community occurs on upland maritime dunes on the southern part of the island. Vegetation of this alliance is characteristically 0.5-3 m tall, typically with a single, extremely dense stratum, with Quercus virginiana dominant or codominant, and often also with species such as Ilex vomitoria, Morella cerifera, Serenoa repens, Smilax auriculata, Prunus caroliniana, Juniperus virginiana var. silicicola, Smilax bonanox, Persea borbonia, and Zanthoxylum clava-herculis. It may also contain Baccharis halimifolia. It occupies linear strands on frontal dune ridges and on the leeward sides and tops of rear dunes, where it is protected from salt-water flooding and extreme salt spray. It also occurs on low dunes and rises on the backsides of barrier islands, as upland rises associated with Juncus roemerianus marshes.

Alliance: Quercus virginiana - Ilex vomitoria - (Morella cerifera) Shrubland Alliance which includes three associations: Ilex vomitoria - Quercus (geminata, virginiana) - Morella cerifera - Serenoa repens Shrubland (CEGL003813, G2), Quercus virginiana - (Ilex vomitoria) Shrubland (CEGL003833, G3), Morella cerifera - Prunus caroliniana - Zanthoxylum clava-herculis Shrubland (CEGL004784, G2).

Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest

Appendix I - 6

APPENDIX D 24

14. Blackberry - Greenbrier Successional Shrubland Thicket - This community includes successional vegetation which develops following disturbance and is dominated by Rubus argutus and/or Rubus trivialis. Smilax spp. may also occur. Found in areas on Jekyll Island that may have been influenced anthropogenically. Many are wetlands that may have been drained or have altered hydrology.

Global Status: GNA Association: (Southern Blackberry, Southern Dewberry) - (Whiteleaf Greenbrier, Common Greenbrier) Shrubland (CEGL004732); Rubus (argutus, trivialis) Smilax (glauca, rotundifolia) Shrubland Alliance: (Rubus argutus, Rubus trivialis) Shrubland Alliance Ecological System: NA

D. Herbaceous Communities 15. Sand Cordgrass – Seashore Mallow Herbaceous Vegetation - In this tidally influenced herbaceous community, Spartina bakeri dominates. Shrubs such as Morella cerifera may also be present, but scattered.

Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable Association: Sand Cordgrass - Seashore Mallow Herbaceous Vegetation (CEGL004194); Spartina bakeri - Kosteletzkya virginica Herbaceous Vegetation Alliance: Spartina bakeri - (Spartina patens) Tidal Herbaceous Alliance Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Fresh and Oligohaline Tidal Marsh 16. Sawgrass Head - Dominated by dense sawgrass (Cladium mariscus ssp. jamaicense) and scattered shrubs (Salix caroliniana, Cephalanthus occidentalis, Morella cerifera, Sabal palmetto). Salix caroliniana is the tallest (5-10m) and most dominant woody species (20% cover). Cephalanthus occidentalis and Morella cerifera make up a sparse tall shrub layer. Graminoids dominant in the herb layer include Cladium mariscus ssp. jamaicense and Juncus effusus, with some Andropogon virginicus. Other herbs include Polygonum punctatum, Hydrocotyle umbellata, and Saururus cernuus. Although this is an herbaceous vegetation association, it allows for a greater shrub cover.

Global Status: G2 - Imperiled Association: Sawgrass – Virginia Chainfern Herbaceous Vegetation (CEGL004949); Cladium mariscus ssp. jamaicense - Woodwardia virginica Herbaceous Vegetation Alliance: Cladium mariscus ssp. jamaicense Seasonally Flooded Temperate Herbaceous Alliance Ecological System: Southeastern Coastal Plain Interdunal Wetland

Appendix I - 7

APPENDIX D 25

17. Sea-oats Temperate Herbaceous Alliance - This community varies in woody and herbaceous vegetation dominance on the foredunes of south Jekyll Island. In grassy areas, the dominant species is Uniola paniculata. Spartina patens may also be present. Other characteristic species include Heterotheca subaxillaris, Hydrocotyle bonariensis, Ipomea imperati, Iva imbricata, Yucca spp., and Croton punctatus.

This community forms a matrix of woody and grassy dominated vegetation and fit into two NVC associations: a) Uniola paniculata - Hydrocotyle bonariensis Herbaceous Vegetation (CEGL004040, G3) and b) Smilax auriculata / Heterotheca subaxillaris - Strophostyles helvula - (Uniola paniculata) Herbaceous Vegetation (CEGL004234, G2).

Alliance: Uniola paniculata Temperate Herbaceous Alliance Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Dune and Maritime Grassland 18. South Atlantic Coastal Pond - Seasonally flooded herbaceous wetlands dominated by Spartina bakeri, or at least with substantial cover of it.

Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable Association: Sand Cordgrass - Virginia Chainfern - Giant Plumegrass Herbaceous Vegetation (CEGL007713); Spartina bakeri - Woodwardia virginica - Saccharum giganteum Herbaceous Vegetation Alliance: Spartina bakeri Seasonally Flooded Herbaceous Alliance Ecological System: Southeastern Coastal Plain Interdunal Wetland 19. Southern Hairgrass – Saltmeadow Cordgrass – Dune Fingergrass Herbaceous Vegetation - This association is characterized by dense cover of Muhlenbergia filipes and is found mostly behind primary and secondary dunes, generally on coarse, well-drained sandy soils. Some examples are notably wetter than others. Other species may include Spartina patens, Eustachys petrea, Euthamia tenuifolia, Andropogon spp., Oxalis sp., and Houstonia procumbens.

Global Status: G2 - Imperiled Association: Southern Hairgrass - Saltmeadow Cordgrass - Dune Fingergrass Herbaceous Vegetation (CEGL004150); Muhlenbergia filipes - Spartina patens Eustachys petraea Herbaceous Vegetation Alliance: Muhlenbergia filipes Herbaceous Alliance Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Dune and Maritime Grassland 20. South Atlantic Upper Ocean Beach – Non-vegetated to sparsely vegetated tidal beaches.

Global Status: G3 - Vulnerable Association: Southern Sea-rocket Sparse Vegetation (CEGL004401); Cakile edentula ssp. harperi Sparse Vegetation Alliance: Cakile edentula Sparsely Vegetated Alliance Appendix I - 8

APPENDIX D 26

Ecological System: Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Sea Island Beach 21. Successional Broom-sedge Vegetation - This community includes vegetation dominated by Andropogon virginicus var. virginicus that occurs on old fields and pastures. This is not a natural vegetation type.

Global Status: GNA Association: Broomsedge Bluestem Herbaceous Vegetation (CEGL004044); Andropogon virginicus var. virginicus Herbaceous Vegetation Alliance: Andropogon virginicus var. virginicus Herbaceous Alliance Ecological System: NA 22. Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh (Ecological System) – NatureServe Explorer description: This ecological system encompasses the brackish to salt intertidal marshes of the Atlantic Coast, ranging from south of the Embayed Region of North Carolina to northern Florida (south to the vicinity of Daytona Beach). It is dominated by medium to extensive expanses of Spartina alterniflora, flooded twice daily by lunar tides. Juncus roemerianus and other brackish marshes occur upstream in tidal creeks, and a variety of small-patch associations occur near the inland edges. Examples of this system may also support inclusions of shrublands dominated by either Baccharis halimifolia and/or Borrichia frutescens, as well as forests or woodlands with Juniperus virginiana var. silicicola in the overstory.

E. Classification of Human-altered Environments 24. Developed – Anthropogenically-influenced areas where no known natural vegetation occurs.

26. Golf courses 25. Parks and Recreation 27. Pond/Open water 23. Quarry/Stripmine – Includes ponded areas. Open water.

24. Transportation – Includes roads, railroads, etc.

Appendix I - 9

APPENDIX D 27

APPENDIX E COASTAL GEORGIA – COOPERATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT AREA, PRIORITY INVASIVE SPECIES

28

ABSTRACT

A compilation of invasive species currently under ecological surveillance by CISMA partners.

This text includes suggested treatment protocols for the invasives listed, as well as a Potential Future Invasive Species Watch List.

Compiled by: Eamonn Leonard, co-coordinator Nathaniel Ty Phenis, assistant Jessica Ahl, assistant

INVASIVE SPECIES

Invasive: 1. Flora, 2. Terrestrial invertebrates, 3. Terrestrial vertebrates, 4. Aquatic Fauna, 5. Marine Fauna

PRIORITY LIST 2018

APPENDIX E 29

Invasive Flora Priority List - Coastal Georgia Priority1- Species that CISMA partners view as a serious ecological threat and currently are managed extensively or are intended to be under extensive management in the next five years.

• Cogongrass - Imperata cylindrica This plant was accidentally introduced from Southeast Asia during the early 1900s through packing material, but also was intentionally introduced for use as erosion control and livestock forage. It’s a perennial colony-forming grass that can grow up to 6 ft. tall. Leaves have serrated edges and an off-center whitish midrib and pointed tip.

Rhizomes are white, branched, sharp and scaly. It can be identified in the spring by its cotton-like inflorescence. It spreads readily in a circular formation, excluding all other vegetation from the area.

Seeds are easily distributed by the wind.

Cogongrass is extremely difficult to eliminate due to extensive rhizome systems so tillage eradication methods are strongly recommended. As a secondary option, treat by prescribed fire following mowing aboveground portion, then treat with Imazapyr and Glyphosate (1.5-2.5% & 4-7% respectively for old infestations, 4-7% Glyphosate solely for new infestations) w/ 0.5% surfactant.

• Chinese Tallow- Triadica sebifera Rumored to have been first imported by Benjamin Franklin, his father being a soap and candle maker, this tree was introduced in the 1700’s from China and Japan. It has historically been cultivated for wax, seed oil and as an ornamental. Leaves are nearly flat and spade shaped. New growth and winter foliage is often reddish in color. The Chinese Tallow produces showy yellow spikes in spring that give way to three-lobed fruit which fall in autumn and winter. In addition to seeds, it can spread through root sprouts. Seeds are distributed by water and birds. Saplings can reproduce after three years. This species turns landscapes into monospecific forests. Decaying leaves from this species are toxic to many native plants.

Foliar Treatment- 3-4% Glyphosate w/ 0.5% surfactant For larger trees, hack & squirt (or cut-stump) is preferred- ≤50% Glyphosphate or 25-30% Tryclopyr w/ 0.5% surfactant. Manual removal of seedlings is effective.

APPENDIX E 30

• Japanese Climbing Fern - Lygodium japonicum This perennial, climbing fern was introduced in the 1930s as an ornamental from Japan and Australia, and can rabidly exceed grow to upwards of 90 feet in length. Leaves are tripinnate and lace-like. Stems are green, orange, or black vines. It forms thick mats, shading out vegetation and covering shrubs and trees. Rhizomes spread underground, providing more wiry black stems. Spores are easily disbursed through the wind, on clothing and equipment.

While this species dies back in the winter, the dead vines provide access for re-establishment and promote wildfire higher in the canopy.

Foliar Treatment- 3-4% Glyphosate w/ 0.5% surfactant

• Common Reed - Phragmites australis This is an invasive European strain of a native reed species. Introduced through ship ballasts in the 19th and 20th centuries, this plant has become well established throughout the United States. It can grow over 19 ft. tall and forms dense rhizomatous colonies. P. australis exhibits a more blue green coloration than native Phragmites. Flowers appear in mid-summer on tawny spikelets with silky hairs. Plants can be found in and near both freshwater and brackish water.

P. australis can quickly outcompete other mesic and terrestrial species while lacking a susceptibility to native fungi that limit native Phragmites.

Suggested treatment methods are various. Black plastic shade out following low cutting has been proven quite effective but is labor intensive except on small stands. The suggested chemical treatment methods for large stands is 1.62 kg/ha of Glyphosate applied by a mist sprayer, which has been shown to be effective for 2- 3 years when treated in autumn.

Prescribed fire is not suggested, as this allows rhizomes to develop more robustly.

APPENDIX E 31

• Salt Cedar/ Tamarisk- Tamarix canariensis This tree was introduced from the Mediterranean region to control soil erosion and as an ornamental in. 1823. It can be found throughout the southeast U.S. states as well as western Texas. Flowers are pink and monoecious. Seeds are hairy and disperse via wind and water.

T. canariensis is highly salt and water tolerant and often spreads in large colonial stands.

This plant draws water from the surrounding soil very efficiently, leaving salty patches surrounding the base which many natives cannot grow in successfully.

Cut stump- 25-30% Triclopyr Basal bark treatment- 50/50 mix of Triclopyr and crop oil.

Foliar treatment- Somewhat effective, 1% Imazapyr w/ 0.25% surfactant applied in late summer but must be repeated for multiple seasons. Root plowing is labor intensive but effective for small stands and should be followed by prescribed fire.

• Water Hyacinth- Eichhornia crassipes This floating perennial plant native to the Amazon basin and has become an extremely damaging invasive throughout many parts of the world, Leaves are leathery and reniform, and attached to spongy, bulbous stalks. E. crassipes forms dense colonial mats which clog waterways, inhibiting wildlife and watercraft travel. This plant primarily reproduces via stolons, creeping steadily over the water surface. The inflorescences are showy purple spikes 12-20 in. tall.

Populations in optimal growing conditions can double in as little as 6 days and intense management is needed to control them. Plants not only impede water travel, but also limit air-water surface exchange depleting oxygen levels and light availability for other aquatic plants as well as animals.

Treatment options are limited and very costly due to the rapid growth of this species and weight associated with removal of large colonies (85-95% of this plants biomass is water).

Mechanical removal is almost always necessary. Chemical treatment is not suggested due to this plants aquatic nature but Glyphosate can be used to curtail infestations when deemed appropriate and has proved relatively effective in China, but does not provide long term sustainable control.

APPENDIX E 32

Sand Pine - Pinus clausa Native to central Florida and one county in the Alabama panhandle, this plant was introduced in other southern states by the commercial tree and forestry industry. This tree often grows in a shrub like fashion and can reach 40 ft. tall. Needle fascicles contain two wavy, yellow/green leaves. There are two varieties: the Ocala variety is native to the Florida peninsula and needs fire to release its seeds, while the Choctawhatchee variety is not fire adapted and grows in the Florida panhandle and Alabama. There is a range gap of ~120 miles between populations. Its ability to grow in poor, sandy and often salty soils, its seedy nature, and bushy growth habit allow it to crowd out native tree varieties like longleaf pine.

Mechanical removal of saplings via uprooting is preferred, while adult trees should be cut below their lowest branch to prevent resprouting, which can often occur if not all limbs are fully removed.

•

Priority2 Species that CISMA partners deal with only semi-frequently or attempts to control in selected high-priority areas. Some species listed are thought to be lesser threats, while others are wide spread and/or difficult to control effectively.

• Beach Vitex - Vitex rotundifolia A perennial shrub, this 2 ft. tall, woody stemmed plant spreads horizontally over sandy high light areas. V. rotundifolia was intentionally introduced from Asia in the 1980’s to assist in beach erosion control, as it is commonly found on beaches throughout the Pacific. Leaves are ovate, silvery-green and 1-2 in. long. Violet flowers occur in dense spikes like many other members of the family Lamiaceae and fruit production is massive. V. rotundifolia outcompetes native species through the formation of dense colonies, can increase soil hydrophobicity, and can take over nesting habitat for sea turtles.

A combination of mechanical and chemical treatment is necessary to combat this invasive effectively. The plant must be wounded but not fully cut off, followed by the application of 5.25% Imazapyr. This species is extremely difficult to fully eradicate. The treatment process and physical removal must be repeated until the site exhibits zero regrowth. Seedlings and resprouts can be controlled with foliar application of 3-5% Imazapyr w/ 1% surfactant.

APPENDIX E 33

• Tree of Heaven - Ailanthus altissima Introduced to the U.S. as an ornamental during the 1700s, this plant originated in China and Taiwan. Rapidly growing up to 70 ft. tall, trees are deciduous and dioecious, exhibiting a very acrid smell. Leaves are alternate and compound, with one or several teeth near the base of each leaflet. Plants are highly adapted to disturbance, drought and various soil types and conditions. Seeds are samaras, and thus disperse readily and are produced in extreme numbers (~325,000 seeds/year for mature plants). A. altissima produces chemicals that impede the growth of other plants around them. It is interesting to note that, while there are currently no biological control methods approved for used in the United States, there are several that are being researched and one, Euchryptorrhynchus brandti, a weevile, is likely to be approved during the next few years Treatment options for large stands are limited and even small stands require integrated pest management due to the rapid growth and high reproductive rate of this species. For small stands and individual trees, mechanical removal of seedlings and saplings is suggested. Hack and squirt method is preferred to cut stump due to prolific resprouting in response to stress.

When preforming hack and squirt Glyphosate at 2% or 2% Triclopyr is suggested.

A. altissima is shade intolerant so this can be used to a site managers advantage. The seed is not retained in the seed bank for more than one year, however, integrated management should continue for at least three years.

• Chinaberry/Indian Lilac - Melia azedarach Melia azedarach is a rapidly growing deciduous tree native to Indomalaya and Australasia and was introduced during the late 1700s. Leaves appear dark green and are bi/tripinnately compound. This plant’s lavender flower clusters give way to poisonous, yellow berries.

Fallen leaf litter from this species drastically raises the soil pH, killing native vegetation.

These trees are fast growing and can reach heights of 18-24 ft. in 4-5 years. This plant can reproduce via root offshoots and is frequently dispersed by bird droppings.

Foliar Treatment- 2-3% Triclopyr or 2-3% Glyphosate w/ 0.25% surfactant Basal Bark Treatment- 15% Triclopyr w/ 40-50% bark oil Cut Stump/Hack & Squirt- 8-10% Triclopyr

APPENDIX E 34

Lantana – Lantana camara A native to subtropical regions of the Americas and Africa, this plant was introduced from the West Indies to North America in the 18th century. L. camara is still extensively grown and sold as an ornamental for its multicolor flowers and its ability to attract many and various popular insect pollinators, which unintentionally reduces pollination of native species. This shrub can grow to 6 ft. tall, has square prickly stems, and sandpaper-like serrated, ovate leaves which are aromatic when crushed. Flowers appear in dense clusters and are diverge in color as they age. Fruits are a two seeded drupe that turns black when ripe. In this region, plants bloom from summer until frost. This plant frequently escapes areas where it is intentionally cultivated and can grow wild in croplands and natural areas. This plant displaces native plant species, while also providing a secondary host plant for some pests (i.e.

Teleonemia scrupulosa). It is important to distinguish between this variety and others, as there are over 150 different species of lantana. It is also poisonous to humans and some animals.

Cut Stump- 1:6 Glyphosate : Water or 25% Triclopyr Foliar Treatment (for dense stands)- 2-3% Glyphosate w/ 0.5% surfactant •

• Golden Bamboo - Phyllostachys aurea Introduced from SE China in the 1882, this species was selected for its ability to grow in dense stands, acting as a noise barrier as well as an attractive front. It is still commonly sold as an ornamental. Plants can grow up to 30 ft. tall. Stems are green but yellow in the sun. Short, swollen internodes at the base of the culms help distinguish P. aurea from other species. This plant produces flowers infrequently (up to several decades apart), thus the main mode of reproduction is through rhizomes and side shoots. This species grows in thick stands, invading forests and blocking out sun to outcompete native species for space and resources.

P. aurea is very difficult to eradicate and even control. Mechanical tilling is recommended when possible. For smaller stands, low cutting should first be performed, then when the bamboo shoots up new leaves and sprouts, apply 3% Glyphosate to foliage. This must be performed for two, usually three seasons to completely kill the bamboo stand.

APPENDIX E 35

Chinese / Japanese Wisteria- Wisteria sinensis / W. japonica These species were introduced in the 1800s for use as ornamentals. These vines grow rapidly and are capable of climbing over 65 feet. Leaves are pinnately compound with ovate leaflets with distinctly wavy margins. Japanese wisteria stems are white, while Chinese wisteria’s stems are dark gray.

Japanese wisteria also twines clockwise while Chinese wisteria twines counter-clockwise. The inflorescence is a 4-20 in. long, attractive raceme. Velvet seed pods take the place of racemes.

They are 4-6 in. long and turn dark brown when ripe. Seeds are poisonous to humans. As a vine, plants’ harm lies in the fact that they climb into canopies and shade out the plants below, and trees they climb can be girdled with the vines. Not only can they spread by seed, but plants reproduce by sprouting roots at each node and if cut back or trimmed, plants easily re-sprout.

Hack and squirt (or cut stump)- 25% Triclopyr or Glyphosate Foliar- 2% Glyphosate and 0.5 Surfactant •

• Glossy/ Chinese Privet – Ligustrum lucidum / L. sinensis Glossy privet and Chinese privet were introduced from China and Korea as ornamentals.

Glossy privet arrived in the United States in 1794 and Chinese privet, in 1825. In terms of identification, Chinese privet has smaller leaves and a duller point than glossy privet. Both species display ovate, opposite, glossy-on-top leaves with pointed tips and clusters of white dioecious flowers. Twigs are greenish-brown to gray with raised corky lenticels. Plants are evergreen shrubs or small trees. These two species are shade tolerant and tolerate of poor environmental conditions. They can rapidly form dense, woody thickets by root sprouts and animal dispersed seeds.

Privet can be treated by cut stump, basal bark or foliar treatment methods, although the latter is often most utilized following brush mulching.

Foliar (after brush mulching)- 3-5% Glyphosate w/ 0.5% surfactant Cut Stump- 25% Triclopyr or Glyphosate Basal Bark- 20% Triclopyr Ester + 50% bark oil

APPENDIX E 36

• Coral Ardisia/Coral Berry - Ardisia crenata Native to SE Asia, this plant was introduced in the 1900s as an ornamental. Leaves are evergreen, leathery and glossy. The alternate, waxy leaves reach roughly 8 inches in length.

Nondescript, small white/pink flowers give way to bright red berries. Fruits stay on the plants so birds and raccoons enjoy them year-round, spreading the seed. Shrubs grow up to 6 ft. high while clumps to colonies form resulting from to rhizomatous spread and progeny in close proximity. Because of these thick colonies, native species get shaded out. A. crenata is naturalized across many areas in Florida. Plants can re-sprout after fire and grow readily in acidic or alkaline soils.

Foliar- 3% Triclopyr4 or 4% Triclopyr3 or 1% Imazapyr Basal Bark- 18% Triclopyr Ester + 50% bark oil

• Alligatorweed - Alternanthera philoxeroides This emergent or floating invasive originated in South America and was accidentally introduced in the early 1900s, probably in ballast water. This species is perennial and leaves are opposite. White flowers occur in short spikes. A. philoxeroides can root in wet soils or shallow water and spread into waterways where mats expand along the surface and edges.

Plants can grow terrestrially when required by environmental conditions and display smaller, thicker leaves. New plants erupt from rooted nodes. When plants spread into waterways, pieces can be swept downstream to start new mats. Stolons can re-sprout from beneath up to 12 in. of mud. In addition to this, this species tolerates brackish water and therefore can grow in marshes as well as rivers. Because of its tendency to create dense mats, plants shade out underwater vegetation, limit air-water surface oxygen levels, increase sedimentation, and clog waterways.

Foliar Treatment (terrestrial/exposed vegetation)- 2% Aquatic Glyphosate or 2% 2,4-D or 12% Imazapyr w/ 0.5% Surfactant.

Treat when water temperature is above 60 degrees Fahrenheit. Dense mats will require biyearly treatments until eradicated.

APPENDIX E 37

• Torpedo Grass – Panicum repens An introduction from Africa and/or Asia in the 1800s, this plant was originally intended as a forage crop. Like its namesake, leaves are sharply pointed and torpedo-like. It can grow up to 3 ft. tall, and its upper leaf margins and leaf sheaths are hairy. Blades are stiff, linear, flat, or folded, and often display a waxy whitish coating.

Flowers appear in 3-9 inch long panicles, although this plant spreads primarily through rhizomes.

Plants grow in or near shallow waters, forming thick monocultures and excluding natives. This plant damages marsh habitat, sugarcane agriculture, impedes water flow in ditches and canals, and restricts usage of water bodies.

Foliar Treatment- Asulam when available, if not, treat with 2% Glyphosate (aquatic rated) w/ 0.5% surfactant. 1% Imazapyr can be used for temporary control of terrestrial stands but is not recommended for effective long-term treatment.

• Air Potato / Chinese Yam - Dioscorea bulbifera / Dioscorea oppositifolia Dioscorea bulbifera was introduced to Alabama from Africa and southern Asia in the 1770s then imported again to Florida in the early 1900s. A defining characteristic is the leaf veins, which all arise from the leaf base. Leaves on this vine are alternate. This plant can grow up to 70 feet in length. Reproduction is primarily vegetative, where plants form “air potatoes” at the leaf axils as well as large tubers underground. This species grows very rapidly and crowds out canopy space. Even very small bulbs have the ability to sprout, even without adequate water or sunlight. Plants die back in the winter but regrow in spring.

D. oppositifolia also known as cinnamon vine, is another closely related Asian vine. D. oppositifolia can climb upwards of 60 ft. and can shade out shrubs and trees below the canopy. Leaves have long petioles, are heart-shaped and usually opposite.

These too spread by potato-like tubers at the leaf axils and through underground tubers that grow up to a meter long.

Foliar Treatment- 1-2% Triclopyr or Glyphosate w/ 0.5% surfactant Cut Stem- 10-25% Triclopyr Basal Bark- 10% Triclopyr in bark oil

APPENDIX E 38

• Callery Pear/Bradford Pear – Pyrus calleryana Originally imported from China and Vietnam in 1909, this tree was brought here to develop a fire blight resistant strain of common pear, and later gained popularity as an ornamental. This tree can grow to be 30-50 ft. tall, and young plants can be relatively thorny. Leaves are alternate, broad-ovate to ovate, shiny dark green and leathery.

White flowers appear before leaves in the spring. Plants spread through exorbitant seed production. A single plant can produce a sizeable patch in a short time frame, eliminating natives.

Cut Stump/Hack and Squirt- 25-50% Triclopyr or Glyphosate

Priority 3 Species that CISMA partnersdeal with only in unusual circumstances, either because they represent minor threats or are essentially naturalized and impossible to control with current methods.

• Japanese Honeysuckle - Lonicera japonica This plant was introduced in 1806 for use in erosion control, wildlife and as an ornamental. Today is it wide spread throughout much of the Eastern United States, occupying forest edges and roadsides.

Historically, gardeners favored it because of its fragrant flowers and fast growth. An evergreen vine, this plant climbs shrubs and trees.

Leaves are ovate and opposite, with fuzzy petioles. Tender, new growth is reddish in color and fuzzy while older stems have brown bark that peels in long strips. Stems can be 80-120 ft. long. White flowers fade to yellow. Black berries are produced. While birds eat and distribute these, L. japonica also spread through rhizomes and runners.

Coupled with its climbing growth habit, large seed production, fast growth, and lack of predators, this plant readily outcompetes natives.

Foliar- 2.5% Glyphosate or 2% Triclopyr w/ 0.5% surfactant Hack and Squirt- 25% Glyphosate or Triclopyr

APPENDIX E 39

• Mimosa - Albizia julibrissin Introduced in the 1700s as an ornamental from China, this plant is still popular with unknowing cultivars. This tree can grow 20-40 ft in height. Leaves are bipinnately compound with 20-60 leaflets per branch. Flowers are in terminal clusters and resemble pink pom-poms.

Seeds appear in flat pods. Seeds must undergo scarification to germinate, but this also allows them to remain viable for several years, aiding in dispersal. Stands can become dense with seedlings, shading out native species, and easily taking over disturbed areas. As a member of the legume family, this is a nitrogen fixing species, giving it an edge in soil with low nitrogen. Many people drink tea made from the flowers for its distinct, sweet taste and purported mood stabilizing benefits benefits.

Foliar (for seedlings and saplings)- 2% Triclopyr or Glyphosate w/ 0.25% surfactant Cut Stump- 25% Triclopyr or Glyphosate

• English Ivy – Hedera helix This evergreen perennial vine was introduced from Europe during colonial times. Today, it is still sold as an ornamental. Leaves are dark-green with whitish venation and 3-5 pointed lobes. At around 10 years of age, plants become more erect and/or branched with unlobed leaves. Flowers are in terminal clusters and purple berries form. Vines climb trees, shading them out and eventually killing them. Trees with ivy are at an increased risk for blow-overs.

H. helix is also a carrier of the plant pathogen, Bacterial Leaf Scorch (Xylella fastidiosa).

English Ivy can spread asexually through rooted pieces and through seed, commonly dispersed by birds.

Foliar- 3-5% Triclopyr + 0.5% surfactant Hack and Squirt- 25% Triclopyr or Glyphosphate

APPENDIX E 40

• Camphor Tree -Cinnamomum camphora An Asian introduction, this plant has been in the U.S. since the late 1800s and was founded as a failed method of chemical camphor production. It is now sold as an ornamental. Crushing leaves or peeling twigs or bark release a camphor scent. As an evergreen, trees have oval to elliptical dark green leaves that are pointed on the ends and alternate on the stem. Bark is variable and can be scaly to furrowed. Most individual trees are around 25-40 feet in height, but some can be as tall as 100 feet. Flowers are greenish white or pale yellow in panicles. Fruits are small, black and fleshy. All parts of the plant are poisonous to humans. Trees are fast-growing, outcompete natives, and produce high numbers of seed that are readily dispersed by birds.

Hack and Squirt- 50% Triclopyr Basal Bark- 15-30% Triclopyr in basal bark oil • Kudzu - Pueraria montana Kudzu was introduced in the 1800s as a forage crop and ornamental, however, this plant was later introduced as a candidate for erosion control, and this is primarily where it gained a foothold as an invasive. This semi-woody, perennial vine can reach 100 ft. in length. Leaves are alternately arranged and compound with 3 broad leaflets. Leaflets can be entire or have 23 lobes. Seed pods are brown, hairy, flattened and contain 3-10 seeds. Kudzu has a massive taproot that can grow over 7 inches in diameter and over 6 feet long, sometimes weighing up to 400 lbs. Many vines can grow from a single crown. P. montana has been shown to double nitric oxide emissions and also increase ozone pollution. This plant spreads from runners, rhizomes, and vines that root at nodes, while still growing at a rate of 1 ft. per day during the growing season. This extreme growth rate, in conjunction with this plants tendency to grow in disturbed areas, has resulted it becoming one of the most prevalent invasive species in the entire southern United States.

2, 4-D and/or Picloram have been shown to be the most cost effective method for treating large infestations, which are the most prevalent. One gallon/acre should be used for foliar treatment of large stands, while ½ gallon/acre should be effective for young stands. Thorough coverage is essential and should be done 1-2 days prior to rain or spray irrigation to allow additional chemical uptake by the root system. Triclopyr or Glyphosate have between an 8090% success rate of treatment after two seasons so these chemicals can be used to produce somewhat effective results, however, total eradication of an infestation is essential to prevent regrowth so they are not necessarily recommended.

APPENDIX E 41

• Rattlebox - Sesbania punicea This woody shrub is from South America and was introduced to North America and throughout the world as an ornamental. Growing up to 15 ft. tall, the bark is covered with lenticels and is gray to reddish-brown.

Leaves are 5-7 in. long, alternate and compound.

Elliptically shaped leaflets appear in 7-16 pairs. Flowers are bright orange-red and appear in clusters. Seed pods are 3-4 in. long and have longitudinal wings. These pods give the plant its name, as they make a rattling sound when shaken. This plant forms dense thickets, and can clog waterways where they grow. S. punicea can reach maturity from seed in only one year. This species is quite prevolant in coastal Georgia.

Hand pulling is effective for removing seedlings and small plants, as S. punicea has a shallow root system.For large plants or extreme infestations, chemical treatment is suggested. Foliar- 0.5% Triclopyr or 11.5% Glyphosate w/ 0.5% surfactant Cut Stump- 0.5-1.5% Triclopyr4 or 3% Triclopyr3 or 10% Glyphosate

• Water Lettuce - Pistia stratiotes This floating plant has been around at least since 1765 when the explorer William Bartram first described in Lake George of Florida. Resembling a head of lettuce, leaves are thick, dull light green, hairy and ridged. A floating plant with no leaf stalks, roots emerge from the base as feather-like projections into the water below. Flowers are hidden and inconspicuous, leaving behind a small green berry, though this plant primarily reproduces through stolons. P. stratiotes can forms large mats that clog lakes and river systems, depleting oxygen levels and blocking sunlight, damaging submerged plant and fish populations.

Mechanical harvesters and chopping machines, although costly, provide the best method of control for this species. The Curculionidae Neohydronomus affinis has also been successfully introduced to the United States as a biocontrol.

• White Mulberry – Morus alba Originating in China, during colonial times this tree was introduced as an intended food source for silkworms to promote the failed silk industry. Leaves are glossy and smooth, distinguishing it from red mulberry. M. alba is dioecious and berries are white, purple, or red. Plants grow quickly and in high number, thus outcompeting native species. This plant can hybridize with the red mulberry, permitting the transference of root disease between the two species.

Immature plants can easily be hand pulled.

Foliar- 2% Glyphosate w/ 0.5% surfactant Cut Stump or Hack and Squirt- 25% Glyphosate Basal Bark- 25% Triclopyr in bark oil

• Russian Thistle – Salsola kali A native to Russia and Siberia, this species was brought to the US in the 1800s in contaminated flax seed. Plants are bushy, dense annuals that reach 1-5 ft. in height. Leaves are alternate and can be threadlike, cylindrical, or awlshaped with pointed tips. Flowers are small and green to white and lack petals. Fruits contain a single, 5-winged seed.

Mature individuals break off at the base and form tumbleweeds that enhance seed dispersal. Plants are drought-tolerant, and seedlings need very little moisture to germinate. Thus, S. kali is primarily a pest in dry areas. Dried plants become fire hazards and also act as host to Circulifer tenellus, the beet leafhopper, which facilitates the transmittance of curly-top virus, which can spread to tomatoes, beans, and sugar beets.

Herbicide resistant strains of Russian thistle have evolved very rapidly following treatment with chlorsulfuron and sulfometuron, thus it is essential to avoid repeated use of the same herbicide for several seasons, especially those which act through the same biochemical pathways. There have been several attempts to adopt biological control methods for this species over the last century but none have proven successful, excluding the relative success of blister mites. Chemical treatment is only effective at controlling S. kali during its early growth stages. Folliar use of 2, 4-D, glufosinate, or glyphosate can be used during early growth stages for somewhat effective control. Atrazine and Imazapyr have been shown to also be somewhat effective at control of this species but only during its preemergent stages.

APPENDIX E 42

• Asparagus Fern – Asparagus aethiopicus Hailing from South Africa, this evergreen herbaceous invasive is still commonly planted as an ornamental. Despite its common name, this species is not a fern, and is in fact a monocot in the order Asparagales. Branches are upright to trailing, and its leaves are fine and needle-like, giving it a fluffy appearance. Flowers are white or light pink, small and relatively nondescript. The bright red berries have three seeds each and are commonly eaten by birds, facilitating this pants spread. A. aethiopicus has a tendency to smother understory plants and grows rapidly, resulting in its priority 3 designation.

Small plants, although somewhat prickly, can be manually removed with relative ease.

Foliar- 2% Glyphosate w/ 0.5% surfactant Cut Stump- 25% Glyphosate

• Indian Fig – Opuntia ficus-indica This plant has been cultivated since ancient times for its fruit, but its origin is believed to be Mexico. O. ficus-indica is also cultivated as an ornamental. This cactus species, also known as sweet prickly pear, can grow 9-16 ft. tall. Flowers are bright yellow, orange, or red. Red berries are a popular edible and covered with tiny spines which must be removed prior to consumption. In dry areas, this plant threatens cattle ranching as it displaces native species and impedes animal movement with its fine, painful and irritating spines. It is considered a noxious weed in South African and parts of Australia.

This species isn’t particularly fast growing and can be controlled by manual removal by cutting at the plants base. Repeated culling for two seasons should result in success as long as pieces of the flatten trunk are not allowed to reroot.

APPENDIX E 43

• Sword Fern – Nephrolepis cordifolia Introduced as an ornamental, this plant was imported from Asia and Australia. A woodland fern, this plant produces pinnate fronds up to 3 ft. tall. The pinnae leaflets along the rachis are lanceolate with an auricle that overlaps the rachis.

Plants spread through both spores and rhizomes, the latter of which are orange-brown to brown with linear scales and hair-like tips. Stolons are pale yellow and produce underground tubers. The presence of these tubers distinguishes the invasive from similar native ferns. These methods of reproduction and the plant’s aggressive growth habits, give it the edge over natives, allowing it to produce dense understory stands.

Foliar- 1.5% Glyphosate w/ 0.5% surfactant provides control when applied for two growing seasons • Durban Crowfootgrass – Dactyloctenium aegyptium Found throughout the world in tropical and subtropical regions, this species was introduced to North American from Africa. D. aegyptium reproduces from seeds, which occur terminally on stalks and split open to reveal a crowfoot-like shape. Stems can root at lower nodes. Leaf blades are flat and lined with hairs. This plant is an annual which prefers heavy, moist soil.

Because of its tendency to invade disturbed areas and its copious seed production, D. aegyptium is a hardy invasive and difficult to control and fully eradicate. Linuron, Atrazine and Atrazine-terbutryn/simazine have been shown to be some of the few chemical control methods of this species. Crop rotation combined with organic mulching is another method of cultural control.

• Bermuda Grass – Cynodon dactylon

This grass came to North America in 1751 from Africa to be utilized as a pasture grass, and is still used today as a turf grass. Plants spread vegetatively through aboveground and underground runners. Leaves are grey-green and between 1-6 in. long. White hairs erupt at the junction between leaf and leafstalk. Flowers occur on 1-3 in. spikelets in late summer. Because of its rhizomes and stolons, coupled with its ability to grow on all soil types, plants spread quickly and push out native grasses.

A combination of low cutting and chemical treatment is often necessary for full eradication of this resilient species.

Foliar- Glyphosate 2-3%(during the growing season) w/ 0.5% surfactant.

APPENDIX E 44

• Bahia Grass – Paspalum notatum A perennial grass planted for forage and soil stabilization, this species hails from Central and South America. Rhizomes are stout and covered with the bases of old leaf sheaths. The live leaf bases at the terminals of each rhizome have a purplish color. Leaves are dark green and linear-elongate in shape.

Inflorescences have two or more spicate branches, and each of those have two rows of spikelets. Spikelets are broadly ovate or obovate. Plants readily invade disturbed areas and are adapted to fire, restricting the regrowth of long-leaf and slash pine with their fast growing nature due to rhizomes and seed. P. notatum is often considered adesiragble forage grass for ungulates.

Black plastic shade out following low cutting has been shown to be an effective control method of this species. As a grass, there are not many chemicals that are effective for total eradication. A nonselective herbicide like Glyphosate can be applied to foliage at 2-3% and has been shown to be a partially effective control method. Metsulfuron-methyl is another chemical that is effective at P. notatum eradication, but is expensive by comparison and relatively less available.

• Sawtooth Oak – Quercus acutissima A deciduous tree that can grow up to 50 ft. tall, this tree was introduced from Asia as an ornamental and wildlife food source. Leaves are alternate, broadly lance-shaped, 4-7.5 in. long, and have a bristly toothed margin. Large acorns what spreading, curved scales on the involucre. Q. acutissima produces large quantities of seeds every other year. This species is tolerant of all soil types excluding highly alkaline. Plants escape into native forests, displacing natives and hybridizing with native oaks which can result in confusion and promote its spread into different, atypical environments.

Seedlings and saplings can be removed by hand.

Cut Stump/Hack and Squirt- 25% Glyphosate or Triclopyr

APPENDIX E 45

• Lespedeza (Non-Native) – Lespedeza cuneata, L. thunbergii & L. bicolor L. cuneata is semi-woody shrub from Asia in the 1800s that was introduced for erosion control and as a forage crop. It grows up to 6 ft. tall. Stems are slender and gray-green with hairs. Leaves are thin, alternate, and three-parted. Leaflets have wedgedshaped bases, are 0.5-1 in. long and hairy. Creamy-white flowers with purple throats appear in clusters of 2-4 in the summer.

Seed pods are flat and ovate to round and form at the terminal axils scattered along the stem.

This plant is an aggressive invader that outcompetes native herbaceous species. It produces copious amounts of seed that have the capacity to remain viable for two decades.

L. thunbergii has wider, more pointed leaves than L. cuneata. An Asian native, this plant produces stems up to 7 ft. tall. Plants produce pinkish to violet blooms in the summer and dies back in thefall. Like other Lespedeza species, this plant can become invasive through high seed production and long viability.

L. bicolor can reach up to 10 ft. in height. Leaves are alternate and composed of three elliptical leaflets. Flowers are pink to purple and 4-6 in. in length, appearing in June-Sept. Like other nonnative varieties, L. bicolor was introduced for soil stabilization and as a wildlife food source. It can form dense stands and limits forest understory regeneration of native plant species. Seed is commonly spread by animals.

Lespedeza can be controlled by application of any broadleaf herbicide including Triclopyr or Metsulfuron or a non-selective like Glyphosate.

Foliar- 2% Triclopyr, Metsulfuron, or Glyphosate w/ 0.5% surfactant

APPENDIX E 46

• Gracilaria vermiculophylla- Red Algae A type of red algae native to the Northwest Pacific Ocean and Japan, G. vermiculophylla was introduced to the West Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans probably through imported oysters, boats, and/or fishing equipment. Highly tolerant of variable water conditions and stressors, it invades estuarine areas and marshes and displaces many native plant species. It is cylindrical and grows up to 20 in. in length. This species is a coarsely branched macroalgae, which can be found as loose-lying thalli or attached to shell or stone. Usually found in the vegetative stage, reproductive structures are necessary for correct identification. For human use, this species is collected to create agar biopolymer, which is used in the pharmaceutical and food industries. It reproduces through non-motile spores which are dispersed by water currents. Not only does G. vermiculophylla outcompete native algae, but it also negatively impacts native seagrass by reducing their access to sunlight for photosynthesis as well as nutrient competition. These impacts are positively correlated with higher water temperature, propagating this species further due to global ocean temperature increase. The algae’s structure provides a foothold for other species of algae animals, both of which could be non-native.

There are currently no effective methods for eradication of G. vermiculophylla due to its aquatic nature and extreme abundance throughout our oceans.

• Clumping Bamboo – Fargesia sp.

Introduced from China as a popular ornamental this bamboo spreads out from clumps and short necked rhizomes, spreading a few inches a year instead of feet like Phyllostachys aurea. It can grow 10-15 ft. tall. Plants flower once during their lifetime, sometimes only occurring after multiple decades. This bamboo genus is evergreen, fast-growing, shade/cold tolerant and has no native biocontrols. This species grows in dense stands, invading forest edges and blocking out sunlight, outcompeting native species for space and resources.

Clumping bamboo is slow growing for bamboo but is still difficult to control. Mechanical tilling is recommended where possible. For smaller stands, low cutting should first be performed during the growing season, then during regrowth, apply 3% Glyphosate to new foliage. Repeat this procedure for 2-3 growing seasons to achieve complete eradication.

APPENDIX E 47

• Heavenly Bamboo – Nandina domestica Imported from China and Japan, this plant came to the US in the 1804 as an ornamental. While attractive, it grows quickly and reproduces by seed and root fragments, forming a nearly impenetrable root system and quickly overrunning the unknowing gardener’s property. As a semi-evergreen woody shrub, it can reach 6-8 ft. height. Leaves are tripinnately compound and alternately arranged. Leaflets are ovate, 1-2 in. long and green during the growing season, and turn reddishbronze in fall. The inner bark of this species is yellow. While not actually a bamboo, it resembles one, giving this species one of its most prevalent common names. White flowers appear in panicles on the ends of stems. Fruit is an attractive red berry but is poisonous to many mammals and birds, as the entire plant contains hydrogen cyanide.

Cut Stump- 25% Glyphosate or Triclopyr (should be repeated for 2-3 growing seasons)

• Tungoil Tree- Vernicia fordii V. fordii was brought to Florida and Texas from China in the 1905 with the intention to be cultivated for the tung oil industry, but escaped and currently is still being cultivated as an ornamental. It has milky white sap. Leaves are simple, 6-10 in. long, alternate, and are either heartshaped or with three pointed lobes.

Petioles are long and have distinctive red stipules. Flowers are attractive, white with orange-red veins, and bloom early in the growing season. Fruits are reddish-green, containing 3-5 seeds, about 2-3 in. in diameter and are very toxic if consumed by humans, though many animals assist in seed dispersal. Plants are relatively fast growing and seeds are spread readily, forming dense stands. V. fordii can regrow from stumps, making this a difficult pant to manage. Individuals can reproduce at as early as two years of age.

Seedlings and saplings can be removed manually.

Cut Stump- 50% Triclopyr Hack and Squirt- 25% Triclopyr Basal Bark- 10-30% Triclopyr in basal bark oil

APPENDIX E 48

• Brazilian Vervain – Verbena incompta This perennial herb originates from South America and was introduced to the United States from Brazil and Argentina. Stems are rough and square, reaching 3-6 ft. in height. Leaves are dark green, obovate to lanceolate, have serrate margins and are opposite. Flowers occur in compact terminal fascicles. They are small, purple and have five petals with hairy sepals and bracts.

Plants bloom in the summer through fall. V. incompta is capable of blooming extended periods of time, self-fertilization, and produces copious amounts of seed. Additionally, this species is heat and drought tolerant. It often establishes along roadsides, forest edges, and other disturbed areas.

Mowing plants prior to seed production has been shown to reduce stands by roughly 75% when done at dry locations.

Foliar- 2% Glyphosphate or 2, 4-D w/ 0.5% surfactant

• Pindo Palm – Butia odorata (formerly B. capitate) Native to South America, this species is frequently planted as an ornamental in yards and parking lots. Plants are defined by their long blue-green fronds which curve towards the trunk when mature. The trunks are stocky and remain covered with leaf bases. Trees produce clusters of date-sized orange-yellow fruits that are used to produce jam and jellies, giving this plant another popular common name, the jelly palm. B. odorata grows slowly but can reach 20 ft. in height. This species can tolerate temperatures as low as 10C. In most places this palm has been introduced in the United States it is not considered an invasive. However, the high rate of seed production can occasionally result in dense stands of this nonnative palm. Where this occurs, hand or mechanical cutting of the plant should be sufficient to kill an individual without the use of chemicals.

APPENDIX E 49

• Giant Reed - Arundo donax Unintentionally introduced from West Asia and North Africa in the early 1800s, this species probably arrived on the west coast first. Historically this species has been planted as an ornamental and for erosion control. A perennial grass, plants frequently grow over 20 ft. in height, spreading through creeping rhizomes that form compact mats. Leaves are elongate, 12 in. wide and around 12 in. long. Flowers appear on 2 ft. long, dense plume-like panicles in the fall. A. donax invades riversides and streams, outcompeting natives. This species interferes with flood control, increases fire risks, and reduces habitats for native wildlife. The interconnected root masses frequently collect debris behind man-made structures like bridges resulting in damage. Fragments can float downstream and root in new areas. Furthermore, plants contain chemical defense compounds against herbivory, posess a high tolerance for salinity and can grow in a wide variety of soil types.

Mechanical tilling is recommended where possible. If this is not an option, controlled burning is another suggested method for initial site treatment. If the stand is small enough, black plastic shade outcan be used, as A. donax is not shade tolerant, however it is important to consider potential oxygen depletion as a result of decomposing plant material. For large stands, chemical treatment methods will be required, keeping in mind the potential effects of the decomposing plant matter. Imazapyr, Glyphosate or Triclopyr can all be used for effective chemical treatment.

• Hydrilla –Hydrilla verticillata Originating from Europe, this emergent aquatic plant came to America in the 1950s as a popular aquarium species. There are two forms of Hydrilla: the monoecious form originating from Korea, and the dioecious form originating from India. Stems are slender, branched and grow up to 25 ft. long. The small leaves are strapshaped and pointed, growing in whorls of 4-8. Leaf margins are saw-toothed, and leaf midribs have one or more teeth. Miniscule white flowers are produced on tiny stalks. H. verticillata also produces turions and tubers to aid in its rapid spread. This species grows in dense mats and can detach and float away, allowing for colonization of new water bodies. Native aquatic plants can easily become over-shaded and outcompeted, and tubers can remain viable for up to four years. Plants also can grow in high salinity, low nutrient conditions, and low light, further compounding this species invasive tendency.

APPENDIX E 50

• Creeping Myrtle & Bigleaf Perriwinkle- Vinca minor, V. major A European native, this invasive has become will established throughout the United States due to its poularity as an ornamental. Both varieties of this plant are quite similar, the main differnce being size. Vinca sp. have small, pointed ovate leaves and produce attractive five petal blue-violet flowers. Originally introduced in the mid-late 1700s, these plants form dense carpets which shade out native herbaceous species. These plants are in the Dogbane family and, like their namesake, are deadly to dogs as well as horses.

V. minor V. major

• Thorny Olive- Elaeagnus pungens This species was introduced from East Asia during the 1830s as an ornamental. Primarily found in forest the forest understory, this shrub is multistemmed and its sharp, woody shoots closely resemble thorns. Fruits are a small red drupe with white dots. Leaves are alternate and ovate, with wavy margins and a striking silver underside. This species is very shade tolerant, allowing it to spread through open areas as well as in the forest understory. E. pungens closely resembles two other nonnatives, E. angustifolia and E. umbelata.

Plants should be managed in the autumn before fruiting. This is a resilient species and is best managed with a combination of manual removal and chemical treatment of roots with a 25% Glyphosate solution where possible.

Hack and Squirt- 25% Glyphosate or Triclopyr

APPENDIX E 51

• Autum Olive- Elaeagnus umbelata This invasive was introduced from Japan in the 1830s as an ornamental as well as for wildlife forage and for erosion management. This plant is a woody, multi-stemmed shrub that is frequently found in disturbed areas. Leaves are ovate to elliptical, with slightly wavy margins and a shiny dorsal surface accentuated by small dots resembling stomata. Small, white flowers grow in clusters and are replaced by red fruits which are favored by many animal species. Its dense growth habit results in a propensity to shade out native understory species.

Like E. pungens, this species should be managed in the autumn before fruiting. This is a resilient species and is best managed with a combination of manual removal and chemical treatment of roots with a 25% Glyphosate solution where possible.

Hack and Squirt- 25% Glyphosate or Triclopyr

Invasive Species Watch List Species considered future threats because (1) they are not known to be present in the state but have been documented in other southeastern states and have been shown to have significant ecological, economic, or health impacts where they occur; or (2) the species is present in Georgia and is currently not considered a serious pest in coastal Georgia, but may become one based on its history in other states. • Purple Yam - Discorea alata Also known as Winged Yam, Ube and several other names, this species is a close relative of the invasives D. bulbifera and D. oppositifolia. In West Africa where this pant is native, it is a popular food source and commodity. Leave are opposite and posses a long petiole. Large underground tubers of this species are a popular food and can reach upwards of 100 lbs. Like others in this genus, D. alata produces aerial tubers but can be differentiated from other species by its winged stems. This plant’s stems can grow up to 30 ft. in length and often form blankets of shingled leaves that reach high into the canopy, shading out native herbaceous species and even mature trees.

APPENDIX E 52

• Australian Pine– Casuarina equisetifolia A native to Australia and Southeast Asia, this tree was introduced to North America as an ornamental. Growing up to 150 ft. tall, trunks are reddish-brown to gray with brittle peeling bark. Leaves are composed of fine scales and arranged in 6-8 around grayish-green branchlets, resembling pine needles. Plants have both male and female cones. This species displaces native communities, altering community structures and can potentially hybridize with natives.

• Wild Taro- Colocasia esculenta Originating in SE Asia, this plant is well established throughout much of the globe and the cultivated variety is used as a food source throughout. This plant was first brought to North America as a food crop, primarily for slaves. Massive spear shaped leaves are supported by thick petioles that can reach up to 3 ft. in length. Flowing rarely occurs outside of its native range. Plants easily spread by stolons, rhizomes and vegetative fragmentation. Wild taro can grow in soils with a hydrological variability and as such, frequently invades these areas.

Commonly found in drainage ditches and marsh edges, C. esculenta can displace native vegetation and shade out shorter species with ease.

APPENDIX E 53

• Old World Climbing Fern - Lygodium microphyllum This fern species is a vine native to Asia and Australia. Introduced as an ornamental in the early 1900s, this plant’s climbing fronds can grow up to 100 ft. long. Leafy branches grow to 2-5 in. in length. Like many fern species, L. microphyllum has differentiated fertile and nonfertile fronds. Plants can resprout from anywhere along. Spores are easily disbursed through the wind, on clothing and equipment. This plant species dies back during winter and the dead dried vines can promote fire spread through the canopy, as well as assisting in regrowth.

Foliar Treatment- 3-4% Glyphosate w/ 0.5% surfactant

• Tropical Soda Apple - Solanum viarum Native to South America, plants are believed to have likely arrived here in the 1980’s through the feces of Brazilian cattle carrying undigested seed. Leaves resemble large red oak leaves with many lobes. Flowers are small and white. Fruits are golf-ball sized, green to yellow with white blotches and fragrant to attract animals. Typically invading pastures, this plants leaves and stems are unpalatable to cattle and other ungulates. The prickles of this species prevent easy navigation, and it is commonly found in the shade where cattle need to go to avoid the heat. S. viarum is a reservoir for at least six crop viruses (affecting crops such as potato, tomato, tobacco, and cucumbers) and a potato fungus. Additionally, insect pests use it as a vector, including potato beetles, tomato and tobacco caterpillars, peach aphids, whiteflies, loopers, and turtle beetles. Plants displace natural vegetation, adversely impacting biodiversity and interfering with ecological management strategies. This plant is a perennial and can grow year-round in southern climates, exacerbating management issues.

APPENDIX E 54

• Brazilian Pepper - Schinus terebinthifolius Introduced in the 1800s as an ornamental, this South American native is in the family Anacardiaceae, which also includes poison ivy, poison sumac and cashew. Its bright red berries and green leaves are frequently used as Christmas decorations. Growing to a maximum of around 30 ft. tall, this plant has a short trunk with spreading canopy. Leaves are alternately arranged with elliptic, finely toothed leaflets and often have a reddish midrib. White flowers appear in clusters from September-November. Many animals enjoy eating the fruits, assisting in seed dispersal. Plants are aggressive invaders with the ability to dominate a variety of habitats including disturbed areas, hammocks, pinelands, and mangrove forests. Plants can resprout after cutting or fires. Due to their high germination and dispersion rates, plants can form dense stands, crowding out native vegetation.

• Chinese Silvergrass - Miscanthus sinensis Like many others, this plant was introduced in the late 1800s from Asia as an ornamental. The leaves of this dense grass are long, rough and slender, upright with slight arching, display silver tips and midribs, and can grow up to 18 in. long. Stems supporting the inflorescence can grow up to 12 ft. tall.

Flowers grow on long, fan-shaped panicles, and are silvery to pink in color. Plants spread by seed as well as rhizomes, forming large clumps in disturbed areas, displacing natives. This species does not retain much water and is considered a fire hazard in many areas.

APPENDIX E 55

• Brazilian Elodea - Egeria densa A native to South America, this plant is not actually in the genus Elodea as its common name suggests. This plant is an aquatic emergent and thus, is rooted, however, fragments can often be found drifting. Leaves are small and strap-shaped, about 1 in. long. Stems typically grow to 1-2 ft. but can grow much longer. Leaf edges have very fine teeth, only observable with the aid of a magnification instrument. Leaves occur in whorls of 3-6. Flowers appear on short stalks above the water surface and are composed of three petals. Easily confused with Hydrilla or any of the 6 species in the genus Elodea, the species can be differentiated by flowers and midrib. E. densa flowers never display teeth. Egeria also never produces tubers and turions.

• Hydrilla –Hydrilla verticillata Originating from Europe, plants came to America by the 1950s in the aquarium trade. There are two forms of Hydrilla: the monoecious form originating from Korea, and the dioecious form originating from India. Stems are slender, branched and grow up to 25 ft. long. The small leaves are linear and pointed, growing in whorls of 4-8. Leaf margins are saw-toothed, and leaf midribs have one or more teeth. Small white flowers are produced on short stalks. Plants also produce turions and tubers. Growing to the surface of waterbodies and forming dense mats, this plant can detach and float to new areas to colonize. Plants form turions at leaf axils, which can serve as additional means of dispersal, and tubers form from roots attached in mud or soil.

Native aquatic plants get shaded and outcompeted, and tubers can remain viable for up to 4 yrs. Plants also can grow in 7% salinity, in low and high nutrient conditions, and can grow even in low light.

APPENDIX E 56

• East Indian Hygrophylia - Hygrophila polysperma This entirely submergent plant species was introduced to the United States in the aquarium trade from India and Malaysia in the 1950s. Stems are square, growing up to 6 ft. long, with opposite leaves. Flowers are white to very light blue, and have two lips, growing from the axils where leaves meet the stems. Plants form large, dense stands, shading out natives, impacting water temperature.

H. polysperma is spread by boats, birds, and water.

Plants can clog water ways, culverts and canals.

Even a single free floating leaf can develop into an entire plant. This species tolerates a wide range of pH, water hardness, and light variability.

Adventitious roots develop at nodes, and its fast growth rate even allows it to outcompete other aggressive invasives like Hydrilla verticillata.

• Cyanobacteria/ Blue-green algae - Lyngbya spp.

Hair-like and filamentous, this genus of bacteria largely resembles algae and was thought to be so for nearly two centuries. It forms large benthic and surface mats. Cyanobacteria travel readily by water currents and on animals, either on their body or through feces.

Boats and fishing equipment are also frequent culprits of dispersion. Dense mats can become problematic when photosynthetic gases promote floatation and dispersal of the mat. It outcompetes native algae for sunlight, and actually smothers native plants with its density. As bacteria, they replicate very quickly and are distributed globally. Cyanobacteria can be found in the majority of waterbodies to some extent and only become problematic underspecific conditions. They can smother eelgrass, a food of the endangered West Indian manatee, and some species are linked to “swimmers’ itch”.

• Eurasian Water Milfoil - Myriophyllum spicatum Originating from Eurasia or northern Africa, this plant’s introduction can likely be attributed to ship ballast water, or packing material for worms sold to fishermen. It is still continually spread by boats, fishing gear, and water currents.

Stems are reddish-brown to whitish-pink, growing 6-9 ft.

Leaves are deeply divided, soft and feather-like, about 2 in. long and arranged in whorls of 3-6. Flowers are reddish and very small, held above the water on a water spike several inches long. This plant also forms dense mats, shading out natives and impacting ecosystems.

APPENDIX E 57

• Variable Leaf Milfoil - Myriophyllum heterophyllum Also known as two-leaf water milfoil, this plant is native to Florida to Texas, and has made its way north through waterways and unintentional human distribution. This plant has stout green stems with leaves that are green and in whorls of 4-6. This plant has two leaf types: emergent and submersed. Emergent leaves can reach 4-6 in. above the water and are stiff, serrated or lobed along the margins, and are lanceolate, lance-spatulate, or elliptic. Submersed leaves are feather-like and pinnate, with 4-10 paired pinnae. Flowers are small, and petals are reddish and oval. Plants are distributed to new locations by humans, animals, and water currents. M. heterophyllum forms dense stands and thick mats, reducing light and oxygen, and impeding waterflow and recreation.

• Spiny leaf naiad - Najas marina An aquatic plant introduced from Europe, this plant has slender green leaves with deep, conspicuous teeth along the edges. Leaves are usually opposite with a wide base and tapered tips, brittle, re-curved, and branching. Flowers occur along leaf axils. It has a great tolerance for turbidity and low-nutrient conditions, driving out other native Najas spp. Usually found in lakes and ponds, it can move into rivers, forming dense mats that choke out natives. I can survive in saline, alkaline, and freshwater, particularly noticeable for colonizing brackish water. Plants reproduce through fragments, and can be spread through animals and equipment.

APPENDIX E 58

• Common salvinia - Salvinia minima An aquatic fern long considered native, S. minima is now believed to have been introduced in the 1920s from South America and Mexico. Emergent fronds are oblong, flat or semi-cupped and grow in chains along the water’s surface. Leaves grow in pairs. A threadlike, brown leaf hands underwater, and all join at a node along an underwater stem. The upper surface of the green leaves is covered with rows of white, coarse hairs which act as a water repellant.

Hairs are unjointed at the tips. Plants spread by budding at nodes and broken stems. Populations can double in as little as two weeks, covering water bodies from shore to shore. Because of its dense mats, natives get crowded and shaded out, irrigation pipes become blocked, and boating is restricted.

• Parrotfeather - Myriophyllum aquaticum A native of South America, this plant is still commonly sold as an ornamental for the aquarium trade. M. aquaticum is an emergent species. Its many delicate, feathery, bright green leaves give it its name. Leaves are oblong, deeply lobed and feather-like, arranged in whorls of 4-6 on the stem. Stems can be up to 5 ft. long.

Emergent leaves are less divided and less green than submersed leaves. Plants spread primarily through vegetative means and via fragmentation, creating dense monocultures that clog waterways, impeding boats, crowd out natives, and provide optimal breeding habitat for mosquitos.

APPENDIX E 59

• Water Spinach - Ipomea aquatica Native to the West Indies, this plant escaped from areas of cultivation in the late 1900s. I. aquatica acts as an herbaceous trailing vine. It contains a milky sap within its hollow stems, which root at the nodes. Leaves are alternate, with simple, glabrous petioles and spear shaped blades that are often variable. Blades are glabrous or rarely pilose, with pointed tips, and are held above the water when stems are floating. Flowers closely resemble those of morning glory, solitary or in few-flowered clusters at leaf axils. Petals are white to pink-lilac or light violet. The threat of this plant species is in its formation of dense mats which can shade out underwater natives and compete with native emergents.

• Sweet Autumn Clematis/ Virginsbower- Clematis terniflora A climbing, semi-evergreen vine, this plant was introduced from China and Japan to the Arnold Arboretum in Boston in 1877 as an ornamental. Leaves are opposite, entire and compound, with 3-5 leaflets. Flowers are white and fragrant, appearing late summer through autumn. Seeds are numerous and display long, feather-like trichromes. Because of its prolific seed production, plants invade forest edges and disturbed areas near water.

• Panama Crowngrass- Paspalum fimbriatum An annual grammanoid in the Poaceae family, this species was introduced to Florida, Guam and Hawaii, where it has been for the most part naturalized. Culms and blades can grow up to 40 in. in height and leaves display an extremely wavy margin.

Fruit is a caryopsis with a winged glume. This species is a problem species due to its ability to rapidly colonize disturbed areas and outcompete native grasses and herbaceous

APPENDIX E 60

• Cat’s-Claw Vine- Dolichandra unguis-cati Cat’s-Claw Vine is a native to Argentina, Mexico and the West Indies. It’s common name is derived from the rough tri-pronged climbing apendage this vine uses to navigate into the canopy. In Florida, this plant is considered a Category I Exotic Invasive Species. Vines can grow up to 50 ft., often rooting at nodes. It displays small, oppositly compound leaves, with leaflets that are ovate to lanceolate, and spreads by stolons and strong roots. Flowers are trumpet shaped, typically around 3 in., and an attrictive bright yellow color. Fruits are flat capsules up to 8 in. in length. D. unguis-cati is a slow growing and long lived plant and with its stong and vast root system, this species can spread to cover the forest floor, smothering native vegetation. It commonly invades riversides and hammocks. While not currently prevalent in Georgia, infestations do occur and can be treated with a 1-2% solution of Triclopyr.

• Mother of Millions- Kalenchoe x houghtonii Also known as Mother-of-Thousands, this plant is a hybridized succulent in the stonecrop family. This species is listed as a Category II Exotic Invasive in Florida; however, management over the last decade has proven relatively successful at control and it is currently not reported to be well established in any county. K. x houghtonii primarily reproduces vegetatively through the budding off of clones, which occur around the margin of individual leaves. The plant produces many attractive pink flowers and historically was given as a housewarming gift. This plant’s is dangerous to dune ecosystems of Georgia and Florida due to potential for sand displacement as a result of its shallow root system.

APPENDIX E 61

• False Japanese Spleenwort- Deparia petersenii As its name suggests, this is plant is not a spleenwort, but in fact, a creeping leptosporangiate fern in the family Dryopteridaceae. It is native to SE Asia, Australia Polynesia and New Zealand. Also known as Peterson’s lady fern and sometimes black lady fern, it was unintentionally introduced to the south eastern United States and Hawaii, likely by spores transmitted through human travel. Sori are arranged in a herringbone pattern. It can grow up to 24 in. in height, and displays blackish-green coloration on both the fertile and infertile fronds. It spreads by creeping rhizomes and spores.

• West Indian Marsh Grass- Hymenachne amplexicaulis This invasive grass native to the West Indies is now considered naturalized in some parts of Florida. It prefers mesic soil but can grow in a wide range of soil types. It is a robust grass that creeps along the ground and spreads by stolons. It can reach up to 3 ft. in height and has rigid pithy stems. Leave grow up to 14 in. in length, and leaf sheaths are glabrous and hairy.

Flower is a dense panicle that blooms in the fall. It can displace native maidencane communities and represents a minor ecological threat.

APPENDIX E 62

• Uruguay Waterprimrose- Ludwigia hexapetala This invasive plant is an herbaceous perennial native to South America. This plant was introduced to the U.S. as an ornamental and water garden species but has since escaped cultivation. It has ovate leaves and invades shallow river ditches and ponds.

L. hexapetala displays two different growth patterns but in general it has erect flowering stems with long hairs along the leaves and stems. This species is invasive thorough out much of Europe and western Asia as well, where it threatens rare herbaceous and sedge species.

• Peruvian Primrose-willow- Ludwigia peruviana This plant is another primrose native to South America but imported as an ornamental. It is an aquatic emergent plant and grows much taller than most other species in the genus Ludwigia, up to 12 ft. in height. It has ovate leaves and attractive yellow flowers, similar to L. hexapetala and forms dense colonies along shorelines where it competes for resources with native vegetation and can clog waterways, impeding travel. It is a Category I Noxious Weed in Florida.

APPENDIX E 63

• Natal Grass- Melinis repens This plant is a annual grass native to South Africa and is considered invasive throughout much of the world. In the United States, this grass was introduced as a forage plant but was not very successful in this regard. M. repens has branching culms that that root at the nodes and can grow up to 40 in. in height. Flowers are pinkish-purple to red panicles that bloom during summer and autumn. This grass prefers dry soil regimes and frequently invades crop fields and distrubed areas as well as displacing native vegetation.

• Japanese Stiltgrass- Microstegium vimineum This plant is a short leaved grass native to Asia but was introduced to the United States in 1919 through contaminated packaging material. It is now found in the 24 eastern states as well as Africa, Australia, Europe and South America. M. vimineum has short leaves with a silvery midrib (1-3 in long) that are smooth when rubbed in any direction, and can grow to 3.5 ft. in height. This grass produces dense monocultures and can displace native grasses and herbaceous vegetation in a variety of habitats including floodplains, fields, forest edges and ditches as well as successfully invading human gardens and lawns. It is important to note that populations of this species have been known to rapidly evolve resistance to herbicides.

APPENDIX E 64

• Skunk Vine- Paederia foetida A native to SE Asia, this species was orginally introduced in 1897 as a potential fiber crop where it rapidly escaped into native ecosystems. True to its namesake, this plant produces a foul odor when crushed, due to sulfuric compounds present in its tissue. P. foetida is a woody vine that can reach up to 30 ft. in length. Leaves on this vine are quite variable in shape, from acuminate to ovate or aristate, as well as size and arrangement. It reproduced via seeds which are derived from small gray-pink to lilac flowers with dark red centers and can also regrow from stem fragments. Skunk vine is able to survive and propagate itself in a variety of habitats. It can smother trees and understory plants and displaces native vegetation through light and resource competition.

• Napier Grass- Pennisetum purpureum Also known as elephant grass and merker grass, this perennial plant is native to the African savannah. It was introduced for grazing as well as a best species management strategy. It has many uses, some of which include windbreaks, soil erosion control and use as a biofuel and paper pulp source. This plant has a deep root system and spreads by rhizomes. Outside of its native range, this plant is very successful in a variety of ecosystems and disturbed areas and can displace native vegetation in both dry and wet soils. It is a clumping grass and grows up to 12 ft. in height. It can impede water flow and limit access to water bodies.

APPENDIX E 65

• Mexican Petunia- Ruellia simplex A native to Mexico and South America, this species has become wide spread throughout the southeastern United States, where it was originally introduced as an ornamental in the early 1900s. It is a fast growing perrenial that thrives in a variety of ecosystems and both wet and dry conditions. This plant can grow up to 3 ft. in height. Stems are green to purple and leaves are lanceolate with slightly wavy margins. Flowers are trumpet shaped, 2-3 in. in diameter and typically violet. Cultivated varieties produces a wide array of flower colorations, from pink to while to deep violet and blue. It alters plant communities by displacing native vegetation and hybridizing with native petunias.

• Water Sprangles- Salvinia minima This plant is a type of small, floating fern native to South America and the West Indies that was unintentionally introduced to the United States in the 1920s by shipping vessels. Leaves of this plant are miniscule (less than 1 in. in diameter), and possess hairs for water repulsion which grow in sets of four and meet at the tips. Leaves grow in sets of three, two floating and one dissected leaf hanging below the water’s surface. S. minima can quickly reproduce and for extensive mats that clog waterways and shade out native aquatic plant species. It can even outcompete other hardy invasives like spotted duckweed.

APPENDIX E 66

• Half-flower- Scaevola taccada Also known as beach cabbage and sea lettuce, this plant is a common shrub throughout the Arabic Sea and Indiana Ocean, to which it is native. This plant can reach upwards of 12 ft. in height, displays thick alternate, glabrous leaves that are typically up to 8 in. in length, and white flowers and fruits. The flowers have five petals on one half of the stem, giving this plant one of its common names. The fruits are buoyant and are distributed by water currents, and thus, S. taccada is often a pioneer plant species. It grows very well in sandy environments and those with access to only salt water. In the United States and Virgin Islands it displaces native Scaevola varieties as well as other beach vegetation.

• Arrowhead vine- Syngonium podophyllum A native to Mexico and Ecuador, this large leafed climbing vine is considered to be highly invasive in tropical and subtropical regions throughout the world. S. podophyllum can grow to 30 ft. in length and has relatively thick, glabrous stems which help it climb high into the canopy. Leaves are both hastate and digitate with long petioles (up to 10 in.) and green coloration with a white to cream colored inner surface. This species is a popular cultivar and house plant and the fact that many do not realize its highly invasive characteristics exacerbates the issue.

It is a fast growing vine and has the ability to displace native vegetation by shading out trees and shrubs, negatively altering ecological structure.

APPENDIX E 67

• Small-leaf Spiderwort- Tradescantia fluminensis This spiderwort species is a creeping herbaceous perennial native to South America and has been introduced to the United States, Australia and New Zealand as an ornamental houseplant or garden plant where it is now considered invasive. T. fluminensis grows in a multitude of foliage varieties including green, purple and a variegated form. It is a multi-stemmed herb that roots at the nodes. Leaves grow up to 2 in. in length, are short, close to sheaths, and glabrous.

Reproduction primarily occurs through fragmentation of stems. This plant prefers mesic soils and is highly shade resistant, making it pervasive in forest’s understories and giving it the ability to withstand long periods of drought.

• Caesar’s Weed- Urena lobate Also commonly known as Congo jute, this bushy shrub in the mallow family is native to India and has 3-5 lobed palmate leaves that are 1-3 inches in length. This plant escaped into waste areas of Florida in the late 1800s, where it is now considered naturalized in many places. Minute flowers appear in clusters on the end of branches and are around 0.3 in. long, giving way to small fruits that have small, bristly hooks which aid in distribution. This species excels at invading areas disturbed by human activity and forest edges.

APPENDIX E 68

• Para Grass- Urochloa mutica Also known as Brachiaria mutica, this grass has many common names. It is native to Africa and was introduced to the United States with the intention of becoming a forage grass, however, in areas where it is not grazed by cattle, it has become a prolific weed. Like Bermuda grass, para grass is also in the family Poaceae, and is a perennial grass that spreads by stolons as well as seed, but with less success.

Leaves are 4-12 in. in length and culms grow up to 1 ft. in height producing a panicle of miniscule dark purple flowers. This grass is semiaquatic and can form floating mats that clog waterways, inhibit the growth of emergent vegetation and generally impede water flow. U. mutica also has allelopathic properties that inhibit the growth of other nearby plant species, compounding its invasive ability.

• Elegant Dutchman’s Pipe- Aristolochia littoralis This plant is native to South America and a member of Aristolochiaceae, the rarely encountered birthworts, a family of pipe vines. This woody vine can grow 10-15 ft. in length.

Leaves are green, heart shaped and amplexicaul. Flowers are purple with white areas resembling venation and grow to about 3 in. long in a pipe-like fashion, giving this plant one of its most popular common names. Flowers are pollinated primarily by blow flies and thus, produce an odor reminiscent of rotting flesh. Fruits are a dry, windborne dehiscent capsule.

APPENDIX E 69

• Jaragua- Hyparrhenia ruffa This grass is native to Africa, but has been cultivated throughout the globe as a forage plant and is not wide spread and even considered naturalized in many areas. It is a member of the family Poaceae, like many other successful grasses, and is primarily a clumping species, spreading by rhizomes. Leaves are typically 1225 in. in length and leaf sheaths enclose culm stems. This plant exhibits variable height and can be anywhere from 12 in. to nearly 12 ft. in height. Seeds have short rough hairs and as such, animals and wind assist in dispersal. H. ruffa out competes native grass species and promotes the spread of wildfire.

• Spotted Duckweed- Landoltia punctata This small floating plant closely resembles a Georgia native, Spirodela polyrhiza as well as some members of the genus Lemna, but this plant not native to North or South America. This confusion is enhanced by the fact that native duckweeds also red spots, while L. punctata does not. L. punctata typically has two leaves attacked together at the base with 2-5 roots on each leaf which hang into the water below. Leaves are obtuse to elliptic in shape and very small (typically less than 1 cm.). This species grows in dense mats on waterbodies, shading out submerged and emergent vegetation.

APPENDIX E 70

• White Lead Tree- Leucaena leucocephala Also known as jumbay, this plant is a fast growing small tree species in the legume family closely related to the invasive Albizia julibrissin. A native to mexico and central America, it was introduced to the United States in the early 1900s for use as an ornamental, cattle feed and as an erosion control method. The seeds and seedpods are eaten throughout South America but must be boiled to remove the toxic amino acid mimosine. This tree can grow to around 15 feet in height, has opposite bipinnately compound leaves with lanceolate leaflets and white auxiliary flowers that turn brown with maturity. L. leucocephala forms dense monocultures due to its prolific seed productions and displaces native vegetation, altering ecosystems.

• Asian Marshweed- Limnphily sessiliflora This large emergent plant native to India and SE Asia can reach upwards of 12 ft. in height and was first introduced to the United States in the aquarium trade.

L. sessiliflora has dimorphic leaves due to its emergent nature. The submersed leaves are branching, thin and finely divided, while the emergent leaves are entire or 2-3 lobed, lanceolate to linear and serrate. It produces small white sessile flowers which are pollinated by insects but also can reproduce via vegetative fragmentation. This species roots at nodes and produces a capsule fruit which is dispersed by wind and water. It forms dense aquatic stands and rapidly reproduces, crowding and outpacing native species.

APPENDIX E 71

• Phasey Bean- Macroptilium lathyroides Also known as wild bush bean, this species is a native of Mexico, Central America and the West Indies. This herbaceous annual can grow up to 4.5 ft. tall. Leaves are compound with 3 leaflets which are ovate to elliptical and are primarily entire. The inflorescence is an auxiliary spike that grows to a maximum of around 6 in. long and displays red, purple, white or pink flower. As a legume, this plant produces a 3-6 in. long fruit that dehisces laterally via twisting and can eject seed several meters.

• Balsam Apple/Pear- Momordica charantia This annual vine in the cucumber family is native to Africa and is invasive to many tropical regions throughout the world. M. charantia was introduced to Europe in 1588 for its medicinal benefits. In the United States it escaped cultivation in the mid-1800s and again in the late 1900s. It produces bumpy bright orange to red fruits that burst apart upon maturity, giving way to red seeds that are toxic to humans but dispersed by animals. It has rapidly spread throughout Florida and primarily invades disturbed areas as well as forest edges, smothering shrubs and trees as well as competing with native groundcover vegetation.

APPENDIX E 72

• Guinea Grass- Panicum maximum This large grass, native to Africa is now well established in Florida and is now becoming a prevalent invasive in southern Georgia as well. It was introduced to the United States as a forage grass. It is a clump forming grass with whirling leaves growing up to 3 ft. long and stems that can reach upwards of 7 ft. tall. The panicle can grow to 2 ft. long and 1 ft. wide. Seeds are covered in small wrinkles. It invades disturbed wetland sites, ditches, fields and roadsides. It spreads rapidly due to prolific seed production and the fact it blooms year round.

• Chinese Brake Fern- Pteris vittata Also known as ladder fern, this polypod fern in the family Pteridaceae is native to China as its most popular common name suggests, and frequently associated with alkaline substrate and/or limestone. It was likely introduced to the United States as an ornamental. This species closely resembles Blechnum serrulatum but can be distinguished by its sori which grow along the frond margins. Dark green, fully divided fronds can reach up to 20 in. in length. It can spread aggressively in nonnative habitat and competes with other native ferns like swamp fern.

APPENDIX E 73

• Solitaire Palm- Ptychosperma elegans Also called Alexander palm, plant is a native to Queensland, Australia and was introduced to the U.S. as an ornamental. Today it is still a popular ornamental species. It can grow 20-40 ft. in height but only up to 5 in. in width. Pinnately compound fronds can grow up to 8 ft. long.

P. elegans is dichogamous and produces attractive white flowers and bright red, egg shaped fruits. It is considered naturalized in some islands and coastal hammocks of south Florida and has potential to spread farther north.

• Largeflower Mexican Clover- Richardia grandiflora This South American native is a small creeping herbaceous perennial, reaching a maximum of 6 in. in height. It reproduces by seeds and via vegetative fragmentation. It can tolerate very low temperatures, down to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Leaves are entire, opposite and narrowly elliptical to lanceolate. It produces an umbel of small white flowers in autumn which on stems densely covered in fine white hair. This species can frequently be found amongst human habitat on lawns, gardens and disturbed sites.

APPENDIX E 74

• Castor Bean- Ricinus communis A popular garden species, this plant has long been cultivated throughout the world for its attractive flowers and foliage, as well as its fruits, which contain medicinal castor oil as well as the deadly protein ricin. Lethal dosage for most adult humans is between 4-10 beans; however poisoning has rarely been reported. This plant is indigenous to eastern Africa, the Mediterranean Basin and India. R.communis grows very rapidly in tropical climates and can reach upwards of 8 ft. in a single growing season.

There are many different cultivars of this species but all exhibit serrated alternate palmate leaves with 5-12 lobes.

Medium sized attractive red flowers occur on a terminal raceme. Fruits are a capsule covered in small hooks that dehisce when mature. Castor beans also have a type of warty elaiosome that aids in seed dispersal by ants.

• Green Shrimp Plant/ Browne’s Blechum- Ruellia blechum This plant is a small herbaceous species in the family Acanthaceae. It was orignianlly a popular ornamental species and thought to have some medicinal value; however, it escaped cultivation and is now spread throughout Hawaii and southern Florida and the Florida Keys. This plant can grow to reach around 10-25 in. in height. Flowers are small and white to, light violet. It is oppositely arranged and lower leaves are ovate while the smaller upper leaves are cordate and in closely stacked sets of two, surrounding a terminal inflorescence, which is where this species derives its common name Green Shrimp Plant.

APPENDIX E 75

• Two-Leaf Nightshade An attractive perennial shrub, this member of the family Solanaceae is native to Mexico and Central America. Leaves of this species grow in pairs of two on a single bud, which is where it derives its common name. Each leaf pair is composed of a major and minor leaf, the larger grows up to 2.4 in. in length while the minor grows to around 0.7 in. long. Flowers grow opposite the leaves, eventually giving rise to small green, orange and yellow berries. Seeds are flattened and reniform resembling those of bell peppers, another member of Solanaceae.

This species colonized disturbed areas and forest edges, altering the herbaceous community.

Invasive terrestrial invertebrate priority list for coastal Georgia Priority1 Species that CISMA partners currently spend a significant amount of time and/or money on for some aspect of management or plans to spend in the next five years.

• Emerald ash borer - Agrilus planipennis This insect pest arrived from Russia, China, Japan, and Korea back in the 1990s as an accidental import in cargo. Beetles target ash trees. Trees infected with EAB lose 30-50% of their canopy in two years, and die within 3-4 yrs. The females lay eggs two weeks after emerging, and after 12 weeks, the larvae hatch and bore through the bark and into the cambium and phloem. Larvae are around 1 in. with flat, broad, segmented bodies. Adults emerge mid-June, leaving “D” shaped emergence holes. Their enitre life cycle takes 1-2 yrs. depending on the climate.

Larvae leave segmented galleries that girdle and kill trees.

The larvae tunnel into sap wood to pupate. This pest is spreading rapidly to other states, killing healthy and young trees.

APPENDIX E 76

Priority2 Species that CISMA partners deal with infrequently or attempts to control in selected high-priority areas (because they are thought to be lesser threats, or because they are widespread and difficult to control) • Redbay ambrosia beetle - Xyleborus glabratus Native to India, Japan, Myanmar, and Taiwan, this beetle was discovered in 2002. It infects redbay and sassafras trees along the coastal areas of Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida. The adults are small (0.08 in. long), slender, cylindrical, and brown-black in color.

Larvae are white, c-shaped, legless grubs with an amber colored head capsule. Adult females construct galleries in the sapwood and inoculate the galleries with a fungus. Both adults and larvae feed on the fungi and not on the wood of the damaged host plant. It is the fungus that gradually kills the tree. Plants show signs of “flagging”, where limbs die off. Females can fly 2-3 km in search of a host, and males are dwarfed, haploid, and flightless.

• Red imported fire ant - Solenopsis invicta Native to Central South America, this species is established in the US and in Australia. The pedicel (waist) is made up of two segments. Workers are between 0.12-0.25 in. The mandible has four distinct teeth and the antennae are 10-segmented, ending in a two-segmented club. A sting is present at the end of the gaster. Body color is red to brown with a black gaster. Mounds are rarely larger than 18 in. in diameter. When disturbed, ants emerge to bite and sting; a white pustule appears the next day at the site of the sting. Workers of S. invicta do not have workers which disproportionate head to body ratios as the native S. geminata do. This ant has been reported throughout the world, supposedly as an accidental stowaway on transportation.

APPENDIX E 77

• Cactus moth - Cactoblastis cactorum A South American native, this insect was introduced in other parts of the world as a biocontrol for Opuntia cacti. From there, it has spread into areas with native Opuntia and has begun attacking them. Adults are nondescript and gray-brown with faint dark spots and wavy transverse lines marking the wings. The rear margins of the hindwings are whitish and semitransparent. The antennae and legs are long. Wing span is 22-35 mm. Larvae are more noticeable as orange-red and large dark spots that form transverse bands. Larvae start out pink-cream colored and become orange with age, just as the black and red dots coalesce with age to form bands.

Native Opuntia provides food and shelter to the endangered Schaus swallowtail, birds, reptiles, and other insects. Once larvae hatch, they bore into the cactus pad and grow there in groups, hollowing it out. They emerge to form cocoons and pupate on the ground at the base of the cactus, and when adults emerge, they only live for 9 days, but can disperse fair distances.

APPENDIX E 78

Priority 3 Species that CISMA partners deal with only in unusual circumstances, either because they represent minor threats or are essentially naturalized and impossible to control with current methods. • Kudzu bug - Megacopta cribraria Arriving in the US in 2009, this insect is native to Asia.

They are able to attach to clothing and vehicles and their spread is facilitated that way. Insects are 3-5 mm in length, have a round body shape and a dorsally flattened posterior end. They’re brown with darker punctures along the dorsal side of the abdominal region. Nymphs resemble adults, but have a lighter brown color and wing buds that develop through 5 instars. They feed on soy beans, kudzu, and other legumes, which makes them a crop pest.

Insects accumulate in aggregations, releasing a foul odor if disturbed. Insects moved into barns or homes to overwinter.

Females lay egg masses along with brown symbiont capsules that larvae have to ingest to obtain symbiotic bacteria.

• Brown widow spider - Latrodectus geometricus Coming to North America in the 2000s, this spider is believed to have originated from Africa or South America. Its color is a mottling tan and brown with black accent marking. Mature females usually have a dorsal longitudinal stripe and three diagonal stripes on each flank. Of the three stripes, there is also a black mark at the top which is squareish. It has an hourglass mark but it is orangish rather than red. The distinctive egg sac of a brown widow has multiple silk spicules projecting out from the surface, described as looking like a large pollen grain or a WWII harbor mine designed to blow up ships. There are 120-150 eggs per sac and spiders can produce 20 egg sacs in a lifetime. Mature females do not seem to have or cannot inject as much venom as its larger relatives; victims often say the bite hurt when it was inflicted and it left a red mark. This species is spreading throughout the coast and should be monitored.

APPENDIX E 79

long.

• Asian tiger Mosquito - Aedes albopictus Native to Asia, this species came to the United States as early as the late 1800s. The importation is believed to be linked to imported tires that are left outside in the rain. Female mosquitos are aggressive biters and can vector diseases such as West Nile, Dengue, and Japanese Encephalitis.

Adults have conspicuous black bodies and white stripes. There is also a distinctive single white band down the length of the back. Bodies are 3/16 in.

Invasive Species Watch List Species considered future threats because (1) they are not known to be present in the state but have been documented in other southeastern states and have been shown to have significant ecological, economic, or health impacts where they occur; or (2) the species is present in Georgia and is currently not considered a serious pest in coastal Georgia, but may become one based on its history in other states.

• Khapra beetle - Trogoderma granarium First noticed in 1953 from India, this beetle is frequently intercepted on imported cargo.

Insects are destructive pests of grain products and seeds. Adults have wings but do not fly.

Adults live between 4-30 days (female) or 7-12 days (male). Complete development from egg to adult is temperature dependent but is between 26-220 days. Females lay 50-90 eggs.

Larvae enter diapause if temperatures fall below 77F (25C) or if conditions are crowded, and can remain this way for several years. They can survive temperatures as low as 17.6F (-8C), and can develop in humidity as low as 2%.

APPENDIX E 80

Asian gypsy moth - Lymantria dispar dispar European Gypsy moth – Lymantria dispar Introduced from Europe in the 1800s, it was imported for silk production. However, larvae can feed on over 300 trees and shrubs, including oak, apple, alder, basswood, birch, poplar, sweet gum, and willow. With one generation per year, females attach egg masses mid-June to July on sheltered outdoor places, and these masses can contain up to 1,000 eggs. Eggs overwinter and hatch in April or May. As larvae eat, entire trees can be defoliated, resulting in reduced vigor, recreational, and habitat value. If this defoliation continues over several years, plants can die completely. Larvae have tufts of hair on each end and have a pattern of blue and red dots on their back. Larvae pupate in dark brown pupal cases in sheltered areas. Male adults are smaller, with light tan to brown wings marked with wavy dark bands across the forewing.

Females are white, larger than males and flightless. The Asian strain of this moth arrived in 1991 and has a broader host range and the females are active fliers, potentially allowing a much larger dispersal range.

•

APPENDIX E 81

• Rosy gypsy moth - Lymantria mathura This Asian moth is not yet present in the United States, but has a high risk for invasion and damage. It eats a large variety of hardwoods, and densities can be up to 1,000 caterpillars per tree. Eggs overwinter with larvae as white, fuzzy egg masses, ready to hatch in the spring.

Young larvae have the capability to utilize a trailing silk thread and air currents to “balloon” to other locations. Most feed at night, and then mature larvae pupate in flimsy cocoons on the host tree. Females lay egg masses of 150-600 on the bark of host trees or other objects. One or two generations a year.

• Asian long horned beetle - Anoplophora glabripennis This insect was found in the United States in 1996; originating from Asia, it’s likely it came here as an accidental import with cargo. Larvae feed on hardwoods and can take 1-2 years to complete their life cycle. Larvae are indiscriminate, attacking healthy as well as stressed trees. As several generations develop within a tree, the plant eventually succumbs and dies. When adults emerge – mostly in June and July – they come out of round exit holes and remain on or near their emergence tree, feeding on leaves and bark. Eggs are laid under bark where females chew. Once eggs hatch, larvae feed in the cambium of the tree and later enter the heartwood. Pupation chambers are dug inside the tree as well, which can be filled with frass (poop).

APPENDIX E 82

References: Information gathered informally from: GA Invasive Species Strategy, Bugwood, Invasive.org.

Invasive Terrestrial Vertebrate priority list for coastal Georgia Priority1 species are those that the organization currently spends a significant amount of time and/or money on for some aspect of management or that the organization definitely plans to spend time and money on in the next five years.

• Hog – Sus scrofa Present since the 1500s from Eurasia, hogs were imported as a food source and either escaped domestication or were released. Omnivorous, feed by rooting with their snouts and can cause disturbance of soil and ground cover. Occupying a wide variety of habitats, hogs reach sexual maturity between 5-12 months and females produce 3-12 young a litter, producing 1-2 litters a season. Feral swine are capable of transmitting brucellosis, psuedorabies, leptospirosis, footand-mouth disease and Japanese encephalitis. They may threaten human health by carrying helminth parasites that are passed to humans through the consumption of improperly cooked meat (ISSG 2008). Feral hogs also represent a significant threat to a number of rare plants, including the federally endangered relict trillium. On Georgia barrier islands, feral hogs are a major predator of loggerhead sea turtle eggs.

• Feral cat – Felis catus Descendants of domestic cats released into the wild. They have shown the potential for large-scale losses of small vertebrate populations across their range. Females can bear several litters a year, with her offspring reaching maturity in as early as 5 weeks and capable of the same.

Depending on the local dynamic for a particular CISMA partner, effort may be focused more on education and outreach and less on control, as needed.

APPENDIX E 83

Priority 2 species are those that the organization deals with infrequently or attempts to control in selected high-priority areas (because they are thought to be lesser threats, or because they are widespread and difficult to control).

• Coyote* – Canis latrans Large mammalian predator that thrives in urban, rural, and wildland settings and are opportunistic predators. Found throughout the United States and parts of Canada. Females can have 5-13 pups in a litter once a year, but sometimes can breed in the winter as well if food is plentiful. Able to attack pets and small children, they are a known threat to shorebirds and sea turtle nests in coastal GA. • Nine-banded armadillo* – Dasypus nonvemcintus Native to South America, this species can harm landscapes and biotic communities in a similar fashion to the hog as they root and forage on the ground. Animals are omnivorous, eating anything they can find in the leaf litter, and are out in the day as well as at night.

Females can have an annual litter of four offspring, and can delay implantation of fertilized eggs for up to 14 months after mating. Given their long lifespan (20 yrs.) armadillos can persist in areas for a long time. Populations in Florida have also been known to predate on sea turtle eggs, a learned behavior.

Brown-headed cowbird* - Molothrus ater A brood parasite, this species lays its eggs in the nests of other bird species resulting in significant loss of productivity for host species including migratory song birds as parasitized nests are more likely to be predated and the parent birds’ own chicks are neglected or abandoned. Prior to European settlement it is believed that the species was restricted to the short-grass prairies of the mid-west, following the bison. They have been widespread throughout the eastern U.S. since the late 1800s with the eradication of forests and the spread of livestock. Birds transitioned well from bison to cattle, and brought their brood parasitism where they went. Males are black with the brown head, but females are a drab brown.

•

APPENDIX E 84

*There is some uncertainty about the degree to which these species’ occurrences have been influenced by human introductions, anthropogenic land-use change, and natural range expansion. They are however relative newcomers to coastal Georgia and are known to be ecologically disruptive to sensitive habitats and species.

• Cuban Treefrog – Osteopilus septentrionalis Native to Cuba, the Cayman Islands, and the Bahamas, this frog was likely an accidental hitchhiker on cargo or plants. Preys upon native herpetofauna such as squirrel treefrogs (H. squirella), green treefrogs (H. cinerea), southern toads (Bufo terrestris), and southern leopard frogs (Rana spehenocephala). Currently present in the coastal plain of Georgia. Will also consume anything that fits in its mouth, including insects, arachnids, snails and hatchling birds. Individuals are large, 1-6.5 in. long from snout to vent, with typical treefrog toepads. Skin secretions may make it unpalatable to predators.

Reproduction can potentially be year-round, and females can lay up to 15,000 eggs in a season.

• Brown anole – Anolis sagrei Since introduction, A. sangrei has become one of the most abundant lizards in Florida. They are present in coastal Georgiaand will prey on a variety of insects, spiders, and invertebrates. Brown anoles have been shown to chase the native green anoles up into canopies and off the ground, limiting resources for the native.

Browns will also prey on young anole hatchlings, whether they are their own or the native’s. Both greens and browns have been observed mating together, but the verdict of such a match and their potential offspring is still out.

•

Fallow deer – Cervus dama

Medium-sized deer. Males have large, palmate antlers. Introduced in parts of the United States for hunting, some believe they will compete with white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) for sources of food.

APPENDIX E 85

• Feral Horse Descendants of domestic horses released into the wild. Causes erosion and overgrazing of native plants.

• Feral Cattle Descendants of domestic cows released into the wild. Causes erosion and overgrazing of native plants.

• Feral Dog – Canis familiaris Descendants of domestic dogs released into the wild. Can spread disease and hybridize with native canines (coyotes, wolves), as well as potentially serving as a danger to humans or their pets. Would generally be the responsibility of county animal control services.

Priority 3 species are those that are dealt with only in unusual circumstances, either because they represent minor threats or are essentially naturalized and impossible to control with current methods.

• Feral Goat Descendants of domestic goats released into the wild. Causes erosion and overgrazing of native plants.

APPENDIX E 86

• Pigeon – Columba livia Also called the Rock Dove or feral pigeon, their natural range is hypothesized to be in western and southern Europe, North Africa, and South Asia. Comprises a large diet for raptors in urban settings. Takes up resources originally for native birds. Found in abundant numbers globally.

• House sparrow – Passer domesticus Small, non-migratory bird that is found in agricultural, suburban, and urban areas. North America’s population can be traced to 1851, when a population of 100 was released in Brooklyn, New York. Will feed on a variety of farm products such as grains, vegetables, and fruit. Will outcompete native birds such as Carolina wrens, woodpeckers, and martins. Adults can take over nests of native birds, expelling adults and nestlings by force.

• Eurasian collared dove – Streptopelia decaocto Introduced into the Bahamas in the 1970s as released pets, this bird has since spread across the majority of the United States. Birds can be found close to human habitation and in suburban areas, where grain is available and food is provided through humans. This species can be a carrier for West Nile and the Pigeon circovirus.

• European starling – Sturnus vulgaris Robin-sized bird that weighs approximately 90g. Native to Eurasia, birds were introduced in the late 1800s as part of a plan to introduce all the birds in Shakespeare’s works to the U.S. Adults are dark with light speckles on the feathers. They are selective feeders and will cause problems by consuming cultivated fruit and grains, destroying crops, and outcompeting native species. It can carry parasites and become pests with their noisy roosts and messes.

APPENDIX E 87

• Indo-pacific Gecko – Hemidactylus garnotii The indo-pacific gecko is from Southeast Asia and is unisexual.

Reproduction occurs through parthenogenesis. They are mostly nocturnal, found almost exclusively with human areas, and will feed on insects that are attracted to light.

Their skin is smooth, unlike the nonnative Mediterranean gecko.

• Cosmopolitan house gecko – Hemidactylus mabouia Nocturnal. Native to sub-saharan Africa and has been introduced to the Americas and Caribbean through the agriculture and plant trade. Approx 5 inches in length. Diet includes invertebrates and small lizards such as anoles, and is the most likely gecko species to be found far away from human habitations.

• Mediterranean gecko – Hemidactylus turcicus Small, nocturnal gecko that is common to the Mediterranean and has bumpy or warty skin.

Insectivorous, rarely over 6 inches in length. Animals can be found around human habitation, rarely found far from outdoor lights. Present in southeast coastal Georgia and on some barrier islands, such as Jekyll.

Animals can be expected to take resources intended for native species, but further impacts are still to be determined.

• Greenhouse frog – Eleutherodactylus planirostris Small, 0.5-1.25 inches in length. Reddish to brown coloration. It is native to Cuba and likely hitchhiked here on plants and cargo.

Diet consists of small invertebrates such as ants. Calls can be confused for the sound of crickets. In Georgia, has been found in Savannah, Thomasville, and Jekyll Island, and St. Simons Island (sound recording).

APPENDIX E 88

• Brahminy Blind Snake - Ramphotyphlops braminus From Africa and Asia, this species is completely fossorial, resembling earthworms but do not have the segments. Also called “flowerpot snake” because animals are believed to have been introduced through the plant trade. Adults are between 2.5-6.5 inches in length. Rudimentary eyes resemble a pair of dots under the head scales and the tail-tip has a spine. These eyes are covered with translucent scales, rendering the snakes blind to all but light and giving their name. Coloration varies from shiny silver grey to charcoal grey or purple. Animals eat the larvae, eggs, and pupae of ants and termites.

Parthenogenetic, all individuals collected have been female and give birth up to eight eggs or young.

Invasive Species Watch List Species are considered to be future threats if (1) they are not known to be present in the state (and there is not a formal program to prevent their occurrence) but they have been documented in other southeastern states and have been shown to have significant ecological, economic, or health impacts where they occur; or (2) the species is present in Georgia and is currently not considered a serious pest, but may become one based on its history in other states.

• Argentine Black and White Tegu – Tupinambis merianae Large (4 ft.) mostly terrestrial lizard that is native to savannas and semi-deserts of east and central South America. Sold in the pet trade and released in Florida, they fill a similar ecological niche to that of monitor lizards. They are omnivorous and will eat the eggs and young of ground-nesting bird, turtles, and other vertebrates as well as fruits and seeds. Have been noted to invade the burrows of gopher tortoises.

Highly intelligent, animals can live 15-20 yrs. and is the first known partially warm-blooded lizard with a temperature that can rise 10 C above ambient temperature.

APPENDIX E 89

• Monk parakeet – Myiopsitta monachus In its native range, in subtropical and temperate South America, it populates savannah woodlands, farmland, plantations, orchards and cultivated forests in low elevations up to one mile above sea level. In its introduced range it lives almost exclusively in urban areas, preferring open habitats including parks, planted urban areas, golf courses, farms, gardens and orchards. In its native range, monk parakeets are considered to be a significant agricultural pest, often causing damage to field crops and orchards. There have also been reports of transmission lines short-circuited by nesting birds. In its introduced range, impacts are uncertain. Monk parakeets have not caused the agricultural devastation predicted, nor have there been any solid evidence that native fauna are negatively affected by their establishment (ISSG 2008). Found in Florida since the 1980s.

Estimated to be in at least 52 counties in Florida. Still, animals are almost certainly using up resources that were intended for natives.

• Brown tree snake – Boiga irregularis A member of the Colubridae family, native to northern Australia and Papua New Guinea, this reptile was first detected in Guam in the 1950s, probably through cargo. Since then, it has caused a massive decline and extinction of native bird and lizard species there, with further impacts on fox bats and future implications for crops and farm animals. Native plants were also impacted as pollinators were removed. Has also been shown to cause power outages from interactions with power lines. Its cat eye pupils are distinctive. Color is variable, from blotches on a brownish-yellow background, blue or red banding on a white background, or black speckling. Adults are usually 1-2 m long.

APPENDIX E 90

• Cane toad – Bufo marinus Currently founded with populations in Florida and Hawaii, this species came from Central and South America as escaped pets. Frogs grow 4-6 in. and sometimes up to 9 in. The body is tan to reddish-brown, dark brown or grey, and the back has dark spots. Skin is warty. Large, triangular parotoid glands on the shoulders are distinctive (natives have oval glands). They also do not have ridges or crests on the top of their head.They feed on a variety of invertebrates, but also frogs, small birds, reptiles, and mammals. Animals prey on and outcompete native species and are highly toxic which can lead to negative interactions with predators including pets.

• Green iguana - Iguana iguana Native to Central and South America and the Caribbean, this reptile is another result of escaped pets. Iguanas are herbivores, diurnal, and stick mostly to trees and canopies. In its native habitat, it is endangered in some parts, known and eaten as the “chicken of the trees”. Animals can be green, but blue colors are known, as are lavender, black, red, orange and pink. A row of spines go along the back and tail, and tails can break off if grabbed by predators.

Dewlaps are also used for temperature regulation in addition to courtship and territorial displays.

APPENDIX E 91

• -

Pythons (Burmese, Rock, Reticulated) – Python bivittatus, P. sebae, P. reticulatus Python bivittatus(Burmese python) originated from Southeast Asia, and established populations were reported in the US in 2000. Imported as pets, animals escaped or were released. Animals have very few natural predators here and prey on or outcompete native and endangered species. Adults reach 6-9 ft. but can be up to 17 ft. Coloration is tan with dark blotches, resembling puzzle pieces of those on a giraffe. The stomach is white. The head is pyramid shaped with a dark, arrowhead marking extending towards the nose. Able to swim and climb, they can be found by or in the water and in trees. Females lay eggs.

-

Python sebae(African Rock python) is a native of sub-Saharan Africa and was first noted in south Florida back in 2001 as either escaped or released pets. Animals usually grow up to 10-14 ft., but 20 ft. has been recorded in Africa. They prey on mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish, and in their native habitat will even catch crocodiles and antelopes. Because of their few predators and large size, this is a species to be monitored. Similar to the Burmese python, the rock python has a less defined pattern on its back. However, its belly scales have a pattern of black and white markings where the Burmese python are only white. Females lay eggs and guard them even after hatching.

-

Python reticulatusis native to Asia but came to the United States as escaped or released pets. Often growing around 12 ft., this reptile is the longest in the world (but not heaviest) and can grow up to 21 ft. This snake has a tan body color with the back and sides marked with a dark netlike pattern accented with bits of yellow and white. There is a dark line down the center of the head, and thin facial bands leading from the eyes to the corners of the jaw. Eyes are reddish in color. The main body incorporates different colors; the back usually has a series of irregular diamond shapes surrounded by smaller marks with light centers. A good swimmer, it has colonized many islands in its range. Females lay eggs.

APPENDIX E 92

• Boa– Boa constrictor First located in Florida in 1990, the common boa is native to Central and South America, where it grows 813 ft. The animal’s back is typically yellow, grey, or light brown with dark brown saddle patches, and the tail saddles are often red. Animals become active at night and twilight, climbing well as they crawl. They constrict their prey and feed on lizards, birds, and mammals. This can have negative impacts on native species. Females give birth to 15-40 live young, which eliminates the vulnerable egg period. Given Florida’s warm climate, the snake’s prey items, and its prolific breeding method, this is species to be watched.

• -

Anaconda – Eunectes murinus, E. notaeus The green anaconda (Eunectes murinus) is the largest snake in the world, olive-green to brown and adorned with circular black markings. Native to South America, these are likely more escaped/released pets in the US and were recorded in 2004. Females are five times larger than males, growing up to 26 ft.

As an aquatic snake, its color gives is camouflage as it sits under or near the water’s edge. Using its body to constrict its prey, this large snake can prey on a large variety of animals: capybaras, tapirs, deer, reptiles, mammals, birds, fish, and sheep. With a slow acting metabolisms, snakes don’t have to eat for weeks or even months after a meal. This snake gives birth to live young as many as 28-82, and this coupled with its large size and prey items make it a dangerous candidate to watch for.

-

The yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) is also native to South America, and grows up to 15 ft. in length. Individuals in Florida originated as escaped/released pets. Animals are yellow, golden tan, or greenish yellow with black or dark brown saddles, spots, streaks or blotches markings. Like the green anaconda, individuals prefer aquatic habitats but can be found in forests preying on large animals like deer or pigs. Prey items include wading birds, caimans, bird eggs, small mammals, and fish.

References: Information gathered informally from online sources: SREL, USFWS, University of Florida, National Geographic, GA Invasive Species Strategy, and EDDmaps.

APPENDIX E 93

Invasive Aquatic Fauna priority list for Coastal Georgia Priority1Species that CISMA partners currently spend a significant amount of time and/or money on for some aspect of management or plans to spend on in the next five years.

FISH • Flathead catfish – Pylodictis olivaris Native to the Mississippi and Gulf basins of the United States, flathead catfish were introduced into other waterways in the 1950s for sport fishing. Animals are voracious, consuming anything that fits in their mouth, including crayfish and the smaller native catfish species. It has a flattened head, small eyes, and a square-like tail. It is the protruding lower jaw that distinguishes it from other catfish. Coloration is yellow brown and usually mottled from above with a creamy to white to yellow underbelly.

Priority2species are those that the organization deals with infrequently or attempts to control in selected high-priority areas (because they are thought to be lesser threats, or because they arewidespread and difficult to control).

NONE LISTED AT THIS TIME

APPENDIX E 94

Priority 3 species are those that are dealt with only in unusual circumstances, either because they represent minor threats or are essentially naturalized and impossible to control with current methods.

FISH • Blue catfish - Ictalurus furcatus Native to the rivers basins of Ohio, Missouri, and Mississippi, this species’ range also extends south into Mexico and South America. It is invasive in the Chesapeake Bay area, and other fish species’ populations declined there when it was introduced in the 1990s. Fish eat invertebrates and other fish, and usually weight 20-40 lbs. but supposedly can reach 100-350 lbs. Individuals have a forked tail fin, are bluish-grey to silvery-grey with a grey to white abdomen. The anal fin has 30 or more rays.

Considering its size and past history of invasion, this species should be monitored in other waterways.

• Channel catfish - Ictalurus punctatus Originating from Central and the Western United States, this species is invasive in Japan as it was introduced for aquaculture and the pet trade. Once established, populations feed on shrimp and small fish, depleting native species. Except for blue catfish, channel catfish are recognizable by their deeply forked tail fin. The upper jaw protrudes and coloration is olive-brown to slate-blue, fading to a silver white on the belly.

Sometimes, numerous small black dots are present. The anal fin has 24-29 rays, but never 30 or more. Adults are usually 15-24 in. long, but can get up to 52 in. This species is believed to have been introduced in areas as west as California, in the upper Rio Grande and Pecos river basins, and in the Atlantic Ocean drainage. This species could potentially be outcompeting other species and is using up resources meant for natives.

APPENDIX E 95

• Goldfish - Carassius auratus auratus Goldfish are widely introduced through aquarium dumping, and can carry fish diseases that can harm natives. Originating from China and Asia, only the fancy goldfish are bright orange.

Wild goldfish vary from gold to olive green or even white. It has a stiff, serrate spine at the origin of the dorsal and anal fins.

Observed goldfish may be hybrids between carp and the European goldfish subspecies. They reach 6-8 in. usually, and live 6-7 yrs. Goldfish tolerate high levels of turbidity, temperature fluctuations, and low oxygen levels. They are possibly somewhat saline-tolerant (17 ppt) as reported by locations on the coast of the Black Sea and the floodplain of the Russian Ob delta. Fish are omnivores and can impact native vegetation with their rooting efforts. Populations have the capacity to disturb habitats and outcompete natives.

• Grass carp - Ctenopharyngodon idella Introduced from Asia in 1963 to control plants in aquacultures in Alabama and Arkansas, fish escaped and compete with natives for food, uprooting vegetation that gives habitat for other species, increase turbidity, and deplete oxygen levels. Fish are also fast growing, growing from 9 in. to 29 in. in 16 months as they devour 40-300% of their body weight per day in plant material. All that eating results in an excess of waste, which contributes to algal blooms and oxygen drops. Animals can also harbor parasites that can infect natives. Silvery to olive in color, they have no barbels. It’s common that they reach 65-80 lbs. in their native range.

• Red-bellied pacus–Piaractus brachypomus (Colossoma spp.)

Also known as piranha, these fish were introduced to Florida as escaped pets from South America. As predators, they can take bites out of larger prey instead of having to swallow the prey whole, though in their native habitat, fish usually eat nuts and seeds. The lower jaw juts forward, forming a V at the angle.

APPENDIX E 96

• Western mosquitofish - Gambusia affinis Introduced to eat mosquito larvae in the 1900s, this species also eats a variety of other insect larvae, zooplankton, and aquatic plants, as well as preying on the eggs, larvae, and juveniles of native fish and amphibians. By eating zooplankton that graze on algae, mosquitofish indirectly facilitate algal blooms. Livebearers, fish give birth to live young, removing the vulnerable egg stage and giving them and edge. In addition, fish are known to be aggressive towards natives, even larger fish. Monitoring and prohibition is to be used to keep fish out of waterways that can lead to impacts on endangered or threatened species.

• Green sunfish - Lepomis cyanellus Native to central North America, this fish has been introduced throughout the country and world. In the US, individuals were accidentally stocked as bluegill as forage fish for smallmouth bass in fish farms, and as a sport fish. Animals have also escaped from flooded ponds or drainage ditches. Its body is elongate laterally compressed with a large mouth. The dorsal surface is brown to olive with black flecks; the sides are lighter and females have 7-12 vertical bars.

There are two broad dorsal fins that are joined, the first having 9-11 spines and the second with 10-12 rays. Pectoral fins are short and round. Anal fins have 3 spines and 9-10 rays. The pelvic fin has a single spine and 5 rays. In males, the dorsal, anal, and caudal fin margins are often yellow or orange. At the rear of the dorsal and anal fins, there is a dark spot. Fish can survive in low oxygen, high turbidity, and alkaline waters. Care should be taken.

• White perch - Morone americana Originating from the Atlantic coastal region of the United States, fish invaded the Great Lakes in the 1950s through the Erie and Welland canals.

Inland waters have been invaded due to unauthorized stocking. Adults grow to 7-12 in. long, and compete with native fish, causing population declines as they eat other fish eggs.

Animals also have the capacity to hybridize with the white bass in western Lake Erie. Fish are grayish green, dark along the back with silvery light mottled sides. Bellies are silver white and a bluish tint can be seen along the lower jaw. Unlike native bass, white perch do not have dark lines on their back or sides.

APPENDIX E 97

MOLLUSKS • Asian clam - Corbicula fluminea From Africa, Australia, and Asia, this species was first discovered in the US back in 1938, where it was possibly introduced as food.

Clams form dense colonies that clog waterways and outputs. By taking up space and resources for natives, it displaces them. Once reaching maturity (1-4 yrs), clams can produce both eggs and sperm, are able to self-fertilize, and can produce 2,000 young per day. Billions are spent clearing pipes of this species. • Channeled apple snail- Pomacea canaliculata An introduction from South America, this mollusk was introduced to Hawaii back in 1989 for the aquarium trade, but now can be found in southern and western states.

Animals feed on rice and taro seedlings, competing with native apple snails. Coloration is green to yellow to dark brown. They have deep groves between the whorls on their shell, and are distinguishable from other Pomacea species by these sutures that meet at an angle of less than 90 degrees. Sexes are separate, and females lay bright pink egg clusters above the water that contain 200-1000 eggs. Individuals grow up to 4 in, snacking on live and dead organic material. They can tolerate pollution and low oxygen levels and can estivate for up to five months when conditions are bad. • Island apple snail - Pomacea maculata As a globular snail native to South America, these snails were also introduced for the aquarium trade. Coloration is pale to dark olive green, sometimes with a faint band.

Dark spots are on the inside of their shell. While sometimes mistaken for P. canaliculata, these two can hybridize. Animals eat a large variety of aquatic plants.

Sexes are separate, and females lay clusters of pink eggs above the water, containing over 2000 eggs. Snails cannot tolerate temperatures below 50 F, and have been found in the southern states as well as Asia.

APPENDIX E 98

CRUSTACEANS • Red swamp crayfish - Procambarus clarkia Native to parts of Mexico and the United States, this crayfish has been introduced throughout the world for commercial food harvest. In other areas, it has been introduced to prey on snails that carry human schistosomes. Animals are aggressive competitors with native crayfish, introducing the crayfish plague, and having negative impacts on agriculture and fishing.

Dark red, adults grow to 2-5 in, and are fastgrowing, reaching weights greater than 50g in 3-5 months. Females can produce 100-500 eggs, and carry the eggs or young until they have completed two molts. This maternal care strategy and high fecundity facilitates its success. Omnivorous with a preference towards plants.

• Grey-speckled crayfish - Orconectes palmeri Native to the Lake Pontchartrain drainage of Louisiana, the Pascagoula River system of eastern Mississippi, and the Pearl River system of western Alabama, this species was also found in the Flint River in Georgia in 1999, probably introduced through bait buckets. This species uses up resources and displaces native crayfish.

Grey or greyish tan, this animal has many greenish black speckles and spots on the pincers, carapace, and abdomen. A pair of large blotches are just behind the head, and another near the junction of carapace and abdomen. Fingers are often creamyyellow at the tips. The carapace is not separated in the middle by a space (areola). Adults grow 1.5-2.5 in.

• Rusty crayfish - Orconectes rusticus Native to the Ohio River basin and most likely introduced through bait buckets and aquaculture, adults can grow up to 5 in. The carapace usually has a pair of rusty colored spots and the claw tips have black bands.

This species is an aggressive invader, feeding on native fish eggs and their young, displacing or hybridizing with native crayfish, and eating aquatic vegetation.

Coloration is green grey to reddish brown.

APPENDIX E 99

REPTILES • Red-eared slider – Trachemys scripta scripta A popular pet, this animal has been introduced around the world. Able to live 40 yrs. or more, many owners aren’t ready to handle them and set them loose. Characterized by yellow to red patches on the each side of the head, the carapace and skin are olive to brown with yellow stripes or spots. Males are smaller, with long, thick tails. Turtles can be found in brackish water to manmade canals, lakes, and park ponds. Generalist omnivores, turtles eat plants and animals, including algae, snails, snakes, and small vertebrates. Turtles displace native turtles, and can carry diseases or parasites.

Invasive Species Watch List Species are considered to be future threats if (1) they are not known to be present in the state (and there is not a formal program to prevent their occurrence) but they have been documented in other southeastern states and have been shown to have significant ecological, economic, or health impacts where they occur; or (2) the species is present in Georgia and is currently not considered a serious pest, but may become one based on its history in other states.

MAMMALS • Nutria – Myocastor coypus A large, dark, semiaquatic rodent, nutria originated from South America and were brought to the US in the early 1900s for fur ranchers, to control undesired vegetation, and to enhance trapping. Animals were freed or escaped from captivity as well as being introduced intentionally.

Their legs are short, but their bodies are arched and 24 in. long. Tails are round, 13-16 in. long, and scarcely haired. Weights average between 12-20 lbs. Their incisors are yellow-orange to orange-red. Nutria eat rice and sugarcane, costing thousands to millions of dollars. Nutria breed year-round and prefer freshwater marshes.

APPENDIX E 100

FISH • Bighead carp - Hypophthalmichthys nobilis Native to China, animals were brought to the US in the 1970s for aquaculture, and may have escaped as bait fish or misidentification. They can now be found in 23 states. Fish are large-bodied, fastgrowing, have a high fecundity, and have voracious appetites. They can jump out of the water, and the genus can be identified with their stout body, large head, small downward facing eyes, and large opercles. The bighead carp has a smooth keep between the anal and pelvic fins that does not extend anterior to the base of the pelvic fins. Individuals can weigh up to 1000 lbs. and grow 4 ft. long. With their large size and aggressiveness, fish outcompete natives and are opportunistic feeders of zoo and phytoplankton. Their large size also allows them to lay thousands of eggs at once.

• Silver carp - Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Introduced to the US in 1973 from Asia, this fish was also intended for aquaculture and phytoplankton control. It takes up food that is required for native fish and mussel species. This species has also been found to transmit Salmonella.

Swimming just beneath the water surface, fish are known for their ability to leap clear out of the water.

Some instances of this fish’s introduction is believed to be linked to a Buddhist ceremony where animals are released to lengthen the owner’s life.

Fish need freshwater with circulation for their eggs (up to 5000), and like bighead carp, they have specialized gill structures to catch plankton. They outcompete natives and alter communities.

• Black carp - Mylopharyngodon piceus Native to Asia, fish entered the US in the 1970s as stowaways in imported grass crap, but were later introduced intentionally as food and a biological control. This species can now be found in the Great Lakes and Mississippi River. Fish prey on mussels and snails, many of which are endangered or threatened. Blackish brown to blackish grey, black carp have elongated and laterally compressed bodies. They can grow up to 5 ft. long and weigh up to 150 lbs. Individuals can live for up to 15 yrs. Juveniles feed on zooplankton and insects, while adults feed on benthic invertebrates, providing a wider scale of destruction of resources. They eat 20% of their body weight each day, and are explosive breeders, laying hundreds of thousands of eggs in one clutch.

APPENDIX E 101

• Northern snakehead - Channa argus From China, Korea, and Russia, this fish showed up in the US as early as 1997. Preferring slow moving bodies of water and wetlands, it can survive in water temperatures from 32F86F, even underneath ice. They can grow up to 60 in. and weigh 17 lbs. Snakelike heads have mouths with sharp teeth. The tail is truncated and adults are golden tan to dull brown or olive. Irregular dark spots occur along the sides and saddle-like spots along the back.

Animals can live out of water for days, crossing mud to search for new homes, and can eat frogs, birds, and small mammals.

This species preys on fish, crustaceans, invertebrates, and amphibians, taking a toll on natives.

• Walking catfish - Clarias batrachus Native to Southeast Asia, they came to the US in the 1960s for the aquarium trade. They grow 14-24 in. long. Part of a family that is scaleless and has four pairs of barbels, this fish can breathe air with a labyrenthic organ. They can “walk” from one water body to another during wet seasons with their fins. It does not have an adipose fin. They are omnivorous, feeding on fish, invertebrates, mollusks, detritus, and aquatic weeds. Established in Florida, they devour anything in sight and given their ability to walk across land, pose a verifiable threat to biodiversity.

• Asian swamp eel - Monopterus albus argentine From Asia, animals were found in 1994 in Georgia’s Chattahoochee River drainage, and later that decade was found in Florida. Introductions were probably released pets or escaped animals from food-fish farms. Asian swamp eels do not have pectoral fins, and they have a simple V-shaped gill opening as well as teeth. Most Florida individuals are olive brown in color with yellow orange bellies. A few are brightly colored with orange, pink, and calico. Adults reach 39 in. and hunt at night, feeding on fish, crayfish, amphipods, fish eggs, insects, plants, detritus, mollusks, turtles, snakes, and frogs.

As a sequential hermaphrodite, all eels are born as females and later turn into males. This, coupled with their wide diet, makes it difficult to limit the population. In addition, animals breathe air with an organ at the rear of their mouths.

APPENDIX E 102

• Red shiner - Cyprinella lutrensis A homegrown invasive, this fish originated from the middle and southwestern US. It eats crustaceans and insects, but will prey on the eggs and juveniles of other fish. Olive green above and with silver sides, adults grow 3.5 in. and mature in 1-2 yrs. with a lifespan of 3 yrs.

Males turn blueish with red fins during spawning.

Females can lay up to 19 clutches per season, averaging over 500 eggs each. Introduced as a bait fish, shiners have the potential to increase their populations rapidly, displacing natives and possibly hybridizing with native Cyprinella spp.

• Blue tilapia-Oreochromis aureus Native to North Africa and the Middle East, this fish is grey-blue with a lighter color towards the belly. Dark broken lines can run vertically along the body. The edges of the dorsal and caudal fins are red to pink. The spiny dorsal fin and soft dorsal fin are joined. Males can reach 20 in. long and are longer than females. Animals breed in fresh or brackish water.

Females lay 160-1600 eggs and then carry them in their mouths until they hatch three days later and young are 0.4 in. long. Even after that, young remain by the mother for 5 days after that. Fish were likely introduced as food. Mostly herbivorous, some will eat zooplankton, and young will eat invertebrates. Given its maternal care and high fecundity, this species should be monitored.

• Nile tilapia - Oreochromis niloticus A fast-growing species from Africa, this fish was introduced as a food but has escaped cultivation. It has distinctive, vertical stripes extending as far down the body as the caudal fin, with variable colors. Adults grow up to 24 in. long and can weigh 9.5 lbs. Living up to 9 years, it can tolerate brackish water and can survive temperatures 46-108 F. As an omnivore, it eats plankton and plants, and can become an invasive. Living in shallow waters and diurnal, populations can quickly overpopulate, and some may become nocturnal to find food. Like other tilapia, Nile tilapia are maternal mouth brooders.

APPENDIX E 103

• Yellow bass - Morone mississippiensis First described in the Mississippi River, yellow bass may have yellow bellies. Unlike other temperate bass, the two lowermost stripes are distinctively broken just posterior to the middle. The second and third anal spines are approx. equal in length. Fish were introduced to the west, north, and east. Able to reach 18 inches, most grow to 11 in. and average half a pound. Foraging on invertebrates and small fishes, bass displace natives by eating resources. It’s also possible it can hybridize with other bass. http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/aquatics/snakehead_child.shtml

MOLLUSKS • Zebra mussel - Dreissena polymorpha Native to the Caspian Sea, these mussels were introduced into the Great Lakes in the mid-1980s in ship ballasts.

They’ve spread to 20 states and into Canada. Animals can live out of water for a month as long as they’re not subjugated to heat or extreme dehydration. Tiny, they can be attached to hitchhiking aquatic plants, or as larvae in bilges, live wells, and other water or cooling systems.

Adults are triangular in shape and about the size of an adult fingernail and up to 2 in. They threaten native wildlife by consuming food and smothering out natives. They can clog pipes and intakes, costing millions to fix.

• Giant east African snail - Achatina fulica Native to – yes – Africa, they first arrived in Hawaii and the US in the 1900s. They were brought for the pet trade and might have stowed away on cargo. One of the top 100 most invasive species, adults grow around 3 in. tall and 8 in. long. The shell is conical, twice as high as broad, and is mostly right-handed (dextral). Coloration varies with diet, but most are brown and banded. Shells have the highest metal content of any snail sp. Snails eat plants, including fruits and vegetables. As hermaphrodites, a single female can form a colony. They can store sperm for up to two years, and a clutch can be made up of 200 eggs, laying 5-6 per year. In times of drought, animals can aestivate for up to three years by sealing its shell with a calcerous, quick drying compound. Snails can harbor a parasitic nematode that causes meningitis in humans.

APPENDIX E 104

• Amber snail – Calcisuccinea dominicensis Introduced from Haiti and the Dominican Republic, these snails breed rapidly in greenhouses or nurseries, eating fruits and horticultural crops. The shell is succiniform (higher than wide and with a large mouth), obtaining a height of 10 mm and a width of 7 mm with 3.25 whorls.

Coloration is tan to pale brown, smooth and glossy. Prolific breeders. Its shell is thicker than other species.

• Chinese mystery snail - Cipangopaludina chinensis malleata From Southeast Asia, this species can to the US in the 1900s from releases or escapes, but was likely sold in the San Francisco Chinese food market in the late 1800s as well. Shells are large and globose with 6-7 whorls and an inner coloration of white to pale blue. Juveniles are lighter than adults, finally turning olive green, green brown, brown, or reddish brown. Juvenile shells have a last whorl that display a distinct carina, and the shell has grooves with 20 striae/mm between each groove. They also have a detailed pattern on their periostracum of 2 apical and 3 body whorl rows of hairs with hooks on the ends. Adults reach 2.5 in. Snails feed on organic and inorganic material as well as algae. It can tolerate stagnant waters near septic tanks. Females are ovoviviparous and give birth up to 102 young at a time. It has proven to be a host for an intestinal trematode and trematode larvae.

APPENDIX E 105

Invasive Marine Fauna priority list for coastal Georgia Priority 1 Species that CISMA partners currently spend a significant amount of time and/or money on for some aspect of management or plans to spend on in the next five years.

FISH •

Red Lionfish Pterois volitans – Recognizable with its red and white zebra stripes, this fish has long, elaborate fins and venomous spines. Reaching 12-15 in. and living near rocky coral areas, this is still a popular pet in the aquarium trade. Native to the Pacific Ocean, this species entered the West Atlantic through ship ballasts or aquarium releases. Some animals have been recorded in bays, estuaries, and harbors. As a solitary predator, it feeds on small fish, shrimps, and crabs. Native species are in danger of being outcompeted or eaten by this predator.

CRUSTACEANS

•

Asian Tiger ShrimpPenaeus monodon – From the Indo-Pacific, this species has invaded the northern Gulf of Mexico and the western Atlantic Ocean. In its native range, it is heavily cultivated for food.

Individuals grow 8-13 in. and weigh 3.5-6 oz. The carapace and abdomen are transversely banded with alternate red and white. Antennae are grey brown.

Pereiopods and pleopods are brown with fringing setae in red. Color changes of dark brown and black are common. Animals threaten native shrimp industries with potential diseases and take resources intended for natives.

APPENDIX E 106

Priority 2 Species that the organization deals with infrequently or attempts to control in selected high-priority areas (because they are thought to be lesser threats, or because they are widespread and difficult to control).

NONE LISTED AT THIS TIME.

Priority 3 Species are those that are dealt with only in unusual circumstances, either because they represent minor threats or are essentially naturalized and impossible to control with current methods.

MOLLUSKS •

Green MusselPerna viridis – Native to Asia, this species has been introduced worldwide on boat hulls and in ship ballasts. Shells are 3-4 in. in length and sometimes up to 6.5 in. The shell ends in a downward pointing beak. The periostracum is dark green and turns brown towards the umbo where it is lighter. Younger mussels are dark green, darkening with age.The shell interior has a blue sheen. Animals have a foot to climb vertically with should they be buried. Byssus is also produced for attachment. Mussels are fast-growing and are harvested in their native range for food, but can harbor a deadly Saxitoxin. Mussels clog water pipes and found marine equipment. Their waste can also accelerate the corrosion of copper-based pipes. It displaces natives and can introduce diseases and parasites.

APPENDIX E 107

•

Charua MusselMytella charruana – From South America, this bivalve prefers shallow lagoons and mudflats in bays. Arriving by ship ballast, they have the capability to outcompete natives and foul equipment and pipes.

Mussels are brown, light green, yellow, or black and can be uniform or banded. It doesn’t have distinct exterior ribs or ridges and the inside of the shell is iridescent purple.

CRUSTACEANS •

Titan Acorn BarnacleMegabalanus coccopoma –Native to the Pacific Ocean and the west coast of the USA, this species has spread to the Atlantic. Capable of growing 2 in. wide and tall, acorn barnacles are a colorful pink. Specimens probably arrived on ship hulls or in ship ballasts. They use up food and space intended for natives and cause potential fouling issues, especially with their large size. With them comes the potential large cost of removing and maintaining them.

•

Green Porcelain CrabPetrolisthes armatus–Native to South America, this crab occurs in subtidal and intertidal habitats and probably was introduced through ship ballasts or mollusk cargoes. It is a small, flat crab, usually orangebrown to dark brown as an adult with a speckled and somewhat lighter appearance as a juvenile. They can be olive to dark green in color. Mouthparts of adult crabs are a brilliant blue, and the chelae (pincers) each have a distinct orange spot visible when they are open. Particular to the family, the antennae are outside the eyes, not between them. Adults are 0.2-0.2 in. wide and weigh 0.3-0.6 g. Populations in South Carolina may be double that, but regardless, females can mature at 0.1-0.2 in. wide. Populations are proved to sky from tens or hundreds of individuals in the winter to thousands or tens of thousands in the summer. As plankton feeders, crabs take away resources meant for native species, and with their potential for large numbers, they may displace species entirely.

APPENDIX E 108

•

Striped BarnacleAmphibalanus amphitrite – Origins are unclear since this animal is now worldwide, but fossils put this species in the Indian Ocean or southwestern Pacific Ocean. It is medium, cone-shaped, and sessile with distinctive narrow vertical purple or brown stripes. The surface has vertical ribbing. The operculum is diamond shaped and protected by a movable lid of two triangular plates. Diameter is around 0.8 in. It takes up space on hard and live structures (mangrove roots) as well as on manmade structures like boat hulls, pilings, and seawalls.

Because of its ease of growth and captivity, and its tendency to foul equipment, it is considered invasive.

•

Triangle barnacle Balanus trigonus – Conical in shape with six shell plates, this barnacle is pink. It is another potential contender for resources and may displace natives. Growing to 0.75 in. in diameter, its distinguishing features include its triangular shaped opening and the rows of small pits the internal plates that close the shell have. It can also foul boats, buoys, and other equipment, costing people thousands of dollars or more to fix.

•

A parasitic barnacle, Loxothylacus panopaei – From the Gulf of Mexico, this species reached the eastern US likely through the transport of infected crabs in oyster shipments.

Though it looks nothing like a barnacle, it infects newly molted mud crabs, sterilizing them, and producing a sac that protrudes from the crab’s abdomen, where thousands of larvae are produced.

This is the only visible sign of the parasite. Infected crabs have been found as north as the Chesapeake Bay. It’s likely this will affect crab populations and predators further up the food chain.

APPENDIX E 109

POLYCHAETES •

Australian tubewormFicopomatus enigmaticus –Likely native to the Indian Ocean and the coasts of Australia, this species is now worldwide. It dominates and changes habitats, reducing water quality, using up resources, and playing a hand in biofouling. Usually 0.8-1 in. long but sometimes 1.6 in. They’re topped by 20 branching gill plumes that are green, grey, or brown. The worms secrete their calcerous tubes that are usually 4 in. long by 0.8 in. wide. These tubes are white but turn brown with age, flared at the opening and with flaring rings along the length. The mouth can be sealed with an operculum. Individuals live in colonies, creating reefs. Tolerating a wide range of salinities, they prefer brackish and are sensitive to wave action. They can occur on rocks, shells, woody debris, reefs, oysters, docks, piers, and boats. Reports have surfaced of them growing on plants, snails, and clams. As protandric hermaphrodites, they start out male and then turn into females, living 4-8 yrs. One specimen has been found in Georgia.

Invasive Species Watch List Species are considered to be future threats if (1) they are not known to be present in the state (and there is not a formal program to prevent their occurrence) but they have been documented in other southeastern states and have been shown to have significant ecological, economic, or health impacts where they occur; or (2) the species is present in Georgia and is currently not considered a serious pest, but may become one based on its history in other states.

APPENDIX E 110

CRUSTACEANS •

Spiny hands crab, Indo-Pacific CrabCharybdis hellerii –

Swimming

Native to the Indo-Pacific, crabs were brought to the West Atlantic sometime in the 1980s by ship ballasts from eastern Mediterranean ports. Carapaces are hexagonal and convcave, with a mottled brown grey coloration.

Much is still unknown, though it is accepted as an invasive, its direct effects beyond likely using up natives’ resources are yet to be explored. It has been found in North and South Carolina as well as Florida. Males grow up to 3 in. (carapace).

•

Chinese mitten crabEriocheir sinensis – From the Pacific coast of China and Korea, his species is another that was likely introduced through ship ballast water and releases. Named for its furry claws that resemble mittens, these are covered with dark setae. Carapaces are 1-4 in. wide, the size of a human palm. Animals spend most of the time in freshwater, migrating in their 4-5th year to estuaries. After mating there, females go into the sea, overwintering there and returning in the spring to the estuaries with their eggs. Larvae gradually move into freshwater.Animals only breed once in their lifetime, but have large amounts of eggs. As omnivores, crabs eat worms, mussels, snails, organic material, and other fish. Listed as Injurious Wildlife, this crab has been known to interfere with fish salvage operations, fish passage facilities, and power and water treatment plants. Currently found in the Great Lakes and in the Chesapeake Bay.

APPENDIX E 111

•

Green CrabCarcinus maenas–Introduced from Europe in the 1800s by sailing ships, and since then are believed to have caused dramatic declines in the soft shell clam fishery. Invaded as far north as Nova Scotia and the west coast, they fed on mollusks, crustaceans, green algae, and polychaetes, their dispersal aided with their floating larval stage. El Nino furthered their range, taking them up to Washington and the British Columbia estuaries. Young oysters are vulnerable to this predator, as one crab can dig down six inches and eat 40 half-inch oysters a day. Smaller shore crabs and clams are also predated upon. Coloration can vary from red to a dark mottled green, so the five spines on each side of the shell are distinctive. Three rounded lobes are found between the eyes, and the last pair of legs are flatter. The carapace is wider than it is long, 3.5-4 in. across.

•

Asian Shore Crab Hemigrapsus sanguineus –From Asia, this crab has invaded the Carolinas and further north through Rhode Island, probably through ship ballasts in the late 1900s. Crabs are found in the subtidal and intertidal rocky shoreline, and even seawalls and artificial reefs, tolerating a broad range of temperatures and salinities. As omnivores, crabs eat algae, mollusks, polychaetes, and small fish. Females can have 2-4 clutches per season, each having up to 50,000 eggs that hatch into planktonic larvae. Its aggressive nature allows it to outcompete native invertebrates and it can even feed on larval lobsters, which are important commercially.

Carapaces are 2 in. wide with three teeth along the forward sides. Light and dark bands mark the pereiopods.

•

Oriental ShrimpPalaemon macrodactylus – Native to Asia, this species was first recorded in the US in the 1950s on the west coast. Animals can tolerate large ranges in temperature, oxygen, and salinity. They also have a long breeding season and high reproductive capacity. Mostly carnivorous, shrimp will turn to each other when food is low. Oriental shrimp outcompete other shrimp for resources, and harm commercial harvests. Coloration is red to brown to green to blue-green or even grey or olivegreen. Larvae are distinctive with a hook-like process on their third abdominal somite in the 2nd to 8th stage zoea that isn’t present in any natives. This species spreads easily once introduced, even with fish and bird predators.

Males grow up to 1.5 in. and females to 2.7 in.

APPENDIX E 112

•

Reticulated BarnacleAmphibalanus reticulatus – Also called the striped barnacle or purple acorn barnacle, this species has distinctive narrow vertical purple or brown stripes. The test has vertical ribbing and a diamond shaped operculum. They grow to 0.78 in. in diameter. Origins are unknown, but fossils are in the Indian Ocean and southwest Pacific; this species is worldwide now. Purple acorn barnacles foul ships and other manmade structures such as pipes, costing money to remove and fix them.

MOLLUSKS •

Asian Rapa WhelkRapana venosa – Native to the western Pacific ocean, this is another species that probably arrived through ship ballast water in the late 1900s. As a mollusk itself, it preys on clams, oysters, and mussels and has been found in the Chesapeake Bay. The shell is globose and heavy, with a large body whorl and a large ovate aperture.

Smooth spiral ribs end in blunt knobs at both the shoulder and body whorl, and internally as small elongated teeth along the outer lip margin. Coloration is grey to red-brown, with dark brown dashes on the spiral ribs. Some individuals can have a distinctive black/blue vein pattern throughout the inner portions of the shell, usually starting at the individual teeth at the outer lip. The deep orange color in the aperture and on the columella is a diagnostic for this species. Shells can be 7 in. high.

Tolerating low salinities, low oxygen levels, and water pollution, females can lay multiple egg cases each season, each with 200-1000 eggs. Their tough shell gives them protection against native whelk and sea turtles, leaving the latter to only prey on natives.

This whelk can cause a decline in native mollusks and affects predators further up the food chain.

APPENDIX E 113

•

Brown Mussel Perna perna– Originally from Africa, South America, and Europe, this mussel is harvested as a food source, but can contain toxins and foul equipment and structures. It was introduced through boat hulls and ship ballasts.Growing 3.5-4.7 in.

Easily recognized by its brown color, the species also has a divided posterior retractor mussel scar. Its resillal ridge is pitted and also differentiates it. As a biofouling agent, it increases surface area and allows more biofouling organisms to settle.

COELENTERATES •

Australian spotted jellyfishPhyllorhiza punctata – Originating from Australia and the Philippines, this jellyfish was first found in the US in 1981 in California but now is on the southeast coast as well. It was likely introduced through the Panama Canal on the hulls of ships and ship ballasts. Spotted jellyfish preys on native zooplankton species and further impact the shrimp industry by clogging nets and damaging fishing equipment. The bell is clear or brown (the latter color resulting from symbiotic zooxanthellae), growing to 13.7 in. wide and sometimes twice that in Gulf waters, with many small white, refractive spots near the surface. The physical threat to humans is minor: stings are mild or unnoticeable. In tropical waters, this species may be reproducing year-round, lending the possibility of unexpected population blooms. They may be outcompeting natives and preying on important or threatened/endangered species.

APPENDIX E 114

Citations Moreira, Inês & Monteiro, Ana & Sousa, E. (1999). Chemical control of common reed (Phragmites australis) by foliar herbicides under different spray conditions.

Hydrobiologia. 415. 299-304. 10.1023/A:1003832611162.

McDaniel, K. C. (2008) Saltcedar information In Weed Information, New Mexico State Univ. Web site. URL < http://agesvr1.nmsu.edu/saltcedar/Index.htm>. Accessed 2-2-09.

Chu, Jian-jun, Yi Ding, and Qi-jia Zhuang. “Invasion and Control of Water Hyacinth (Eichhornia Crassipes) in China .” Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B 7.8 (2006): 623–626. PMC. Web. 2 Oct. 2017.

Cousins, M. M., J. Briggs, T. Whitwell, J. Whetstone, and C. Gresham. 2010.

Reestablishment potential of beach vitex (Vitex rotundifolia) following removal and control efforts. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. In press.

Cousins, M. M., C. A. Gresham, M. B. Riley, and T. Whitwell. 2009. Beach dune sand hydrophobicity due to the presence of beach vitex (Vitex rotundifolia L. f.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 57:409–415.

Cousins, M., T. Whitwell, and J. Briggs. 2006. Control of beach vitex with postemergence herbicides. Pages 413–416 in Proceedings of the 51st Annual Southern Nursery Association Research Conference. Atlanta, GA: Southern Nursery Association.

Miller, J.H., S.T. Manning, and S.F. Enloe. 2010. A Management Guide for Invasive Plants in Southern Forests. General Technical Report SRS–131. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Asheville, NC. 120 pp.

Pannill, P.D. and J.M. Swearingen. 2009. Least Wanted: Tree-of-Heaven Fact Sheet. Plant Conservation Alliance. Available at http://www.nps.gov/plants Swearingen, J. 2009. WeedUS Database of Plants Invading Natural Areas in the United States: Chinaberry (Melia azedarach). http://www.invasive.org/weedus/subject.html?sub=3049 Franklin B. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, Norton Critical Edition. (Chaplin J).

New York: W. W. Norton; 2012.

Pesticides updated by Joey Williamson, HGIC Horticulture Extension Agent, Clemson University, 10/16. Prepared by Morgan E. Judy, Extension Agent, Orangeburg County Extension Office, Clemson University. New 02/09. Images added 3/09 & 11/13.

APPENDIX E 115

Identification and Biology of Nonnative Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas – Second Edition, by K.A. Langeland, H.M. Cherry, et al. University of Florida-IFAS Publication # SP 257. 2008.

Enloe, Stephan. Alabama A & M and Auburn Universities. Control options for Chinese Privet.

Alabama Cooperative Extension System. ANR 1468. April 2013.

Hutchinson, J. T., K. A. Langeland, and M. Miesenberg. 2011. Field trials for herbicide control of coral ardisia (Ardisia crenata) in natural areas of north-central Florida. Invasive Plant Sci Mgmt.

4:234-238.

Theresa M. Culley, Nicole A. Hardiman; The Beginning of a New Invasive Plant: A History of the Ornamental Callery Pear in the United States, BioScience, Volume 57, Issue 11, 1 December 2007, Pages 956–964, https://doi.org/10.1641/B571108 https://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/loja.htm Barden, L. S. and J. F. Matthews. 1980. Change in abundance of honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and other ground flora after prescribed burning of a piedmont pine forest. Castanea the tree host Liquadambar stryraciflua. Oecologia 93:48-54.45: 257-260.

Dillenberg L.R., D.F. Whigham, A.H. Teramura, I.N. Forseth. 1993. Effects of below- and aboveground competition from the vines Lonicera japonica and Parthenocissus quinquefolia on the growth of Czarapata, E. J. 2005. Invasive plants of the upper midwest: an illustrated guide to their identification and control. The University of Wisconsin Press. 215 pp.

Collins, Christi. 1994. Some notes on Hedera helix The English ivy. The Nature Conservancy.

Wilcut, J.W., R.R. Dute, B. Truelove, and D.E. Davis. 1988. Factors limiting the distribution of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) and torpedograss (Panicum repens). Weed Science 36:49-55.

Tarver, D.P., 1979. Torpedograss (Panicum repens L.). Aquatics 1:5-6.

Holm, Leroy G., D. L. Plucknett, J. V. Pancho, and J. P. Herberger. 1977. The world's worst weeds: distribution and biology. East-West Center/ University Press of Hawaii. pp. 353-357.

Air Potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) Management Plan – Recommendations from the Air Potato Task Force, Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, April 2008 (updated February, 2014). Overholt, W. A., L. Markle, M. Meisenberg, L. Raz, G. Wheeler, R. Pemberton, J. Taylor, M. King, D. Schmitz, G. R. Parks, M. Rayamajhi, E. Rohrig, E. Lake, M. Smith, K. Hibbard, T. D. Center, V. Manrique, R. Diaz and F. A. Dray. 2014. www.fleppc.org/publications.

APPENDIX E 116

Jonathan E. Hickman, Shiliang Wu, Loretta J. Mickley, and Manuel T. Lerdau Kudzu (Pueraria montana) invasion doubles emissions of nitric oxide and increases ozone pollutionPNAS 2010 107 (22) 10115-1 DiTomaso, J.M., G.B. Kyser et al. 2013. Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States. Weed Research and Information Cener, University of California. 544 pp.

Schmitz, D. C. 1994. Ecological explosion: invasive alien plants! Pp.2. In: Schmitz D. C. and T. C. Brown (eds.), An Assessment of Invasive Non-Indigenous Species in Floridaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Public Lands, Tech.

Report No. TSS-94-100. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, FL. The Nature Conservancy: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/ regions/northamerica/unitedstates/indiana/ journeywithnature/white-mulberry.xml Smith, L., R. Sobhian, and M. Cristofaro. 2006. Prospects for biological control of Russian thistle (tumbleweed). California Invasive Plant Council Symposium Nov. 1, 2006. 41:120-133. Available online from the United States Department of Agriculture-Agriculture Research Service.

Accessed Dec 12, 2007.

DiTomaso, J. M., and E. A. Healy. 2007.Weeds of California and other Western States. Oakland: Univ. Calif. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ. 3488.

Rhodes, W. A., E. F. Frolich, and A. Walice. 1967. Russian thistle seeds.Calif. Agric. 21(4):2.

CABI Invasive Species Compendium online data sheet. Opuntia ficus-indica (prickly pear). CABI Publishing 2011. www.cabi.org/ISC. Accessed March 2011.

GISD (2005). Global Invasive Species Database online data sheet. Opuntia ficus-indica (interim profile). www.issg.org/database. Accessed March 2011.

Langeland, K. A. 2001. Natural Area Weeds: Distinguishing Native and Non-Native "Boston Ferns" and "Sword Ferns" (Nephrolepis spp.). EDIS Publication SS-AGR-22. Agronomy Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Elmore, C. L., J. J. Stapleton, C. E. Bell, and J. E. DeVay. 1997. Soil Solarization: A Nonpesticidal Method for Controlling Diseases, Nematodes, and Weeds. Oakland: Univ. Calif. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ. 21377.

UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Turfgrass. Oakland: Univ. Calif. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ.

3365-T. Swearingen, J., C. Bargeron. 2016 Invasive Plant Atlas of the United States. University of Georgia Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. http://www.invasiveplantatlas.org/

APPENDIX E 117

Mathieson, A.C., Pederson, J.R., Neefus, C.D., Dawes, C.J. & Bray, T.L. (2008). Multiple assessments of introduced seaweeds in the Northwest Atlantic. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 730–741.. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65: 730-741, 5 figs.

Rueness, J. (2010). DNA barcoding of select freshwater and marine red algae (Rhodophyta). Cryptogamie, Algologie 31(4): 377-386.

Miller, James H. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests- A Field Guide for Identification and Control, FS SRS=62. P. 27 & 79, Glossary of Palm Terms; Based on the glossary in Dransfield, J., N.W. Uhl, C.B. Asmussen-Lange, W.J. Baker, M.M. Harley & C.E. Lewis. 2008. Genera Palmarum - Evolution and Classification of the Palms. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. All images copyright of the artists and photographers (see images for credits).

Glassman, S.F. 1979. Re-evaluation of the Genus Butia With a Description of a New Species.

Principes 23: 65-79 Identification and Biology of Nonnative Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas – Second Edition,

by K.A. Langeland, H.M. Cherry, et al. University of Florida-IFAS Publication # SP 257. 2008. https://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/plant-directory/dioscorea-alata/ Information gathered informally and from online sources: GADNR, GA Invasive Species Strategy, GA – Exotic Pest Plant Council Zhengyi, Wu/Raven, Peter H./Deyuan, Hong. 2013. Flora of China Mito, Toshikazu/Uesugi, Tetsuro. 2004. Invasive alien species in Japan: the status quo and the new regulation for prevention of their adverse effects. Global Environmental Research 8(2)/2004: 171-191.

Swearingen, J., C. Bargeron. 2016 Invasive Plant Atlas of the United States. University of Georgia Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. http://www.invasiveplantatlas.org/ Strangers in Paradise, Impact and Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida, Chapter 2: Florida’s Invasion by Nonindigenous Plants: History, Screening, and Regulation, by D.R. Gordon and K.P. Thomas, pp. 21-37. Island Press, Washington, DC, 1997.

Price, P., Florida Invasive Plant Week: Kalanchoe Feb, 2017 http://www.gtmnerr.org/fl-invasive-plant-week/ Barger, T.W., D.D. Spaulding, and B.D. Holt. 2013. The vascular flora of the Perdido River Forever Wild tract, Baldwin County, Alabama. Castanea 78: 119-133.

Hyland, B. P. M.; Whiffin, T.; Zich, F. A.; et al. (Dec 2010). "Factsheet – Scaevola taccada". Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants. Edition 6.1, online version [RFK 6.1]. Cairns, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), through its Division of Plant Industry; the Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research; the Australian Tropical Herbarium, James Cook University. Retrieved 16 Mar 2013.

Wang JJ; Ferrell J; MacDonald G; Sellers B, 2009. Factors affecting seed germination of cadillo (Urena lobata). Weed Science, 57(1):31-35. http://wssa.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=getabstract&doi=10.1614%2FWS-08-092.1 Guang-Xi Wang, Hiroaki Watanabe, Akira Uchino, Kazuyuki Itoh, Response of a Sulfonylurea (SU)-Resistant Biotype of Limnophila sessiliflora to Selected SU and Alternative Herbicides, Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, Volume 68, Issue 2, October 2000, Pages 59-66, ISSN 0048-3575, http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/pest.2000.2504. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048357500925045) APPENDIX E 118

APPENDIX F SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

119

Appendix F. Summary of Management Strategies Strategy ID

Description Island-Wide Management Objective A - Adapt to anticipated impacts of climate change and sea-level rise

Timeframe

Strategy A-1

Set and periodically update sea-level rise planning parameters for height of rise within a specified timeframe.

Short-Term

Strategy A-2

Revise the Jekyll Island Design Guidelines to require, prior to concept approval, that sea-level rise and coastal flooding resiliency analysis be provided and vetted through the Environmental Assessment Procedure (see Chapter 7), for any new development, re-development, or major infrastructure projects that could be impacted within the planning parameters. The EAP Review Team may accept an analysis derived from a prior project if the circumstances and project specifications are sufficiently similar. The JIA may draw upon resources offered by institutional partners, such as Georgia DNR, when conducting such analyses for its own projects.

Short-Term

Strategy A-3

Identify vegetation communities and priority species most at risk from climate change and sea-level rise.

Mid-Term

Strategy A-4

Identify lands that can be made available to accommodate wetland and marsh migration due to sea-level rise.

Strategy A-5

Maintain awareness of and pursue innovative approaches, including nature-based engineering, to be implemented instead of traditional methods when long term costs and benefits are favorable, to sustaining priority species and the habitats they depend upon.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy A-6

Manage species and habitats for ecological resiliency in a changing climate.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy A-7

Conserve habitat extent and diversity to support the adaptability of native wildlife and plant populations to a changing climate.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy A-8 Strategy A-9

Contribute to advancing the state of knowledge about climate impacts and the responses of wildlife and plants to changing climate and associated extremes of weather.

Mitigate environmental threats and stresses that are not primarily climate-change driven to reduce cumulative negative pressures acting on native wildlife and plant populations.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Short-Term; Ongoing Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy A-10

Promote public awareness as well as individual and collective action to safeguard native wildlife and plants in a changing climate.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy A-11

Serve as an innovative leader in Glynn County and coastal Georgia in preparation for and resiliency to climate and sea-level rise impacts.

Objective B - Implement a Comprehensive Fire Management Program

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy B-1

Create and implement a fire management program that identifies portions of the Island where fire will be actively suppressed vs. prescribed, fire control measures, desired timing and seasonality of prescribed fire, and mechanical management activities; implement prescribed fire and/or mechanical fuel reduction measures on an ongoing basis consistent with the timing and seasonality identified in the comprehensive fire management plan.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy B-2

Establish a GIS database for recent fires and fuel reduction management activities to document the date conducted, area burned from prescribed fire or wildfire, and/or area treated with mechanical fuel reduction measures.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy B-3

Determine whether existing policies or ordinances need to be revised to accommodate the Island-wide fire management protocol.

Short-Term APPENDIX F 120

Strategy B-4

Strategy C-1

Develop protocol for rapid response to wildfire ignition and processes to quickly evaluate if a fire needs intervention and to decide what nature of intervention is appropriate.

Objective C - Minimize Habitat Fragmentation/Loss Use the management recommendations for the six Management Units described below, Conservation Priority Areas (CPAs, see Chapter 7), and other criteria associated with the landscape-scale evaluation in the Environmental Assessment Procedure (EAP) along with 2018 JIA Capacity Study products, to provide input regarding proposed land classification changes and updates to the Jekyll Island Master Plan.

Short-Term

Short-Term

Strategy C-2

Prevent new or expanded development from occurring in CPAs or otherwise degrading CPAs.

Strategy C-3

Add lands designated for conservation and passive outdoor recreation, as identified in the proposed 2020 Golf Master Plan, to the CPAs.

Strategy C-4

Identify and pursue legal mechanisms designed to strengthen CPAs as a durable bulwark against overdevelopment or overexploitation of Jekyll Islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most valuable green spaces at the expense of their public and/or ecological value.

Short-Term

Strategy C-5

Design green spaces within the footprint of lands classified as Developed, to enhance outdoor recreation opportunities and facilitate connectivity across the island for car-free mobility of visitors and residents.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy C-6

Promote the business mindset within the JIA decision-making structure of doing more with less, by continuing to optimize revenue growth without expanding development, or even allowing for the contraction of the development footprint.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy C-7

Update Jekyll Island Authority ordinances to protect natural resources and assess need for any new ordinances.

Short-Term

Strategy C-8

Strategy C-9 Strategy C-10

Implement the EAP review for any proposed new development or redevelopment, renovation or remodeled residential and commercial projects with potential for significant negative impacts to natural resources or the JIAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ability to carry forward this Plan.

Adopt specific stormwater guidelines and integrate JIA policies and plans with the Georgia Coastal Stormwater Supplement to maintain appropriate freshwater/brackish inputs, water quality, and water quantity for wetland systems on or surrounding the Island Identify and act on opportunities to implement protective measures designed to reduce roadway mortality of wildlife.

Objective D â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Manage invasive-exotic plants and animals and dominant-native species

Short-Term; Ongoing Mid-Term

Short-Term; Ongoing

Mid-Term Mid-Term

Sustain the qualitative monitoring program to identify the locations, extent occupied, and/or occurrences of invasive plant and wildlife exotic species on the Island and develop a GIS database of existing exotic plant and wildlife species locations for long-term tracking.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy D-2

Strategically prioritize efforts with the goal of ecologically eradicating the most damaging plant invaders and controlling the spread of those that cannot be eradicated.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy D-3

Continue to improve the efficacy of chemical treatment methods favoring a targeted, rather than broadcast, approach to application whenever possible.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy D-4

Seek opportunities to restore historical native communities as a part of the longterm solution to invasive, exotic species control.

Strategy D-1

Short-Term; Ongoing APPENDIX F 121

Monitor for exotic species found in the region that are not yet on the island and prepare contingency plans to proactively address if found. Early detection and rapid response to remove new infestations is key to success.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Continue to serve as an active partner in the Coastal Georgia Cooperative Invasive Species Management Area (CoGaCISMA).

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy D-7

Formalize mosquito control guidelines in coordination with Glynn County Mosquito Control to address human health concerns from mosquito populations, while minimizing collateral effects on non-target organisms. These guidelines should aim to minimize, and where possible eliminate, lethal or sub-lethal effects on any nontarget species.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy D-8

Continue to implement predator control efforts conservatively using humane methods to limit depredation of Wildlife Priority Species, control disease, and reduce risk of aggressive contact with humans.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy D-10

Encourage and promote fostering, adopting, and sterilizing domestic cats, and keeping pet cats indoors.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy D-11

Take legal and humane steps to prioritize preservation of animal health and life while not returning removed animals to the Island, in order to prevent the establishment and growth of feral cat populations in areas where their presence would be particularly threatening for wildlife. These areas include the campground â&#x20AC;&#x153;bird sanctuaryâ&#x20AC;?, Conservation Priority Areas identified in this Plan, and generally all areas south of Ben Fortson Parkway consistent with sparse development impacts on this end of the Island.

Ongoing

Strategy D-12

Continue to implement education, training, and policies that prevent JIA employees from feeding wildlife.

Ongoing

Strategy D-13

Develop educational materials to inform residents and guests of the issues associated with feeding wildlife.

Short-Term

Strategy D-14

Prohibit use of open-top dumpsters for any materials containing or contaminated with food wastes, to prevent animal access.

Short-Term

Strategy D-15

Monitor the impacts of native species of plants and animals extending their ranges Mid-Term to LongTerm northward as a result of climate change.

Strategy D-5

Strategy D-6

Objective E - Minimize Hydrological Alterations and Restore Natural Hydrodynamic Conditions Strategy E-1

Strategy E-2 Strategy E-3

Establish a long-term hydrological monitoring program for wetlands, use data obtained from the monitoring program to identify impaired wetlands, and prioritize enhancements when funding becomes available.

Work with regional partners to assess current groundwater levels on and around the Island, determine their effect on wetland hydrology, and evaluate opportunities and challenges for minimizing any associated ecological impacts.

Monitor salinity levels within freshwater wetland systems and ponds for saltwater influence

Mid-Term Mid-Term to Long-Term Ongoing APPENDIX F 122

Strategy E-4

Establish ongoing monitoring of surficial aquifer water quality and depth to water table.

Mid-Term

Strategy E-5

Continue and improve the adoption and implementation of stormwater plans for new development and/or retrofit projects (i.e., low-impact development designs and green infrastructure) that capture stormwater discharge from impervious surfaces and encourage on site infiltration into the surficial aquifer, in accordance with the Coastal Stormwater Supplement.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy E-6

Map the stormwater drainage infrastructure across the Island in order to understand the potential impacts to salt marsh water quality and hydrology.

Strategy E-7

Implement enhancements to culverts and control structures to remove impediments to natural tidal fluctuations where fragmentation has caused ecological degradation.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy E-8

Continue to encourage the use of native plants and other non-invasive low-wateruse plants within landscapes for existing residential, commercial, and civic sites as well as new development parcels.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy E-9

Enforce local ordinances and state law regarding conservation of irrigation water from residential and commercial properties and JIA operations, especially during drought periods.

Short-Term: Ongoing

Strategy E-10

Consider the implications of climate change induced amplification of drought and precipitation extremes on wetland enhancement plans.

Short-Term to Mid-Term

Strategy F-1 Strategy F-2

Objective F - Protect Priority Species Monitor the status of priority species and the condition of the habitats upon which they depend, leveraging external research partnerships to increase knowledge of threats and stresses facing priority species populations.

Emphasize the implementation of management and restoration actions that affect priority species and consider the effect on priority species with all management actions.

Mid-Term

Short-Term; Ongoing Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy F-3

Coordinate with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to enforce regulatory requirements of the Endangered Species Act, including designated critical habitat areas, for federally listed wildlife species.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy F-4

Prevent degradation of habitat for all priority species.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy F-5

Identify implementable and appropriate buffers to be managed and regulated to protect or enhance nesting habitat for birds listed in this Plan as Wildlife Priority Species.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy F-6

Integrate priority species protection into all planning processes and documents that pertain to natural areas and green spaces, including Conservation Priority Areas.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Objective G - Manage Implications from Outdoor Recreation and Learning Strategy G-1

Develop a recreational trail map that includes the location and type of travel allowable (foot/bicycle) and associated guidelines for responsible trail use.

Strategy G-2

Determine the appropriateness of any proposed new trails, or attractions at the land/water interface, such as blue-trail landings or fishing facilities, using the Environmental Assessment Procedure (EAP), defined in Chapter 7.

Strategy G-3

Evaluate, through EAP review, potential fragmentation, habitat disturbance, and edge effects that may result from proposed new trails.

Short-Term

Ongoing

Ongoing APPENDIX F 123

Strategy G-4

Coordinate trail development/maintenance and facility-design with fire-management goals.

Ongoing

Strategy G-5

Manage, avoid, and/or mitigate impacts to sensitive habitats and priority species from outdoor recreation and learning activities, including research.

Ongoing

Causeway and Back-barrier Marsh Management Strategy CM-1

Strategy CM-2

Strategy CM-3

Update the JIA Causeway Vegetation Management Plan to reflect changes that occurred in 2019 and 2020 associated with the Georgia Power transmission line rebuild project Partner with Georgia Power to maximize ecological values, minimize maintenance burdens, and support a stable shoreline, compatible with Georgia Power transmission line easement vegetation policies.

Continue monitoring and research to better understand the effects of the causeway and its management on priority species, especially diamondback terrapin, to inform strategies that mitigate risk of wildlife mortality due to vehicle strikes, and to evaluate the causewayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s function as a corridor for immigration/emigration and invasion.

Mid-Term

Ongoing

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy CM-4

Develop road-mortality mitigation strategies (design, engineering, and construction) to reduce the negative effects of the causeway on Wildlife Priority Species.

Mid-Term

Strategy CM-5

Continue implementing reduced mowing procedures during diamondback terrapin nesting season.

Ongoing

Strategy CM-6

Pursue opportunities to promote native grassland habitat and awareness of its value in areas of the causeway that have been designated to be maintained free of trees/shrubs, either through GA Power policies or JIA vegetation management planning.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy CM-7

Continue implementing a zero-tolerance policy for invasive species on the causeway.

Strategy CM-8

Prioritize human safety considerations, along with wildlife protection, in evaluating proposals or programs with the potential to affect traffic patterns and driver responses on the Causeway.

Specific Area Management Unit 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Beach

Ongoing

Ongoing

Objective 1A - Manage and maintain beaches to address erosion, accretion, storm events, and future sea-level rise

Strategy 1A-1

Establish a Working Group to formalize plans, timelines, and implementable steps to continue to protect and promote a natural dune system as the first order of beach protection from storm events and beachfront shoreline erosion. The group will consider impacts from human traffic/recreational use, revetments, authorizedvehicle driving, sea-level rise, sand supply and human alterations to sediment dynamics, maintenance and research needs and interests, and regulatory and financial limitations. The Group should include, among others, a representative of the JIA, the public, a beach restoration specialist, and an expert on the ecology of the priority species that depend on these communities. In subsequent years, the group will meet annually and provide actionable beach-management recommendations.

Strategy 1A-2

Conduct an Environmental Assessment Procedure (EAP) review to evaluate new crossings, infrastructure, or restoration projects that may be proposed in this unit.

Short-Term

Ongoing

APPENDIX F 124

Strategy 1A-3

Ensure that regular monitoring of beach/dune profiles and shoreline positions is occurring and that data/products are available for JIA use.

Ongoing

Strategy 1A-4

Prioritize protection and restoration of vegetation stands which shield interior vegetation from the impacts of ocean salt-spray.

Ongoing

Strategy 1A-5

Maintain access to the most up-to-date and accurate maps and tools to identify areas to be affected by projected sea-level rise and incorporate this information into all JIA land-use planning products and processes.

Objective 1B - Protect wildlife species that nest, roost, or are full-time inhabitants on beaches

Ongoing

Strategy 1B-1

Reduce authorized motor-vehicle traffic from beaches south of southern water tower to minimum achievable levels while ensuring that responsibilities for public safety and stewardship of Endangered Species Act listed species are met.

Ongoing

Strategy 1B-2

Continue to concentrate public beach facilities and services between Oceanview Beach Park and Corsair Beach Park.

Ongoing

Strategy 1B-3

Design conservatively when considering new or improved beachfront public facilities to sustain the current visitor experience and wildlife habitat value of the beach south of Corsair Beach Park, characterized by low visitor-density gaps between beach access points and minimalistic beach convenience services.

Strategy 1B-4

Continue policy of leaving natural beach wrack/debris in place to help build dune systems.

Ongoing

Strategy 1B-5

Continue beach elevation profile monitoring through partnership between GSTC and the Glynn County GIS department.

Ongoing

Strategy 1B-6

Continue active partnerships with Georgia Sea Turtle Cooperative, Georgia Shorebird Alliance, and others to ensure that the habitat needs of beachdependent priority species including sea turtles, red knots, piping plovers, and Wilsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plovers are well understood; key trends are monitored; and threats are managed, reduced, or eliminated.

Ongoing

Strategy 1B-7

Strictly enforce lighting-ordinance measures for adjacent lands to prevent light impacts to sea turtles.

Ongoing

Strategy 1B-8

Implement the EAP review for any proposed new development, redevelopment, or major renovation of public, residential, or commercial projects that are proposed to be built near the beach and could impose negative effects on natural resources.

Ongoing

Strategy 1B-9

Identify any potential additions to Wildlife and Plant Priority Species lists that utilize the beach and warrant special protection and monitoring.

Ongoing

Strategy 1B-10

Work with JIA Marketing team and utilize Beach Ranger staff to continually and adaptively communicate conservation messages about protecting beaches, dunes, and associated wildlife.

Unit 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Holocene Maritime Forest Objective 2A - Rare plant community and species conservation

Ongoing

Ongoing

Strategy 2A-1

Conduct an EAP review for any development, infrastructure retrofits, or trails occurring within 100 feet of the Carolina Willow Dune Swale community.

Ongoing

Strategy 2A-2

Incorporate the Carolina Willow Dune Swale community into the Island-wide hydrological monitoring program.

Short-Term

Strategy 2A-3

Conduct surveys of wetland habitat to monitor use by Plant and Wildlife Priority Species.

Objective 2B - Maintain habitat connections

Mid-Term

APPENDIX F 125

Strategy 2B-1 Strategy 2C-1

Evaluate any projects proposed to occur between the two roadways with the EAP process and maintain landscape-scale connections (both north/south and east/west) that currently occur.

Objective 2C - Habitat management and enhancement Limit fires within the unit to maintain oak canopy.

Ongoing Ongoing

Strategy 2C-2

Implement prescribed burns within pine flatwoods and herbaceous wetlands if effective small-scale units can be established consistent with fire management goals.

Long-Term

Strategy 2C-3

Develop a GIS database documenting connections and culverts under Riverview Drive that may impair tidal flow into historical salt marshes within the Unit.

Mid-Term

Strategy 2C-4

Implement culvert modifications in conjunction with road improvement projects to improve tidal flow and wildlife passage under South Riverview Drive.

Short, Mid, and Long Term

Strategy 2C-5

Provide signs, fences, trail markers, and other structures to limit pedestrian use to established trails.

Unit 3 - Coastal Marsh Objective 3A - Maintain/improve salinity levels and water quality for salt marshes

Ongoing

Strategy 3A-1

Evaluate, document and monitor new and existing freshwater discharge locations for potential effects on salinity levels, water quality and inundation regimes.

Ongoing

Strategy 3A-2

Integrate GADNR EPD Coastal Stormwater Supplement to the Stormwater Management Manual into Jekyll Island Design Guidelines and/or local ordinance.

Short-Term

Strategy 3A-3 Strategy 3A-4 Strategy 3A-5

Retrofit existing stormwater discharges into salt marshes based on data obtained from the monitoring program Enhance, re-route, or remove existing freshwater discharge points to restore historical salinity levels Promote use of bioswale systems and route existing stormwater discharges to bioswale retention where feasible.

Objective 3B - Restore historically altered salt marsh areas

Strategy 3B-1

Identify and document hydrological regimes, wildlife uses, and potential downstream impacts for historically-impounded salt marsh areas in the central portion of the Island and develop restoration/enhancement plans to increase tidal flow and wildlife habitat availability; initiate restoration/enhancement of impounded salt marshes as funding becomes available or through mitigation projects.

Strategy 3B-2

Evaluate ecosystem function and habitat value or lack thereof in historically ditched saltmarsh.

Strategy 3B-3

Retrofit undersized culvert locations in association with road improvements, mitigation projects, or as other funding becomes available to provide improved tidal exchange for salt marshes in the Islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interior. Interior marshes include the marshes between Riverview and Beachview Drives in the southern portion of the Island south of the Island entrance and marshes immediately north of the Ben Fortson Parkway/Causeway entrance.

Strategy 3B-4 Strategy 3B-5

Strategy 3C-1 Strategy 3C-2 Strategy 3C-3

Implement culvert replacement to increase tidal connections under Crane Road Assess the effects of sea-level rise on tidal connections to interior portions of the Island and develop restoration/enhancement procedures for addressing the impacts. Consider the subtle, but important distinctions in salinity as marshes transition from freshwater to brackish to salt marsh.

Objective 3C - Maintain coastal shrub thicket and shell midden communities Do not create new access or encourage additional outdoor recreation/education use of shell midden communities.

Work with Georgia 4-H Camp Jekyll staff to mitigate impacts associated with educational programs utilizing the shell midden on the causeway.

Collaborate with CG-CISMA to develop practicable and achievable methods and a timeline for addressing salt cedar invasion.

Long-Term Mid-Term Ongoing

Short Term to Mid-Term

Long-Term

Short, Mid, and Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term

Ongoing Short-Term Mid-Term APPENDIX F 126

Strategy 3C-4

Strategy 4A-1

Strategy 4A-2

Strategy 4A-3

Strategy 4B-1

Strategy 4B-2

Test and evaluate the benefits of prescribed fire in the coastal salt shrub thicket on the north end of the Island adjacent to the airport.

Unit 4 - Upland Forest Objective 4A - Sustain large, diverse landscape connections Evaluate any projects proposed in the unit with the EAP process with the priority to maintain landscape-scale connections (both north/south and east/west) that currently occur and that protect the natural communities in the northern end of the Island Identify actionable information in products of the 2016-2020 UGA study that investigated multiple stressors in maritime forest communities and implement actions to mitigate stressors threatening this community.

Carry out and evaluate a relatively small-scale prescribed fire in the least challenging burn block available in this unit to assess whether the benefits of midand understory plant management outweigh the expense of implementing the burn and the risk of killing trees.

Objective 4B - Wetland enhancement Monitor natural recruitment of desirable wetland canopy vegetation within the loblolly bay community and Outer Coastal Plain Sweetbay Swamp Forest areas; plant replacement canopy trees if monitoring indicates recruitment is not sufficient to re-vegetate the canopy and the natural hydrology can be restored.

Assess the long-term need for the portion of â&#x20AC;&#x153;ditch roadâ&#x20AC;? that separates the northern end of Indian Mount Golf Course from the adjacent loblolly bay wetland; Study potential benefits of enhancing hydrological connections between the two systems while promoting retention of freshwater.

Strategy 4B-3

Map existing ditches in the unit and adjacent golf course and identify effects on surface water discharge/drainage. In coordination with golf course maintenance needs, identify priorities for ditch modification, or abandonment, to enhance retention and detention of stormwater runoff to support wetland hydrology, pollutant filtration, and groundwater recharge, and to mitigate tidal flooding of freshwater wetlands.

Strategy 4B-4

Monitor surficial groundwater levels in association with any major freshwater wetland restoration project and, if needed, limit nearby withdrawals from the surficial aquifer to sustain wetland ecosystem functions.

Strategy 4B-5

Plan for wetland restoration opportunities anticipated to result from golf course land use changes.

Mid-Term

Ongoing

Short-Term to Mid-Term

Short-Term

Mid-Term

Short-Term

Short-Term for mapping; MidTerm for implementation

Mid-Term to Long-Term Ongoing

Objective 4C - Habitat management

Strategy 4C-1

Strategy 4C-2

Strategy 4C-3

Strategy 4C-4

Strategy 4C-5

Address fire management through a comprehensive fire management program that addresses firebreak locations, management unit sizes and control measures, communication protocols for adjacent residents, wildland-urban interface burn issues, use of natural features such as wetlands as control features, and prescribed fire locations.

Strategically expand reforestation efforts beyond high-visibility areas to include naturally forested areas with canopy gaps and limited regeneration of representative canopy species (e.g. live oak).

Selectively and sensitively remove dead canopy-tree biomass, following tree dieoffs exceeding approximately one acre, to reduce fuel loads; replant with appropriate native species.

For targeted live oak reforestation or larger-scale maritime forest restoration, utilize and refine the custom decision support tool, developed through JIA-funded research carried out by the University of Georgia, to consider the age of juvenile live oak trees to plant, understory vegetation control, and herbivore exclusion.

Identify high priority sites to implement deer exclusion to facilitate plant diversity enhancement and/or desired canopy tree recruitment, particularly in association with reforestation/restoration efforts.

Short-Term; Ongoing

Mid-Term Short-Term; Ongoing Mid-Term; Ongoing Mid-Term APPENDIX F 127

Strategy 4C-6

Create and maintain native grass-dominated communities in order to restore grassland species diversity to the Island and to enhance small mammal productivity is support of predator populations.

Unit 5 - Golf Courses Objective 5A - Restore disturbed habitats

Short-Term

Strategy 5A-1

Coordinate fire management within the golf course unit with the comprehensive fire management program for the Island.

Ongoing

Strategy 5A-2

Identify and pursue opportunities to create wildlife corridors preserving the integrity of modern golf design and maintenance practices.

Short-Term

Strategy 5A-3

Implement ecological restoration projects through budgeted funding, fund raising, mitigation opportunities, or volunteer projects. Large-scale restoration and conservation land management associated with any future changes in the layout of golf should go through a structured planning and design process.

Short-Term for Planning, MidTerm for Implementation

Strategy 5A-4 Strategy 5A-5

Strategy 5B-1 Strategy 5B-2 Strategy 5B-3 Strategy 5B-4 Strategy 5B-5 Strategy 5B-6

Recreate natural landscape features to accommodate a diverse array of native species that complement the conservation goals of adjacent natural lands, favoring establishment of native-grassland systems where appropriate.

Establish mechanisms for sustaining these investments in public greenspace and ecological infrastructure over a multi-decadal timeframe.

Objective 5B - Manage the golf courses in a resource compatible way Continue implementing the Watershed Protection Plan which monitors freshwater discharge points from the golf course unit and is a mandatory element of compliance with Georgia DNR Environmental Protection Division requirements.

Identify and implement improvements to the stormwater system to enhance water quality, timing, and discharge rates into offsite wetlands.

Address dual challenge to maximize retention/detention of stormwater runoff and nutrient filtration while providing for appropriate turf management conditions on the courses.

Continue advancing irrigation reduction measures and water recapture/re-use approaches.

Continue to recertify Cooperative Sanctuary status through Audubon International (https://auduboninternational.org/acsp-for-golf/) for all golf courses.

Achieve consistency with the Georgia Chapter of the Golf Course Superintendents Association Best Management Practices for Water-use Efficiency in association with any major golf course renovations.

Objective 5C - Protect Wildlife and Enhance Habitat

Mid-Term to Long-Term Short-Term

Ongoing Mid-Term Mid-Term Ongoing Ongoing Mid-Term

Strategy 5C-1

Monitor and protect wading bird rookery habitat from alteration and human disturbance that could reduce its potential to support successful nesting.

Ongoing

Strategy 5C-2

Pursue opportunities for enhancing waterfowl habitat by establishing appropriate densities of native emergent and submerged vegetation within ponds, where compatible with golf play and maintenance.

Mid-Term

Strategy 5C-3

Monitor water quality and wildlife use in artificial ponds and modified wetlands to support future restoration and habitat enhancement efforts.

Ongoing

Strategy 5C-4

Maintain and/or improve water quality to improve habitat for native aquatic species.

Ongoing

Strategy 5C-5

Increase awareness of the effects of feeding wildlife, especially alligators, on animal behavior and health as well as human safety.

Ongoing

Strategy 5C-6

Evaluate the opportunity for beneficial use of dredged material from Jekyll Creek to modify the salt marsh/open water balance of the large lake on the Oleander Golf Course for either wetland mitigation banking purposes or waterfowl habitat enhancement.

Mid-Term

APPENDIX F 128

Strategy 5C-7

Work with golf course maintenance staff to enhance native plant diversity in out of play areas.

Ongoing

Strategy 5C-8

Continue to implement and expand upon prescribed-fire management for natural areas within and adjoining the golf course.

Ongoing

Unit 6 - Urban/Park Objective 6A - Minimize footprint of development uses on conservation lands

Strategy 6A-1

Strategy 6A-2 Strategy 6A-3 Strategy 6A-4 Strategy 6A-5 Strategy 6A-6

Utilize management recommendations for Management Units, Conservation Priority Areas (CPAs), and criteria associated with landscape-scale evaluation in the EAP to provide input to updates to the Jekyll Island Master Plan that identify the parcels most appropriate for development or redevelopment compliance with statutory limitations on subdividing and improving not more than 1,675 acres of the land area of Jekyll Island.

Implement buffers for CPAs identified in the EAP when designing and constructing development/redevelopment projects.

Negotiate revised or new lease agreements that preserve the ecological value of habitat features on leased parcels which support the Parkwide Management Objectives articulated in this chapter.

Implement the EAP review for any proposed new development or redevelopment, renovation or remodeled residential and commercial projects that could negatively impact CPAs. Adopt specific stormwater guidelines to maintain appropriate freshwater/brackish inputs, water quality, and water quantity for wetland systems on, or surrounding the Island.

Evaluate practicalities of passing a new ordinance that would require new development, construction, and major renovation to utilize â&#x20AC;&#x153;Green and Sustainable Technologyâ&#x20AC;? and, where appropriate, achieve certification through LEED, Green Globe or other environmental certification programs.

Ongoing

Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Short-Term Short-Term

Strategy 6A-7

Continue implementing public outreach and education to promote awareness of human-caused wildlife threats, such as roadway mortality and feeding, and the individual decisions that can reduce these threats.

Strategy 6A-8

Update Design Guidelines to integrate design requirements of the Coastal Stormwater Supplement.

Strategy 6A-9

Monitor and consistently enforce the beach lighting ordinance.

Strategy 6A-10

Prevent unauthorized alterations and penalize damaging uses of non-leased lands, such as clearing and walkway construction, especially pertaining to designated CPAs and associated buffers.

Objective 6B - Restore and enhance areas that benefit Island ecology

Short-Term; Ongoing

Strategy 6B-1

Develop and maintain a restoration database that documents the locations and characteristics of old and new disturbances and completed restoration projects.

Short-Term

Strategy 6B-2 Strategy 6B-3

Promote diversification of active outdoor recreational and nature-oriented educational facilities within existing urban/developed land footprint.

Continue to increase use of native species in planting palettes for lands adjacent to Management Units 1 through 4 as designated during the Design Guidelines review process.

Strategy 6B-4

Maximize stormwater retention on the Island to sustain wetland ecology and enhance surficial aquifer recharge.

Strategy 6B-4

Revise ordinances to accommodate well-maintained and proportional native-plant landscaping in residential areas.

Timeframes: Short-Term Mid-Term Long-Term Ongoing

1- 3 years 3 - 8 years 8 - 20 years Required periodically (annually, biannually, etc.) over life of Plan

Ongoing

Short-Term Ongoing

Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Short-Term

APPENDIX F 129

APPENDIX G BIBLIOGRAPHY OF LITERATURE SPECIFIC TO JEKYLL ISLAND

130

Publications resulting from ecological studies involving Jekyll Island or Jekyll Island Authority Personnel Publications resulting from ecological studies involving Jekyll Island or Jekyll Island Authority Personnel Peer-reviewed Literature Peer-reviewed 1.

Ballard, Literature A., K.M. Andrews, and J.E. Colbert. 2018. Lampropeltis getula getula (eastern kingsnake) diet and habitat use. Herpetological Review: Natural History Notes 49(2): 344-345.

1.

Ballard, A., K.M. Andrews, and J.E. Colbert. 2018. Lampropeltis getula getula (eastern kingsnake) diet 2.

Bloodgood, J.C.G., S.M. Hernandez, A. Isaiah, Suchodolski, L.A. 344-345.

Hoopes, P.M. Thompson, T.B. and habitat use.

Herpetological Review: NaturalJ.S. History Notes 49(2): Waltzek, T.M. Norton. 2020. The effect of diet on the gastrointestinal microbiome of juvenile 2.

Bloodgood, J.C.G., S.M. Hernandez, A. Isaiah,PLoS J.S. Suchodolski, L.A. Hoopes, P.M. Thompson, T.B. rehabilitating green turtles (Chelonia mydas).

ONE 15(1): e0227060.

Waltzek, T.M. Norton. 2020. The effect of diet on the gastrointestinal microbiome of juvenile https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227060 rehabilitating green turtles (Chelonia mydas). PLoS ONE 15(1): e0227060.

3.

Bloodgood, J.C.G., T.M. Norton, L. A. Hoopes, N. I. Stacy, and S. M. Hernandez. 2019. Comparison of https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227060 hematological, plasma biochemical, and nutritional analytes of rehabilitating and apparently healthy free3.

Bloodgood, J.C.G., T.M. Norton, L. A. Hoopes, I. Stacy, and and S. M. Hernandez.

2019.50(1):69-81.

Comparison of ranging Atlantic Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas).N. Journal of Zoo Wildlife Medicine hematological, plasma biochemical, and nutritional analytes of rehabilitating and apparently healthy free4.

Butler, B. Ondich, Gaskin, T. Norton, D. Steen, B. of Sorg, Bishop.

2019.

Cemophora coccinea ranging Z., Atlantic Green J. Turtles (Chelonia mydas).

Journal ZooG. and Wildlife Medicine 50(1):69-81.

(Scarletsnake). Foraging Behavior. Herpetological Review: Natural History Notes 50(1):151.

4.

Butler, Z., B. Ondich, J. Gaskin, T. Norton, D. Steen, B. Sorg, G. Bishop. 2019. Cemophora coccinea 5. Butler, Z., S. Wenger, J. Behavior.

Pfaller, M.Herpetological Dodd, B. Ondich, S. Coleman, J. Gaskin, N. Hickey, K. Kitchens(Scarletsnake).

Foraging Review: Natural History Notes 50(1):151.

Hayes, R.K. Vance, and K. Williams. 2020. Predation of Loggerhead Sea Turtle Eggs across Georgia’s 5. Barrier Butler,Islands.

Z., S. Wenger, J. Pfaller,and M.Conservation.

Dodd, B. Ondich, S. Coleman, J. Gaskin, N. Hickey, K. KitchensGlobal Ecology https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01139.

Hayes, R.K. Vance, and K. Williams. 2020. Predation of Loggerhead Sea Turtle Eggs across Georgia’s 6.

Carlson-Bremer, D., T.M. Norton, Gilardi, E.S. Dierenfeld, B. Winn, F.J. Sanders, C. Cray, M. Barrier Islands. Global Ecology andK.V. Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01139.

Oliva, T.C. Chen, S.E. Gibbs, M.S. Sepúlveda and C.K. Johnson. 2010. Health Assessment of American 6.

Carlson-Bremer, D., T.M. Norton, K.V. Gilardi,inE.S. Dierenfeld, B. Winn, F.J. Sanders, C.Wildlife Cray, M. Oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus palliatus) Georgia and South Carolina.

Journal of Oliva, T.C. Chen, S.E. Gibbs, M.S. Sepúlveda and C.K. Johnson. 2010. Health Assessment of American Diseases 46(3):772-780.

Oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus palliatus) in Georgia and South Carolina. Journal of Wildlife 7.

Carlson-Bremer, D., T.M. Norton, F.J. Sanders, B. Winn, M. Spinks, B.A. Glatt, L. Mazzaro, P. Jodice, Diseases 46(3):772-780.

T.C. Chen and E.S. Dierenfeld. 2014. Circulating Fat-Soluble Vitamin Concentrations and Nutrient 7.

Carlson-Bremer, D., T.M. Norton, Sanders, B. Winn, M. Spinks, Glatt, L. Mazzaro, P. Jodice, Composition of Aquatic Prey Eaten F.J.

by American Oystercatchers in theB.A. Southeastern United States.

Journal T.C. ChenMedicine and E.S.and Dierenfeld.

Circulating Fat-Soluble Vitamin Concentrations and Nutrient of Avian Surgery 2014.

28(3):216-224.

Composition of Aquatic Prey Eaten by American Oystercatchers in the Southeastern United States. Journal 8.

Colbert, K.M.and Andrews T.M. Norton. 2014. Agkistrodon piscivorus (Cottonmouth). Prey and of Avian J.E., Medicine Surgeryand 28(3):216-224.

Diet Size. Herpetological Review: Natural History Notes 45(4):703-704.

8.

Colbert, J.E., K.M. Andrews and T.M. Norton. 2014. Agkistrodon piscivorus (Cottonmouth). Prey and 9.

Crawford, B.A., J.C. Maerz, N.P. Nibbelink, K.A. Buhlmann and T.M. Norton. 2014. Estimating the Diet Size. Herpetological Review: Natural History Notes 45(4):703-704. consequences of multiple threats and management strategies for semi-aquatic turtles. Journal of Applied 9.

Crawford, B.A., J.C. Maerz, N.P. Nibbelink, K.A. Buhlmann and T.M. Norton. 2014. Estimating the Ecology 51(2):359-366. consequences of multiple threats and management strategies for semi-aquatic turtles. Journal of Applied 10.

Crawford, B.A., J.C. Maerz, N.P. Nibbelink, K.A. Buhlmann, T.M. Norton and S.E. Albeke. 2014. Hot Ecology 51(2):359-366. spots and hot moments of diamondback terrapin road-crossing activity. Journal of Applied Ecology 10.

Crawford, B.A., J.C. Maerz, N.P. Nibbelink, K.A. Buhlmann, T.M. Norton and S.E. Albeke. 2014. Hot 51(2):367-375. spots and hot moments of diamondback terrapin road-crossing activity. Journal of Applied Ecology 11.

Crawford, B.A. and K.M. Andrews. 2016. Drivers’ attitudes toward wildlife-vehicle collisions with 51(2):367-375. reptiles and other taxa. Animal Conservation 19:444-450.

11.

Crawford, B.A. and K.M. Andrews. 2016. Drivers’ attitudes toward wildlife-vehicle collisions with 12.

Crawford, T.M. Norton and J.C. Maerz. 2017. Mitigating road mortality of diamondreptiles andB.A., otherC.T. taxa.Moore, Animal Conservation 19:444-450. backed terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) with hybrid barriers at crossing hot spots. Herpetological 12.

Crawford, B.A., Moore, T.M. Norton and J.C. Maerz. 2017. Mitigating road mortality of diamondConservation andC.T. Biology 12:202-211. backed terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin) with hybrid barriers at crossing hot spots. Herpetological 13.

Crawford, B.A., Moore, T.M. Norton and J.C. Maerz. 2018. Integrated analysis for population Conservation andC.T. Biology 12:202-211. estimation, management impact evaluation, and decision-making for a declining species. Biological 13.

Crawford, B.A., C.T. Moore, T.M. Norton and J.C. Maerz. 2018. Integrated analysis for population Conservation 222:33-43. estimation, management impact evaluation, and decision-making for a declining species. Biological 14.

Day, R.D., J.M. Keller, C.A. Harms, A.L. Segars, W.M. Cluse, M.H. Godfrey, A.M. Lee, M. PedenConservation 222:33-43.

Adams, K. Thorvalson, M. Dodd and T.M. Norton. 2010. Comparison of Mercury burdens in chronically 14.

Day, R.D., J.M. Keller, C.A. Harms, A.L. Segars, W.M. Cluse, M.H. Godfrey, A.M. Lee, M. PedenAdams, K. Thorvalson, M. Dodd and T.M. Norton. 2010. Comparison of Mercury burdens in chronicallyAPPENDIX G 131

Publications resulting from ecological studies involving Jekyll Island or Jekyll Island Authority Personnel

debilitated and healthy loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Journal of Wildlife Diseases 46(1):111â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 117.

15.

Deem, S.L., T.M. Norton, M. Mitchell, A. Segars, A.R. Alleman, C. Cray, R.H. Poppenga, M.G. Dodd and W.B. Karesh. 2009. Comparison of blood values in foraging, nesting, and stranded free-ranging loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) along the coast of Georgia, USA. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 45(1):41-56.

16.

DeSha, J.N., J. Colbert, K.M. Andrews, S. Coleman and C.T. Holbrook. 2017. Effects of a prescribed burn of on the adult butterfly community of a coastal grassland. Georgia Journal of Science 75:1-10.

17.

Dickey, M., C. Cray, T.M. Norton, M. Murray, C. Barysauskas, K.L. Arheart, S.E. Nelson and M. Rodriguez. 2014. Assessment of hemoglobin binding protein in loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) undergoing rehabilitation. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 45(3):700-703.

18.

Diffie, S., J. Miller and K. Murray. 2010. Laboratory observations of red imported fire ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) predation on reptilian and avian eggs. Journal of Herpetology 44(2): 294-296.

19.

Donnelly, K.A., T.M. Norton, B. Zirkelbach, N.I. Stacy. 2019. Advancing Transfusion Medicine in Sea Turtles: Optimization of A Cross-Matching Protocol. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 50(2):315-321.

20.

Donnelly, K.A., M.G. Papich, B. Zirklebach, T. Norton, A. Szivek, B. Burkhalter, J.A. Impellizeri, N.I. Stacy. 2019. Plasma Bleomycin Concentrations during Electrochemotherapeutic Treatment of Fibropapillomas in Green Turtles Chelonia mydas. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health 31(2):186-192.

21.

Ferguson, L.M., T.M. Norton, C. Cray, M. Oliva and P.G.R. Jodice. 2014. Health assessments of brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis) nestlings from colonies in South Carolina and Georgia, U.S.A. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 45(4):802-812.

22.

Flower, J.E., T.M. Norton, K.M. Andrews, S.E. Nelson, C.E. Parker, L.M. Romero and M.A. Mitchell.

2015. Baseline plasma corticosterone concentrations and hematological parameters in nesting and rehabilitating loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Conservation Physiology 3:1-9.

23.

Flower, J.E., T.M. Norton, K.M. Andrews, C.E. Parker, L.M. Romero, K.E. Rockwell and M.A. Mitchell.

2018. Baseline corticosterone, hematology, and biochemistry results and correlations to reproductive success in nesting loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 49(1):917.

24.

Franzen-Klein, D., B. Burkhalter, R. Sommer, M. Weber, B. Zirkelbach, T. Norton. 2020. Diagnosis and Management of Marine Debris Ingestion and Entanglement by Using Advanced Imaging and Endoscopy in Sea Turtles. Journal of Herpetological Medicine and Surgery 30(2):74-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.5818/1709-126

25.

Gallard-Gongora, J., K. Munck, J. Jones and A. Aslan. 2017. Coliphage as an Indicator of the Quality of Beach Water to Protect the Health of Swimmers in Coastal Georgia. Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association 7(1):1-6.

26.

Grosse, A.M., K.A. Buhlmann, J.C. Maerz, B.A. Crawford, T.M. Norton, S.M. Kaylor and T.D. Tuberville. 2015. Effects of Vegetation Structure and Artificial Nesting Habitats on Hatchling Sex Determination and Nest Survival of Diamondback Terrapins. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management

27.

Haman, K.H., T.M. Norton, R.A. Ronconi, N.M. Nemeth, A.C. Thomas, S.J. Courchesne, A. Segars and M.K. Keel. 2013. Great Shearwater (Puffinus gravis) mortality events along the eastern coast of the United States. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 49(2):235-245.

APPENDIX G 132

Publications resulting from ecological studies involving Jekyll Island or Jekyll Island Authority Personnel

28.

Hernandez, S.M., K.A. Loyd, A. Newton, C. Gattrell, B. Carswell, K. Abernathy. 2018. The use of pointof-view cameras (KittyCams) to quantify predation by colony cats on wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Research 45:357-365.

29.

Holbrook, C.T., J.W. Mahas, B.L. Ondich, and K.M. Andrews. 2019. The Threat of Predatory Fire Ants to Loggerhead Turtles Nesting on Jekyll Island, Georgia, USA. Marine Turtle Newsletter 156:5-9.

30.

Hunt, K.E., C. Innis, C. Merigo, E.A. Burgess, T. Norton, D. Davis, A.E. Kennedy, and C.L. Buck. 2019.

Ameliorating transport-related stress in endangered Kempâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) with a recovery period in saltwater pools. Conservation Physiology 7:1-13.

31.

Innis, C.J., S. Finn, A. Kennedy, E. Burgess, T. Norton, C. A. Manire, and C. Harms. 2019. A summary of sea turtles released from rescue and rehabilitation programs in the United States, with observations on reencounters. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 18(1):3-9.

32.

Jackson, C.W., C.R. Alexander and D.M. Bush. 2012. Application of the AMBUR R package for spatiotemporal analysis of shoreline change: Jekyll Island, Georgia, USA. Computers and Geosciences 41:199207

33.

Jarboe, C. A., J. E. Colbert, B. Zulkiewicz, and D.A. Steen. 2019. Osteopilus septentrionalis (Cuban Treefrog). Herpetological Review: Geographic Distribution 50(1):98.

34.

Jarboe, C., J. E. Colbert, Y. Moore, S. A. Johnson, and D.A. Steen. 2019. Osteopilus septentrionalis (Cuban Treefrog). Herpetological Review: Geographic Distribution 50(1):97-98.

35.

Johnson, A.J., L. Wendland, T.M. Norton, B. Belzer and E.R. Jacobson. 2010. Development and use of an indirect enzyme-link immunosorbent assay for detection of iridovirus exposure in gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) and eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina). Veterinary Microbiology 142(3-4):160-167.

36.

Johnson, A.P., A.P. Pessier, J.F.X. Wellehan, A. Childress, T.M. Norton, N.L. Stedman, D.C. Bloom, W. Belzer, V.R. Titus, R. Wagner, J.W. Brooks, J. Spratt and E.R. Jacobson. 2008. Ranavirus infection of freeranging and captive box turtles and tortoises in the United States. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 44(4):851863.

37.

Khan, M.B. and R.S. Prezant. 2018. Microplastic abundances in a mussel bed and ingestion by the ribbed marsh mussel Geukensia demissa. Marine Pollution Bulletin 130:67-75.

38.

Lambert, M., and D.A. Steen. 2019. (Re)examining the effects of urbanization on the population structure of freshwater turtles: Response to Bowne et al. 2018. Conservation Biology.

39.

Lopel, L. D.J. Stevenson, D.A. Steen. 2019. Plestiodon laticeps (Broad-headed Skink). Diet.

Herpetological Review: Natural History Notes 50(4):789.

40.

Martin, J.M. 2013. Marine debris removal: one year of effort by the Georgia Sea Turtle-Center-Marine Debris Initiative. Marine Pollution Bulletin 74(1):165-169.

41.

Martin, J.M., K. Higgins, K. Lee, K. Stearns and L. Hunt. 2015. Integrating science education and marine conservation through collaborative partnerships. Marine Pollution Bulletin 95(1):520-522.

42.

Martin, J.M., J.R. Jambeck, J.R., B.L. Ondich, and T.M. Norton. 2019. Comparing quantify of marine debris to loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting and non-nesting emergence activity on Jekyll Island, Georgia, USA. Marine Pollution Bulletin 139:1-5.

APPENDIX G 133

Publications resulting from ecological studies involving Jekyll Island or Jekyll Island Authority Personnel

43.

Mascovich, K.A., and K.M. Andrews. 2018. Apparent sleeping behaviors observed during nesting events in Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Marine Turtle Newsletter 155:1-3.

44.

Mascovich, K.A., L.R. Larson, and K.M. Andrews. 2018. Lights On, or Lights Off? Hotel Guests' Response to Nonpersonal Educational Outreach Designed to Protect Nesting Sea Turtles. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 17(2):206-215.

45.

Norton, T.M. 2005. Sea Turtle Conservation in Georgia and an overview of the Georgia Sea Turtle Center on Jekyll Island, Georgia. Georgia Journal of Science 63(4):208-230.

46.

Norton, T.M., K.K. Sladky, S. Cox, S.E. Nelson, M. Kaylor, R. Thomas and A. Hupp. 2015.

Pharmacokinetics of Tramadol and O-Desmethyltramadol in Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta).

Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 46(2):262â&#x20AC;&#x201C;265.

47.

Ondich, B.L. and K.M. Andrews. 2013. A history of sea turtle tagging and monitoring on Jekyll Island, Georgia, USA. Marine Turtle Newsletter 138:11-15.

48.

Ondich, B.L., K.A. Mascovich, Z. Butler, and D.A. Steen. 2018. Pseudemys nelsoni (Florida Red-Bellied Cooter). Herpetological Review: Geographic Distribution 49(3):502.

49.

Ortiz, S., S.M. Hernandez, M.J. Yabsley, T.I. Becker, B. Carswell, Y. Moore, H. Fenton, C.S. Bahnson, K. Niedringhaus, E. Elsmo, L. Orciari, P. Yager, N.L. Stedman, S.E. Nelson Jr., T.M. Norton. 2018.

Introduction and Establishment of Raccoon Rabies on Islands: Jekyll Island, Georgia, USA as a Case Study. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 54(2):329-334.

50.

Paden, L., B.L. Ondich, T.M. Norton, and D.A. Steen. 2019. Pantherophis guttatus (Red Cornsnake).

Attempted Predation and Defensive Behavior. Natural History Notes. Hepetological Review 50(2):397.

51.

Paden, L., B.L. Ondich, T.M. Norton, A. Alterman, and D.A. Steen. 2019. Pseudemys floridana (Florida Cooter). Herpetological Review: Geographic Distribution 49(4):712-713.

52.

Paden, L., R.G. Bauer, B.L. Ondich, T.M. Norton, A. Alterman, and D.A. Steen. 2019. Pseudemys concinna (River Cooter). Herpetological Review: Geographic Distribution 49(4):712.

53.

Page-Karjian, A., T.M. Norton, P.M. Krimer, M. Groner, S.E. Nelson* and N.L. Gottdenker. 2014.

Factors influencing survivorship of rehabilitating green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) with fibropapillomatosis. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 45(3):507-519.

54.

Page-Karjian, A., T.M. Norton, C.A. Harms, D.R. Mader, L.H. Herbst, N. Stedman and N.L. Gottdenker.

2015. Case descriptions of fibropapillomatosis in rehabilitating loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the southeastern USA. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 115:185â&#x20AC;&#x201C;191.

55.

Page-Karjian, A., T.M. Norton, B. Ritchie, C. Brown, C. Mancia, M. Jackwood and N.L. Gottdenker.

2015. Quantifying chelonid herpesvirus 5 in symptomatic and asymptomatic rehabilitating green sea turtles. Endangered Species Research 28:135-146.

56.

Page-Karjian A., J.R. Perrault, B. Zirkelbach, J. Pescatore, R. Riley, M. Stadler, T.T. Zachariah, W. Marks, T.M. Norton. 2019. Tumor re-growth, case outcome, and tumor scoring systems in rehabilitated green turtles with fibropapillomatosis. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 137(2):101-108. https://doi.org/10.3354/dao03426

57.

Persky, M. E., Y.S. Jafarey, S.E. Christoff, D.D. Maddox, S.A. Stowell, and T.M. Norton. 2020. Tick paralysis in a free-ranging bobcat (Lynx rufus). Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 256(3):362-364.

APPENDIX G 134

Publications resulting from ecological studies involving Jekyll Island or Jekyll Island Authority Personnel

58.

Pfaller J.B., M. Pajuelo, H.B. Vander Zanden, K.M. Andrews, M.G. Dodd, M.H. Godfrey, D.B. Griffin, B.L. Ondich, S.M. Pate, K.L. Willians, B.M. Shamblin, C.J. Nairn, A.B. Bolten, K.A. Bjorndal. 2020.

Identifying patterns in foraging-area origins in breeding aggregations of migratory species: Loggerhead turtles in the Northwest Atlantic. PLoS ONE 15(4): e0231325.

59.

Quinn, D.P., S.M. Kaylor, T.M. Norton and K.A. Buhlmann. 2015. Nesting mounds with protective boxes and an electric wire as tools to mitigate diamond-backed terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) nest predation.

Herpetological Conservation and Biology 10(3):969â&#x20AC;&#x201C;977.

60.

Shamblin, B.M., M.G. Dodd, D.B. Griffin, S.M. Pate, M.H. Godfrey, M.S. Coyne, K.L. Williams, J.B. Pfaller, B.L. Ondich, K.M. Andrews, R. Boettcher and C.J. Nairn. 2017. Improved female abundance and reproductive parameter estimates through subpopulation-scale genetic capture-recapture of loggerhead turtles. Marine Biology 164(6):138.

61.

Shamblin, B.M., M.G. Dodd, S.M. Pate, M.H. Godfrey, J.B. Pfaller, K.L. Williams, B.L. Ondich, D.A. Steen, E.S. Darrow, P. Hillbrand, R. Boettcher, M.S. Coyne, C.J. Nairn. 2020. Inter-Seasonal Nest Site Fidelity and Recapture Rates of Loggerhead Turtles Characterized Through Subpopulation-Scale Genetic Tagging. Marine Biology: in review.

62.

Sim, R.R., T.M. Norton, E. Bronson, M.C. Allender, N. Stedman, A.L. Childress and J.F.X. Wellehan.

2015. Identification of a novel herpesvirus in captive eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina).

Veterinary Microbiology 175(2-4):218-225.

63.

Skupien, G.M., K.M. Andrews and L.R. Larson. 2016. Teaching tolerance? Effects of conservation education programs on wildlife acceptance capacity for the American alligator. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 21(3):264-279.

64.

Skupien, G.M., K.M. Andrews and T.M. Norton. 2016. Benefits and biases of VHF and GPS telemetry: A case study of American alligator spatial ecology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 40(4):772-780.

65.

Skupien, G.M. and K.M. Andrews. 2017. Factors Influencing the Abundance of American Alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) on Jekyll Island, Georgia, USA. Journal of Herpetology 51(1):89-94.

66.

Stacy N. I, J. M. Lynch, M. D. Arendt, L. Avens, J. Braun McNeill, C. Cray, R. D. Day, C. A. Harms, A. M. Lee, M. M. Peden-Adams, K. Thorvalson, AI L Segars, and T.M. Norton. 2018. Chronic debilitation in stranded loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the southeastern United States: Morphometrics and clinicopathological findings. PLoS ONE 13(7): e0200355. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200355

67.

Tuberville, T.D., K.M. Andrews, J.H. Sperry and A.M. Grosse. 2015. Use of the NatureServe Climate Change Vulnerability Index as an assessment tool for reptiles and amphibians: Lessons learned.

Environmental Management 56(4):822-834.

68.

Watts, M.W, R.J. Emerson, J.E. Colbert, D.A. Steen. 2019. Ophisaurus ventralis (Eastern Glass Lizard).

Diet. Herpetological Review: Natural History Notes 50(4):788.

69.

Weisbrod, T.C., N.I. Stacy, N.L. Stedman, T. Norton. 2020. M.Diagnosis and Surgical Management of a Paratesticular Cyst in a Rehabilitating Juvenile Male Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas). Frontiers in Veterinary Science 7:1-7.

70.

White, K.N., K.M. Andrews and E.B. Chapman. 2014. Coluber (Masticophis) flagellum (Coachwhip).

Reproduction. Herpetological Review: Natural History Notes 45(4):706-707.

APPENDIX G 135

Publications resulting from ecological studies involving Jekyll Island or Jekyll Island Authority Personnel

Books, Book Chapters, White Papers and Proceedings 71.

Allender, M.C. and T.M. Norton. 2019. Natural History and Medical Management of Terrestrial and Aquatic Chelonians. In S.M. Hernandez, H. W. Barron, E.A. Miller, R.F. Aguilar, M.J. Yabsley (Eds.), Medical Management of Wildlife Species: A Guide for Practitioners. pp.363-382. John Wiley & Sons.

72.

Andrews, K.M. and J.L. Waldron. 2017. Comparative overwintering ecology of a coastal and an inland population of canebrake rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus) in the southern United States. In M.J. Dreslik, W.K. Hayes, S.J. Beaupre and S.P. Mackessy (Eds.), Biology of the Rattlesnakes (vol. 2). pp.196-212.

Rodeo, NM: ECO Herpetological Publishing and Distribution.

73.

Andrews, K.M., G.M. Skupien and R.G. Bauer. 2018. Alternative management tools for American alligators. In S.E. Henke and C. Eversole (Eds.), American Alligators: Habitats, Behaviors, and Threats.

Hauppage, NY: Nova Publishing.

74.

Bauer, R.G., T.M. Norton, K.M. Andrews and G.M. Skupien. 2018. Environmental toxicology and health assessments of the American alligator. In S.E. Henke and C. Eversole (Eds.), American Alligators: Habitats, Behaviors, and Threats. Hauppage, NY: Nova Publishing.

75.

Burkhalter, B. M. and T.M. Norton. 2019. Laser Surgery in Aquatic Animals (Sea Turtles). In C. J. Winkler (Ed.), Laser Surgery in Veterinary Medicine. pp.292-312. John Wiley & Sons.

76.

Chowns, T.M (Ed.). 2016. 50th annual field trip of the Georgia Geological Society, Jekyll Island, Georgia.

Georgia Geological Society Guidebooks 35(1).

77.

Divers, S.J., C.J. Innis, T.M. Norton and D.R. Mader. 2017. Endoscopy. In C.A. Manire, C.A. Harms, B.A. Stacy, T.M. Norton and C.J. Innis (Eds.), Sea Turtle Health and Rehabilitation. pp.611-656. J. Ross Publishing.

78.

Gordon, D.W. and L.J. Torak. 2016. Hydrologic conditions, recharge, and baseline water quality of the surficial aquifer system at Jekyll Island, Georgia, 2012–13: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1017, 34 p.

79.

Hoopes, L.A., E.A. Koutsos and T.M. Norton. 2017. Nutrition. In C.A. Manire, T.M. Norton, B.A. Stacy, C.J. Innis and C.A. Harms (Eds.), Sea Turtle Health and Rehabilitation. pp.63-96. J. Ross Publishing.

80.

Manire, C.A., T.M. Norton, B.A. Stacy, C.J. Innis and C.A. Harms (Eds.). 2017. Sea Turtle Health and Rehabilitation. J. Ross Publishing.

81.

Manire, C.A., T.M. Norton, M.T. Walsh and L.A. Campbell. 2017. Bouyancy Disorders. In C.A. Manire, T.M. Norton, B.A. Stacy, C.J. Innis and C.A. Harms (Eds.), Sea Turtle Health and Rehabilitation. pp.689706. J. Ross Publishing.

82.

Manire, C.A., N.I. Stacy and T.M. Norton. 2017. Chronic Debilitation. In C.A. Manire, T.M. Norton, B.A. Stacy, C.J. Innis and C.A. Harms (Eds.), Sea Turtle Health and Rehabilitation. pp.707-724. J. Ross Publishing.

83.

Marin, M.L., T.M. Norton and N. Mettee. 2014. Vacuum Assisted Wound Closure in Chelonians. In D.R. Mader and S.J. Divers (Eds.), Current Therapy in Reptile Medicine and Surgery. pp.197-204. Elsevier Press.

84.

Marin, M.L. and T.M. Norton. 2017. Wound Management. In S.J. Divers and S. Stahl (Eds.), Mader’s Reptile and Amphibian Medicine and Surgery, 3 rd Edition. Elsevier Press.

APPENDIX G 136

Publications resulting from ecological studies involving Jekyll Island or Jekyll Island Authority Personnel

85.

Mazouchova, N., N. Gravish, A. Savu, D.I. Goldman. 2010. Utilization of granular solidification during terrestrial locomotion of hatchling sea turtles. Biology Letters. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.1041

86.

Mettee, N.S. and T.M. Norton. 2017. Trauma and Wound Care. In C.A. Manire, T.M. Norton, B.A. Stacy, C.J. Innis and C.A. Harms (Eds.), Sea Turtle Health and Rehabilitation. pp.657-674. J. Ross Publishing.

87.

Rousselet, E. and T. Norton. 2019. Sea Turtles. In 457-569. In S. J. Girling and P. Raiti (eds), BSAVA Manual of Reptiles, 3rd edition. pp.457-569. BSAVA.

88.

Norton, T.M. and M.T. Walsh. 2011. Sea Turtle Rehabilitation. In R.E. Miller and M.E. Fowler (Eds.), Fowler’s Zoo and Wild Animal Medicine, Current Therapy (vol. 7). pp.239-246. Elsevier Press.

89.

Norton, T.M., K.M. Andrews and L.L. Smith. 2013. Amphibian and reptile capture, handling and marking techniques and telemetry application. In D.R. Mader and S.J. Divers (Eds.), Current Therapy in Reptile Medicine and Surgery. pp.310-340. Elsevier Press.

90.

Norton, T.M., K.M. Andrews and L.L. Smith. 2014. Techniques for Working with Wild Reptiles. In D.R. Mader and S.J. Divers (Eds.), Current Therapy in Reptile Medicine and Surgery. pp.310-340. Elsevier Press.

91.

Norton, T.M. and J. Wyneken. 2014. Sea turtle physical examination part 1: Eyes, ears, nose, throat.

LafeberVet. https://lafeber.com/vet/sea-turtle-physical-examination-part-1-eyes-ears-nose-throat/

92.

Norton, T.M. and J. Wyneken. 2014. Sea turtle physical examination: Part 2.

LafeberVet. http://lafeber.com/vet/sea-turtle-physical-examination-part-2/

93.

Norton, T.M. and J. Wyneken. 2015. Basic husbandry: Hospitalizing the sea turtle. LafeberVet. http://lafeber.com/vet/basic-husbandry-hospitalizing-the-sea-turtle/

94.

Norton, T.M. and J. Wyneken. 2015. Body condition scoring the sea turtle. LafeberVet. http://lafeber.com/vet/body-condition-scoring-the-sea-turtle/

95.

Norton, T.M. and J. Wyneken. 2015. Sea turtle restraint. LafeberVet. http://lafeber.com/vet/sea-turtlerestraint/

96.

Norton, T.M., K.M. Andrews and L.L. Smith. 2017. Working with free ranging reptiles. In S.J. Divers and S. Stahl (Eds.), Mader’s Reptile and Amphibian Medicine and Surgery, 3 rd Edition. Elsevier Press.

97.

Norton, T.M. and G.J. Fleming. 2017. Shell Surgery and Repair. In S.J. Divers and S. Stahl (Eds.), Mader’s Reptile and Amphibian Medicine and Surgery, 3rd Edition. Elsevier Press.

98.

Norton, T.M., G.J. Fleming, and J. Meyer. 2019. Shell Surgery and Repair. In S.J. Divers and S.J. Stahl (Eds.), Mader's Reptile and Amphibian Medicine and Surgery, 3 rd Edition. pp. 1116-1126. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

99.

Norton, T.M., C.J. Innis and C.A. Manire. 2017. Critical Care and Emergency Medicine. In C.A. Manire, T.M. Norton, B.A. Stacy, C.J. Innis, C.A. Harms (Eds.), Sea Turtle Health and Rehabilitation. pp.483-496.

J. Ross Publishing.

100.

Norton, T.M. and M. Koperski. 2017. Rehabilitation: Past, Present, and Future. In C.A. Manire, T.M. Norton, B.A. Stacy, C.J. Innis and C.A. Harms (Eds.), Sea Turtle Health and Rehabilitation. pp.25-42. J. Ross Publishing.

APPENDIX G 137

Publications resulting from ecological studies involving Jekyll Island or Jekyll Island Authority Personnel

101.

Norton, T.M., C.I. Mosley, K.K. Sladky, E. Rousselet, M.T. Walsh, C.A. Manire and T.T. Zachariah.

2017. Analgesia and Anesthesia. In C.A. Manire, T.M. Norton, B.A. Stacy, C.J. Innis and C.A. Harms (Eds.), Sea Turtle Health and Rehabilitation. pp.527-550. J. Ross Publishing.

102.

Stacy, B.A., A.M. Foley, T.M. Work and T.M. Norton. 2017. Mortality Investigations. In C.A. Manire, T.M. Norton, B.A. Stacy, C.J. Innis and C.A. Harms (Eds.), Sea Turtle Health and Rehabilitation. pp.933944. J. Ross Publishing.

103.

Tristan, T.E. and T.M. Norton. 2017. Physical Examination. In C.A. Manire, T.M. Norton*, B.A. Stacy, C.J. Innis and C.A. Harms (Eds.), Sea Turtle Health and Rehabilitation. pp.99-122. J. Ross Publishing.

104.

Tupper, T. and K.M. Andrews. 2015. Wildlife Alert: The Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake. In S.A. Miller and J.P. Harley (Eds.), Zoology, 10th Edition. McGraw Hill Education.

Student Theses and Dissertations 105.

Crawford, B.A., J.C. Maerz, N.P. Nibbelink and T.M. Norton*. 2011. Roads, reptiles, and recovery: Applying a collaborative decision-making approach for diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) conservation in Georgia. Master’s thesis. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

106.

Mascovich, K. A. 2018. The nesting ecology of sea turtles: managing people, infrastructure, and habitat.

Master’s thesis. Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

107.

Mollet Saint Benoit, C. 2019. Examining the Density and Distribution of Micro and Macroplastics as a Possible Contributor to Sea Turtle Nesting Sand Habitat Quality. Master’s thesis. Georgia State University, https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/geosciences_theses/136

108.

Shearman, Timothy M., "Impacts of Laurel Wilt Disease on Native Persea of the Southeastern United States" (2016). College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Life Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.

109.

Skupien, G.M. 2015. Wildlife conservation in a developing landscape: interfacing biological research and science-based public awareness. Master’s thesis. Odum School of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

110.

Wilson, A. 2018. The impacts of extreme high tide events on sea turtle nesting along the Georgia barrier islands. Master’s Thesis. Daniel B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA

APPENDIX G 138

APPENDIX H COMPREHENSIVE FIRE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

139

Jekyll Island Environmental Assessment Procedure (EAP): Jekyll Island Environmental Assessment Procedure (EAP): Date of EAP Committee meeting: 2/18/2020 Date of EAP Committee meeting: 2/18/2020 EAP Committee members EAP Committee members Ben Carswell, Director of Conservation, JIA Yank Moore, Land Manager, JIA Ben Carswell, Director of Conservation, JIA Cliff Director of Landscape and Planning, JIA YankGawron, Moore, Land Manager, JIA Dennis Gailey,Director DirectorofofLandscape Public Safety, Cliff Gawron, and JIA Planning, JIA Terry Norton, Veterinarian Dennis Gailey,Director Directorand of Public Safety, GSTC, JIA JIA Breanna Ondich, Research JIAGSTC, JIA Terry Norton, Director andSpecialist, Veterinarian Mark McClellan, Coordinator, Breanna Ondich,Stewardship Research Specialist, JIA Georgia Forestry Commission Jacob Thompson,Stewardship Biologist, Georgia DNR –Georgia WildlifeForestry Conservation Section Mark McClellan, Coordinator, Commission Rich van Iderstyne, Jekyll Island Resident and Business Owner Jacob Thompson, Biologist, Georgia DNR – Wildlife Conservation Section Bonnie Householder, JekyllIsland IslandResident Residentand Business Owner Rich van Iderstyne, Jekyll Bonnie Householder, Jekyll Island Resident Project under consideration Project under consideration Develop and implement a comprehensive fire-management program that will determine portions of Jekyll and Island where fire can be used as fire-management a management tool, fire-control measures to be used, Develop implement a comprehensive program that will determine portions desired timing and seasonality of prescribed fire, and areas where mechanical fuel-management of Jekyll Island where fire can be used as a management tool, fire-control measures to be used, activities may be required.

Implementation prescribed fire and/or mechanical fuel reduction desired timing and seasonality of prescribedof fire, and areas where mechanical fuel-management measures will be developed through stepwise advancement and refinement.

This project will activities may be required. Implementation of prescribed fire and/or mechanical fuel reduction prioritize and sustainability from a maintenance standpoint.

Subsequent,This focalproject EAPs may measures safety will be developed through stepwise advancement and refinement. will be called for as this is developed. prioritize safety andprogram sustainability from a maintenance standpoint. Subsequent, focal EAPs may be called for as this program is developed.

Summary assessment Summary assessment The Committee broadly supports JIA undertaking this endeavor to maximize public safety, manage risk to personal property and natural resources, and seektocollateral ecological benefits.

The Committee broadly supports JIA undertaking this endeavor maximize public safety, This support is based upon the understanding that the program will only be advanced pending manage risk to personal property and natural resources, and seek collateral ecological benefits. satisfactory of initial including a pilot burn to take offadvanced of North pending This supportoutcomes is based upon the phases understanding that the program will place only be Beachview Road.

If early results are unsatisfactory, JIA staff will adjust recommendations for satisfactory outcomes of initial phases including a pilot burn to take place off of North how best toRoad. proceed, and,results if the conceptual approachJIA changes significantly, additional EAP for Beachview If early are unsatisfactory, staff will adjust recommendations review may called for program. how best to be proceed, and,before if the advancing conceptualthe approach changes significantly, additional EAP review may be called for before advancing the program.

Requirements Requirements ❖ The Comprehensive Fire Management Program must be developed and executed with collaboration and from the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC).

JIA ❖ active The Comprehensive Firepartnership Management Program must be developed and executed with staff serve the lead if that is GFCs preference, but sufficient GFC staff and JIA activecan collaboration androle, partnership from the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC). staff can serve the lead role, if that is GFCs preference, but sufficient GFC staff and office: 912-635-9384

|

100 James Road, Jekyll Island, Georgia 31527

|

fax: 912-635-4004

office: 912-635-9384

|

100 James Road, Jekyll Island, Georgia 31527

|

fax: 912-635-4004

APPENDIX H 140

equipment presence on site to maximize safety and preparedness is a necessity for implementing any burn on the island outside of the golf course area. ❖ The program must be implemented with phasing and scope considerations that do not exceed the capacity of JIA to maintain any new fire-control infrastructure, particularly the proposed new fire breaks.

Overarching Goals ❖ Public Safety o Develop and maintain a system that effectively minimizes the threat of wildfires on homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure o Education through the Firewise program can help homeowners reduce the threat within the leased property ❖ Ecological o Use appropriate methods to either restore or protect habitats from catastrophic wildfire o Increase plant diversity in ground cover species and limit expansion of dense understory plants that exclude diversity, such as palmetto o Slowly reduce the duff layer to allow native seed diversity in the system to reestablish Procedures ❖ Fire Buffers o Defined as a 75’ - 100’ strip of land adjacent to development that has maintained reduced fuel loads (grasses and less flammable canopy trees) o Classified as Developed o Should be maintained annually or set on a rotation cycle for every other year ▪ Allows maintenance by bush hog instead of costly mulching ▪ Seasonally adaptive to target most effective time of year for maintenance o Over time it would be beneficial to remove pines from the buffer and establish an oak canopy with grass understory. ❖ Service Roads o Defined as dirt paths (~25’ wide) that are maintained for service or access of infrastructure o Classified as Developed o Should be constantly maintained for down trees and leaning or overhanging trees ▪ Road shoulders should be mulched or cut at least every other year ❖ Fire Breaks o Defined as dirt corridors that are only maintained and accessed for wildfire prevention or prescribed fire operations o Classified as undeveloped if they are not maintained as roads, access to infrastructure, or direct protection of residential areas o Should be maintained as needed for prescribed fire and at least every 2-3 years for wildfire protection of natural areas

office: 912-635-9384

|

100 James Road, Jekyll Island, Georgia 31527

|

fax: 912-635-4004

APPENDIX H 141

❖ Mulch Rows o Defined as mulched paths that divide fire blocks to provide safety for firing operations o These do not go down to bare soil and are not maintained except immediately before a scheduled prescribed fire operation ❖ External Partners Consider establishing memorandums of agreement/understanding as appropriate o Georgia Forestry Commission (Primary assistance) o Georgia State Patrol o Georgia DNR o Interagency Burn Team Proposed Management Plan ❖ The attached working-map (Figure 1) shows 18 areas that are habitats suitable for firing operations varying from 1 acre to 56 acres (153 acres total) ❖ In order to prepare these areas, approximately 7 miles of Fire Breaks will need to be cut to divide them from less suitable or priority habitats o These proactive/planned fire breaks are smaller and can be installed with care to ensure less damage to mature trees. This contrasts with breaks installed hastily out of necessity in the event of a wildfire, which are larger and not precisely placed resulting in greater ecological impact. ❖ Mulch rows are proposed in larger blocks in order to safely allow for firing operations and emergency escape routes for burners. These will also allow for a quicker stop to a burn if fire behavior/conditions become dangerous. ❖ The working-map is understood to be a starting point that approximates the scope of the comprehensive, long-term program that is envisioned and has been considered by this EAP review. Minor modifications to the specific burn unit delineations are expected as the program is developed. Major modifications to scoped/approach would call for additional EAP review. ❖ Portions of this plan will be addressed in phases, so as not to overwhelm resources and partnerships, and to allow for adjustments based on outcomes.

Recommendations ❖ Mechanical vs Fire o Mechanical fuel reduction is costly, time consuming, and ecologically stressful.

Dense tree cover could result in heavy equipment damage to tree trunks and roots.

This method is often used in combination with herbicide treatments that could cause collateral ecological impacts. However, in areas where fuel loads are unacceptably high and fire cannot be applied without unacceptable risk, mechanical reduction should be considered. A focused EAP may be called for in such instances. office: 912-635-9384

|

100 James Road, Jekyll Island, Georgia 31527

|

fax: 912-635-4004

APPENDIX H 142

o

Fire is relatively cheap and quick but inherently involves managed risk.

Restoration burns can only be completed in cooler months (dormant season) under very specific weather conditions. In a worst-case scenario if a fire burns with more intensity than expected, it could result in stand altering damage with high tree mortality ❖ Precautions and Potential Impacts o Invasive plant establishment in new fire breaks will need to be regularly monitored and controlled. o Need to address tree protection and minimize impact of hardwood and priority species o Archaeological resources need to be accounted for and addressed during all activities. When installing fire breaks, staff need to look out for unknown or new sites. Consultation with Historic Resources is critical to ensure the protection of our past. ❖ Restoration o In the event of stand-altering fire (mortality approaching 50%), either wildfire or prescribed, restoration opportunities should be evaluated o In this scenario, there is a small window to harvest timber after a fire before it becomes unusable. Allowing a high density of standing dead timber to remain compromises forest health because it can introduce insects pests and disease that can spread to adjacent living trees.

▪ Any revenue earned from harvested timber must go back into the restoration of the damaged area.

▪ All native species must be used and an effort to use local ecotypes must be considered. ❖ General Recommendations o May be a need to further sub-divide blocks on early burns to make them more manageable.

▪ This would mean the addition of additional fire breaks ▪ Mulch lines would be an alternative o Consult with other islands and partners on parameters and prescriptions that have worked on similar habitats o Work with other departments and research partners to ensure other conservation priorities are not threatened by new activities o This plan needs to have the flexibility to prepare for the next major drought cycle ▪ If a major drought is eminent, managers must make all efforts to maintain breaks, buffers, and service roads to prepare for such an event ▪ There have been years where there were no resources from GFC in the area to combat a wildfire, a fact that emphasizes the importance of this effort.

office: 912-635-9384

|

100 James Road, Jekyll Island, Georgia 31527

|

fax: 912-635-4004

APPENDIX H 143

Figure 1. Working draft showing scope of units under consideration for the Comprehensive Fire Management Program. Each unit will be evaluated separately, and an individual prescription will be assigned to each one. The units in this map are subject to change in shape, number, and management as the program evolves.

office: 912-635-9384

|

100 James Road, Jekyll Island, Georgia 31527

|

fax: 912-635-4004

APPENDIX H 144

APPENDIX I WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

145

WATERSHED PROTECTION PLAN

Prepared for: Jekyll Island Authority Glynn County, Georgia Prepared by: Nutter & Associates, Inc. Athens, Georgia NutterInc.com April 2015

APPENDIX I 146

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

2.0

LEGAL AUTHORITY ............................................................................................. 2 2.1 Political Jurisdiction ....................................................................................... 2 2.1.1 Responsible Parties ............................................................................. 2 2.1.2 Local Zoning and Development Authorities ............................................ 2 2.1.3 Resources Available for Plan Implementation ......................................... 2 2.2 Code and Regulation Evaluation ..................................................................... 2 2.2.1 Chapter 14: Flood Prevention ............................................................... 2 2.2.2 Chapter 16: Land Development and Use Regulations .............................. 3 2.2.3 Chapter 18: Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions ................................ 3

3.0

FUNDING SOURCES............................................................................................. 4 3.1 Cost to Implement ........................................................................................ 4 3.2 Potential Funding Sources ............................................................................. 4

4.0

POLLUNTANT SOURCES AND MANAGEMENT ......................................................... 5 4.1 Baseline Water Quality Conditions and Pollutant Sources.................................. 5 4.2 Future Growth and Development ................................................................... 6

5.0

Best MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP’S) ............................................................... 9 5.1 Non-structural Best Management Practices (BMP’s) ........................................ 10 5.1.1 WPP Implementation Manager ............................................................ 10 5.1.2 Public Outreach and Education ............................................................ 10 5.1.3 Golf Course Pond Monitoring Program .................................................. 11 5.1.4 Golf Course Dialog.............................................................................. 11 5.1.5 Sewer Pipe Leak Inspections ............................................................... 11

6.0

MANAGEMENT OF 303(d) LISTED SEGMENTS ....................................................... 12

7.0

SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTING MANAGEMENT MEASURES .................................. 13

8.0

LONG TERM MONITORING PLAN ......................................................................... 14 8.1 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................ 14 8.2 Parties Responsible for Water Quality and Biological Monitoring ....................... 14 8.2.1 Reduction in Water Quality Monitoring Scope........................................ 15 8.3 Long Term Monitoring Station....................................................................... 15 8.4 Monitoring Schedule .................................................................................... 16 8.5 Monitoring Procedures ................................................................................. 16 8.5.1 Water Quality Monitoring .................................................................... 16 8.5.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring .................................................. 17 8.5.3 In-situ Water Quality and Flow ............................................................ 18

9.0

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................. 19

10.0 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................ 20 Nutter & Associates, Inc.

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Estimated 2015 and 2016 long-term monitoring schedule.

Table 2. Water quality parameters, test methods, and reporting limits, Jekyll Island Watershed Assessment.

APPENDIX I 147

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Jekyll Island vicinity map.

Figure 2. Six and eight digit USGS hydrologic unit code (HUC) map.

Figure 3. Locations of biological and water quality monitoring stations.

Figure 4. Locations of biological and water quality monitoring stations.

Figure 7. Locations of potential environmental stressors and 2012 305(b)/303(d) listed segments.

LIST OF PLATES Plate 1. Station UTW01 looking downstream (west) towards Old Plantation Road.

Plate 2. Station UTW01 looking upstream (East).

Plate 3. Station UTW02 looking downstream (Southwest).

Plate 4. Station UTW02 looking upstream (Northeast).

Plate 5. TCM01 looking upstream (North) from Shell Road.

Plate 6. TCM01 looking upstream (North) at tidal exchange point with golf course pond.

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

iv

APPENDIX I 148

1.0 INTRODUCTION This Watershed Protection Plan (WPP) has been developed for the Jekyll Island State Park Authority (JIA) and the Jekyll Island Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), located in Glynn County, Georgia (Figure 1). The purpose of this WPP is to summarize the existing and proposed initiatives aimed at managing the watershed within the WPCP service area. This WPP summarizes a suite of activities including long-term water quality and biological monitoring, and strategies for pollution identification, prevention, and public education. The WPP is part of a three part watershed assessment process mandated by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) for the WPCP National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewal.

The WPCP service area is located on Jekyll Island, a coastal barrier island located approximately 90 miles south of Savannah, Georgia and 73 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Jekyll Island is designated as a State Park, but is managed independently by the JIA. The Island stretches roughly 8 miles north to south and 1 mile wide (Figure 1). Jekyll Island is located on the eastern edge of the Cumberland/St. Simons River sub-basin (HUC 03070203), within the larger St. Marys/Satilla River Basin (HUC 030702) (Figure 2). To the Islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s east is the Atlantic Ocean and to its west is the Intracoastal Waterway. The service area, which includes most of Jekyll Island, encompasses nearly 8.5 square miles.

A Watershed Assessment for the WPCP service area was initiated in December 2012, and a completed Watershed Assessment report was submitted to the EPD in February 2014.

During the Watershed Assessment, water quality and biological sampling and analysis were conducted at five (5) freshwater/saline stream stations throughout Jekyll Island (Figures 3 and 4). The Watershed Assessment report was approved by the EPD on July 24, 2014. This WPP utilizes the findings of the water quality and biological monitoring conducted during the Watershed Assessment to establish initiatives including watershed best management practices (BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) within the jurisdictional limits of the JIA.

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

1

APPENDIX I 149

2.0 LEGAL AUTHORITY 2.1 Political Jurisdiction 2.1.1 Responsible Parties Jekyll Island State Park Authority 100 James Road Jekyll Island, GA 31527 Jekyll Island Water Pollution Control Plant 2 Harbor Road Jekyll Island, GA 31527 Jekyll Island Conservation Program 100 James Road Jekyll Island, GA 31527

2.1.2 Local Zoning and Development Authorities Jekyll Island State Park Authority Glynn County, GA

2.1.3 Resources Available for Plan Implementation As part of the WPP, the JIA will utilize a variety of resources to implement the proposed management activities. A WPP implementation manager will be assigned by the JIA Executive Director to ensure that communication between the WPCP and the JIA is maintained as it concerns the WPP, and that efforts to implement BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s are completed. The Jekyll Island Conservation Program will work with the WPCP and will be responsible for implementing long term monitoring efforts.

2.2 Code and Regulation Evaluation The WPCP service area for Jekyll Island encompasses areas regulated by the Jekyll Island Code of Ordinances. A review of all applicable ordinances was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness in which the JIA currently regulates and protects watershed resources within the service area.

2.2.1 Chapter 14: Flood Prevention This chapter of the Jekyll Island Code of Ordinances outlines ordinances design to prevent flooding to properties on Jekyll Island. Section 14-4 (5) of this ordinance protects water resources establishing provisions that control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which are involved in the accommodation of floodwaters. This provision ensures protection of environmentally sensitive floodplain and stream channels that are often impacted by development practices.

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

2

APPENDIX I 150

2.2.2 Chapter 16: Land Development and Use Regulations Article VI of Chapter 16 mandates that all structures containing toilet facilities connect directly with the sanitary sewer system serviced by the WPCP. This ordinance is protective of water quality by eliminating septic systems throughout the island. Septic systems are a primary source of excess nutrients and fecal bacteria in receiving waters. A properly maintained WPCP can reduce the impact of nutrients and fecal bacteria to receiving streams through engineered treatment.

2.2.3 Chapter 18: Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions Sections 18-3 specifically prohibits the placement of refuse or fill into any water feature that periodically carries water run-off. This ordinance could be strengthened by prohibiting the discharge of any chemical constituent into waterways, as this is not specifically addressed in the ordinance as is.

3.0 FUNDING SOURCES 3.1 Cost to Implement Responsible Party(s)

Capital Costs

Assign WPP Implementation Manager

JIA

Existing Staff $0.00

Golf Course Pond Monitoring

JIA Conservation

$??

Public Outreach and Education

JIA Conservation

$0.00

Golf Course Dialog

JIA Conservation

$0.00

JIA WPCP

$0.00

JIA WPCP and JIA Conservation

$7,200.00

Task

Sewerage Leak Inspections Long-term water quality monitoring (2years)

Total Year 2 WPP Implementation Cost

$7,200.00

3.2 Potential Funding Sources All proposed watershed management activities will either have no direct costs to the JIA or funding will be generated by the WPCP or the Jekyll Island Foundation. The Jekyll Island Foundation works in concert with the JIA to generate funding for conservation initiatives throughout the Island. Funding for BMP activities may be available from conservation funds generated by the Foundation. Outside grant funding may be pursued should the results of long-term monitoring and assessment result in needed watershed improvements. Currently, there are several efforts to improve water quality in ponds on the island that are being funded by operation Conservation Program funds. Funding sources and ongoing efforts to improve water quality on Jekyll Island will be incorporated and documented in the WPP. Water quality awareness campaigns will be incorporated into existing JIA conservation awareness initiatives. Other aspects of WPP implementation will require JIA personnel and resources. Long-term water quality monitoring will be funded through the WPCP and will 3 Nutter &JIA Associates, Inc. utilize Conservation Program staff to implement the monitoring plan.

APPENDIX I 151

4.0 POLLUTANT SOURCES AND MANAGEMENT 4.1 Baseline Water Quality Conditions and Pollutant Sources The results of baseline water quality and biological monitoring conducted between December 2012 and September 2013 are detailed in the Watershed Assessment report (February 2014). During baseline monitoring of freshwater and brackish streams draining the Island, the only water quality criteria exceedances during the watershed assessment were for in-situ measures of dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and temperature. Exceedances for DO below water quality standards occurred rarely at every monitoring station and overall, occurred 12 times out of 57 measurements made over the course of the watershed assessment. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in coastal freshwaters are often below freshwater standards due to a lack of in-channel mechanical mixing, and periodic measurements below standards during the watershed assessment on Jekyll Island are normal, representing background conditions. Temperature standards were exceeded once at the tidal creek station TCM01 during low tide. The pH standard was exceeded twice at UTW02, falling just below the 6.0 S.U. standard. Station UTW02 is a swamp stream system that is characterized by more acidic conditions. None of the chemical water quality parameter standards were exceeded.

The most significant pollutants identified during the watershed assessment were somewhat elevated nutrient and bacteria concentrations. Elevated bacteria concentrations in the form of Enterococci along beaches and tidal creeks have been an ongoing problem for the Island.

However, as detailed in the Watershed Assessment report, based on extensive research conducted by DNR and the University of Georgia, the source of elevated fecal bacterial along beaches and in tidal creeks represented by stations TCN01 and TCS01 appears to be largely of wildlife origin. Elevated bacteria counts were sample from several shallow freshwater creeks draining golf courses on the Island. These shallow creeks including stations UTW01 and UTW02 are less tidally influenced than creeks represented by stations TCM01, TCN01, and TCS01. Considering recent source bacteria research that point to wildlife sources and that the majority of residential units on the Island are connected to the WPCP, the source of elevated bacteria counts in all streams draining the Island are likely the result of the abundant wildlife populations that the Island supports.

Minor elevated nutrient concentrations, and in particular total phosphorus, were measured at stations UTW01, UTW02, and TCM01 during the Watershed Assessment. All three of these stations drain golf courses in the middle of the Island (Figures 3 and 4). The source of these nutrient inputs is likely runoff from fertilizers applied to golf courses and residential areas within the respective watersheds. There may be other unknown sources contributing to the higher TP concentrations in Jekyll Island streams. Georgia is currently studying numeric nutrient criteria to be added to state water quality standards. Continued elevated nutrient concentrations in Jekyll Island streams may be cause for addressing potential sources of elevated nutrients in the future.

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

5 APPENDIX I 152

4.2 Future Growth and Development Future growth and development on Jekyll Island is limited by current laws that restrict development to no more than 1,675 acres, leaving only 66 acres available for future development (JIA, 2014). The remaining 66 acres of allowable land for development is slated for a 12 acre expansion of the campground in the northern portion of the Island, necessary airport upgrades, and any additional needs the JIA may deem necessary (JAI, 2014). In recent years, Jekyll Island has had a drop in hotel rooms due to the closing of older hotels due to economic factors including the recession in the mid-2000s. Current hotel redevelopment will result in 1,410 rooms available by the end of 2013. Redevelopment and hotel repairs are currently being conducted on existing impervious footprints and no newly developed lands are scheduled to be used for hotel development. The majority of current development is towards the middle of the Island surrounding existing golf courses.

Additionally, because DNR currently monitors beaches and tidal creeks near stations TCN01 and TCS01 where development is very limited, the high priority point source and non-point source pollution management plan areas should be centered on conveyances draining the golf courses. These watersheds are represented by downstream stations UTW01, UTW02, and TCM01 (Figures 3 and 4).

The three high priority watersheds indicated above drain areas in the middle of the Island largely consisting of golf courses and residential areas (Figures 3 and 4). Future growth in these areas is limited by law, but ongoing landscape management practices contributes to non-point source pollutants entering these waterways. As a result, the implementation of long-term water quality monitoring, structural BMP’s, potential riparian and freshwater wetland improvements, stormwater retrofits that direct flow to freshwater wetlands, groundwater conservation measures, and assessments of current golf course maintenance practices will be targeted in these watersheds. Management strategies for addressing the golf course areas of the Island have been thoroughly outlined in the Jekyll Island Conservation Plan 2011. Conservation Plan management priorities for the golf course areas that are consistent with the objectives and intent of this WPP include the following: •

Identify opportunities for ecological restoration of disturbed habitats that contribute to long-term ecological health of the Island;

•

Identify hydrological alterations, including groundwater impacts and ditching, and evaluate opportunities for wetland enhancement;

•

Maintain a natural resource-compatible integrated pest management and maintenance program for golf course operations;

•

Evaluate the effectiveness of current stormwater treatment facilities and identify opportunities to enhance stormwater quality, quantity, and hydroperiods;

•

Identify opportunities to incorporate natural features into educational programs and wildlife protection; and

•

Monitor and conduct ecological research on the use of man-made habitats by amphibians and alligators.

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

6 APPENDIX I 153

Strategies for the golf course areas that are specifically listed in the Conservation Plan and are consistent with this WPP include: •

Implement ecological restoration through budgeted funding, mitigation opportunities, or volunteer projects;

•

Where applicable, convert landscape to native species that complement the conservation goals of adjacent natural lands;

•

Establish a monitoring program for discharges from the stormwater system;

•

Identify and implement improvements to the stormwater system to enhance water quality, timing, and discharge rates into offsite wetlands;

•

Evaluate opportunities to reduce irrigation needs and increase use of recaptured and reclaimed water when irrigation is needed;

•

Implement irrigation reduction measures and recapture/re-use water approaches;

•

Continue to seek certification from Audubon International in the categories of environmental planning, water conservation and wildlife habitat for all golf courses; and

•

Maintain and/or improve water quality to increase habitat viability for amphibians.

Additionally, several of the golf courses have received or are in the process of receiving certification in Environmental Planning from the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses (ACSP). This certification encourages golf course to enhance wildlife habitat, reduce chemical use, conserve water, manage water quality, and develop education and outreach programs. This WPP will be incorporated with ongoing management strategies the JIA and the golf courses on Jekyll Island are currently undertaking as outlined in the Jekyll Island Conservation Plan 2011, and in accordance with Audubon International ACSP certification.

Currently through operational Conservation Program funds, golf course pond management and monitoring has been initiated. The primary driver for these initiatives has been the pursuit of certification through ACSP for Indian Mounds Golf Course and recertification for Pine Lakes Golf Course. As part of this initiative, golf course ponds are being treated less frequently with the goal of reducing chemical impacts and preserving natural habitat and existing wildlife. The ponds are only treated for algal blooms, duckweed, alligator weed, and other undesirable plants that have the ability to dominate the ponds and affect the overall biodiversity. Along with the reduction of chemicals used in the ponds, the Conservation Program has started leaving a 2-3 foot buffer around most of the ponds to catch a portion of the nutrients flowing off of the course. This buffer is cut intermittently down to 6” in order to maintain the aesthetics of the course.

The Conservation Program initiated a water quality testing regiment on all of the 14 golf course ponds on Indian Mound and Pine Lakes Golf Courses in 2014. The ultimate goal is to have all four Jekyll Island golf courses certified under ACSP and carry over all of the water quality testing and environmental stewardship efforts island-wide. Testing includes monitoring for nitrates, phosphates, and DO at multiple levels in the water column.

Nutter & Associates, Inc. Monitoring is scheduled to be conducted four times per year annually starting in 2015. This monitoring effort is being coordinated with long-term water quality efforts proposed in this WPP at priority watershed receiving streams. All of the priority watershed monitoring stations drain golf course areas. In some cases, monitoring stations have been relocated upstream, and specifically UTW01 has been moved upstream to better assess water quality in receiving streams near pond outlets on the island.

7

APPENDIX I 154

5.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP’S) The primary objective of the WPP is to monitor the need for more effective stormwater management on Jekyll Island. If after continued long-term monitoring, existing conservation strategies including those outlined in the Conservation Plan prove to be inadequate in improving water quality and specifically nutrient concentrations in the target watersheds, more stringent measures should be undertaken to establish stormwater run-off limits, fertilizer management, and stormwater retrofits. The following management objectives and strategies should be reviewed and potentially implemented by the WPCP and JIA conservation staff: •

Establish a WPP manager that will work with JIA conservation staff and WPCP staff to coordinate current conservation strategies outlined in the Conservation Plan that are consistent with the WPP, and implementation of specific WPP measures pursuant to WPCP NPDES permit obligations;

•

Incorporate into the WPP existing and future water quality monitoring programs to assess nutrient and bacteria concentrations in golf course ponds, streams, and stormwater conveyances as part of ACSP certification.

•

Continue to encourage Jekyll Island golf courses to pursue ACSP certification in Chemical Use Reduction and Safety, Water Conservation, Water Quality Management, and Outreach and Education;

•

Maintain the hydrological and water quality integrity of freshwater stream channels, ponds and wetlands by improving and expanding vegetative buffers, re-routing stormwater to freshwater wetlands and ponds, reducing fertilizer and chemical applications, and increasing water conservation efforts;

•

Consider restoration efforts to improve the stream channel and adjacent riparian wetlands in the stream draining to station UTW01. This stream has been channelized and ditched to drain areas in the middle of the Island. Restoration efforts in the stream would improve wetland habitats upstream, reduce nutrient inputs to salt marshes through wetland retention and improved channel complexity, and reduce freshwater volumes to downstream saltwater marshes;

•

Sanitary surveys for sewer leaks should continue to be a priority for identifying potential or future sources of human source bacteria in area waters;

•

Encourage the use of water conservation strategies at local hotels, restaurants, and golf courses similar to efforts currently underway at the convention center; and

•

Continue to encourage re-development efforts on existing impervious surface footprints.

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

9

APPENDIX I 155

5.1 Non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) Five primary non-structural BMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s are incorporated into the WPP. It should be noted that most of these efforts are consistent with strategies outlined in the Jekyll Island Conservation Plan 2011.

1. Establishment of a WPP Implementation Manager that will coordinate WPP efforts between JIA conservation staff and the WPCP to ensure compliance with the WPP; 2. Public outreach and education on the JIA website and communication with Island residence, businesses, and visitors about water conservation and water quality awareness; 3. Incorporate existing monitoring efforts for nutrients and DO in golf course ponds, streams, and stormwater conveyances into the WPP; 4. Continued communication and dialog with golf course management about efforts to improve landscape management practices that would benefit water quality in receiving waters; and 5. Continue sewerage inventory and leak inspections.

5.1.1 WPP Implementation Manager A WPP Implementation Manager would be chosen from existing staff and assigned the duties of ensuring WPP compliance. Jekyll Island is unique among Georgia municipalities that are required to implement watershed assessment and protection efforts in that the JIA currently commits an abundance of resources to conservation and environmental improvement efforts. Because the responsibility of the WPP implementation rest on the Jekyll Island WPCP, and current conservation and improvement efforts are being made by JIA Conservation Program staff, coordination between these two organizations via the WPP Implementation Manager would ensure that all efforts towards improving water quality on Jekyll Island are documented and incorporated into the WPP moving forward.

5.1.2 Public Outreach and Education The JIA currently participates in extensive environmental awareness and education programming. Much of the current programming is geared towards wildlife conservation, and many of these efforts are often beneficial towards raising awareness about water conservation and water quality. However, increased efforts to raise awareness about water conservation and quality can be incorporated into ongoing efforts. These efforts will include Island resident-targeted campaigns about the importance of proper hazardous materials disposal, lawn irrigation conservation, and proper application of lawn fertilizers. Additionally, interpretive signs for Island visitors that detail the importance of the cascading effects human induced water quality changes have on coastal ecosystems will be deployed. Efforts to incorporate water quality education into existing JIA conservation programming will be made.

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

10 APPENDIX I 156

5.1.3 Golf Course Pond Monitoring Program Ongoing efforts to monitor golf course ponds are being conducted by the Jekyll Island Conservation Program at two island golf courses. These efforts are being funded through operational Jekyll Island Conservation Program funds. Golf course pond monitoring will be incorporated with long-term monitoring efforts and the WPP. The goal of these monitoring efforts is to assess nutrient concentrations in golf course ponds, and to determine ways the golf courses can improve landscape management practices and stormwater and irrigation run-off quality. The goal of this WPP and JIA Conservation Program staff is to include all four island golf courses into the pond monitoring program as part of ACSP certification program requirements.

5.1.4 Golf Course Dialog Conversations with golf courses management about their efforts to improve stormwater quality, conserve water, and manage lawn maintenance chemicals should continue. All golf courses should be encouraged to seek ACSP certification in Chemical Use Reduction and Safety, Water Conservation, Water Quality Management, and Outreach and Education.

5.1.5 Sewer Pipe Leak Inspections The WPCP will continue to conduct routine comprehensive inspections of Island sewer lines to ensure that no leaks are present.

6.0 MANAGEMENT OF 303(d) LISTED SEGMENTS Details for non-supporting 303(d) listed beach segments in the vicinity of Jekyll Island are given below. The locations of the 2012 303(d) supporting and non-supporting segments in the vicinity of Jekyll Island are presented in Figure 5. Two beach segments on the north and south side of the Island are listed as not supporting for enterococci bacteria. The Georgia DNR Coastal Resources Division and the Glynn County Health Department currently monitors these areas and periodically issues beach advisories when bacteria concentrations are high. Throughout 2014, beach advisories have been issued for The Clam Creek Beach near station TCN01 and the St. Andrews Beach where these 303(d) listed segments are located. While the 2012 303(d) List states that the potential cause of elevated enterococci bacterial levels at these beaches are due to non-point source pollution, human non-point source pollution is likely not the source of elevated bacteria levels and the specific cause of the pollution has been determined to be from wildlife sources. No TMDL’s have been issued for these segments. Continued sanitary surveys in the areas should be conducted to ensure that elevated bacteria concentrations do not result from human related sources.

•

1.9 miles of Jekyll Island - Clam Creek Beach from Clam Creek to Old North Picnic Area, on the north side of the island is 303(d) listed as not supporting the intended use of swimming due to Enterococci (GA EPD, 2012). Non-point source pollution is listed as the potential cause of the elevated Enterococci concentrations (GA EPD, 2012).

0.8 miles of Jekyll Island - St. Andrews Beach from Macy Lane to St. Andrews Picnic Area, on the southwest corner of the Island, is 303(d) listed as not supporting the intended use of swimming due to Enterococci (GA EPD, 2012). Non-point source pollution is listed as the potential cause of the elevated Enterococci concentrations (GA EPD, 2012).

11 Nutter & Associates, Inc. •

APPENDIX I 157

7.0 SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTING MANAGEMENT MEASURES An estimated schedule for the implementation of the management measures proposed as part of the WPP is included below. Due to financial restraints, resource availability, and fiscal cycles, the anticipated completion/implementation schedule may vary during WPP implementation. Updates for all watershed management activity schedules will be provided in the annual monitoring reports.

Watershed Management Activity and Milestones

Anticipated Date of Completion/Implementation

Golf Course Pond Monitoring

Ongoing

Audubon Certification

Ongoing

Public Outreach and Education

Ongoing

Sewerage Leak Surveys

Ongoing

Long Term Monitoring

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

Water Quality

Annually

Biological

Biannually

Reporting

Annually

13

APPENDIX I 158

8.0 LONG TERM MONITORING PLAN 8.1 Purpose and Objectives The long-term monitoring plan will be utilized to: •

Further document and monitor water quality during normal flow conditions in the priority watersheds represented by downstream stations UTW01, UTW02, and TCM01;

•

Document stream and water quality improvements and provide information on the effectiveness of BMP’s toward meeting water quality standards and the management objectives of this WPP; and

•

Identify water quality impairments and streams requiring further attention.

8.2 Parties Responsible for Water Quality and Biological Monitoring The JIA Conservation Program will conduct all annual water quality monitoring requirements at the priority monitoring stations as well as biannual biological monitoring for macroinvertebrates at UTW01 and UTW02. Station TCM01 is a tidally influenced salt water creek with conductivities greater than 50,000 µmhos/cm. This small stretch of tidal creek is connected to a golf course pond upstream, and flows in and out of the pond during high and low tides. Even at low tide, salinities are fairly high at TCM01 and therefore, as with the Watershed Assessment monitoring, macroinvertebrate monitoring is being excluded from long-term monitoring at TCM01. Water Quality will be monitored at TCM01 as part of the WPP long-term monitoring efforts. Stations TCN01 and TCS01 were monitored for in-situ water quality and bacteria concentrations during the Watershed Assessment. Due to the ongoing monitoring for bacteria concentrations in the beaches and tidal creeks near these stations by the DNR Coastal Resources Division and the Glynn County Department of Health, further long-term monitoring at these stations will not be a necessary component of this WPP. Station UTW01 is proposed to be relocated from its current location further upstream and closer to golf course pond outlets to better assess ongoing golf course pond nutrient monitoring currently being conducted by the Jekyll Island Conservation Program.

Monitoring Station ID UTW01 UTW02 TCM01

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

Latitude Station Type Macroinvertebrate, and Water Quality (analytical and in-situ) Macroinvertebrate, and Water Quality (analytical and in-situ) Water Quality (analytical and in-situ)

Longitude

Degree, Minutes, Seconds 81° 24' 55.01" W

31° 4' 53.91" N

81° 25' 29.34" W

31° 4' 12.56" N

81° 24' 45.23" W

31° 1' 21.05" N

14

APPENDIX I 159

8.2.1 Reductions in Water Quality Monitoring Scope The Jekyll Island Conservation Program and the WPCP have determined that several of the water quality constituents surveyed during the Watershed Assessment are redundant measures or they do not serve the goals of the Conservation Program in improving water quality on the island and increasing environmental awareness. The JIA proposes to omit several long-term water quality constituents as follow: â&#x20AC;˘ Bacteriological sampling will be omitted from future long term monitoring due to the extensive bacteriological monitoring that the Glynn County Health Department and GA DNR currently conducts on the island. The JIA Conservation Program and the WPCP will coordinate with these identities to assess bacteriological issues that arise. â&#x20AC;˘ Chemical oxygen demand (COD) is proposed for omission from long-term monitoring as this constituent is redundant with biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and requires the use of toxic chemicals during laboratory analysis. â&#x20AC;˘ Turbidity is proposed for removal from long-term monitoring constituents as this measurement is redundant with TSS and unreliable with digital meters. Additionally, the Jekyll Island streams are low energy, low flow streams that even during heavy rain events do not rise to any substantial degree or become turbid as evidenced by low turbidity measurements during wet weather events detailed in the Watershed Assessment report. The cost associated with purchasing a turbidimeter is not justified by the limited information turbidity measurements would provide and funds used to purchase a turbidimeter could be put to better use.

8.3 Long Term Monitoring Stations Unnamed Tributary West (UTW01) to St. Simons Sound UTW01 is located in the western portion of the service area and drains to an expansive salt marsh adjacent to the St. Simons Sound (Figures 3 and 4) (Plates 1 and 2). This tributary appears to have been constructed to drain wetlands and the golf course areas in the center of the Island. The channel has been channelized and dredged throughout its entire length.

An exact drainage area could not be determined due to the limited topography on the island. Although water was always present in the channel during Watershed Assessment sampling, very little flow was observed. Water quality including both in-situ and analytical, biological (macroinvertebrates only) parameters will be sampled at UTW01 as part of longterm monitoring.

Unnamed Tributary West (UTW02) to Jekyll Creek UTW02 is located in the western portion of the service area south of UTW01, and drains to Jekyll Creek west of the Island (Figures 3 and 4) (Plates 3 and 4). The tributary drains from a golf course in the center of the Island. An exact drainage area could not be determined due to the limited topography on the island. This tributary was more natural in appearance than UTW01, and has retained attributes of a tidal/swamp stream system connected to expansive wetlands in the middle of the island. Water quality including analytical and in-situ, and biological (macroinvertebrates only) parameters will be sampled at UTW02 as part of long-term monitoring.

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

15 APPENDIX I 160

Tidal Creek Middle (TCM01) at Shell Road TCM01 is a salt water tidal creek that drains to large salt marshes adjacent to Jekyll Creek (Figures 3 and 4) (Plates 5 and 6). The Creek has been altered so that it fills a golf course pond to the north of the monitoring station during high tides. The bed of the creek is covered with oyster beds and the banks are inhabited by salt tolerant vegetation such as Spartina arterniflora, Spartina patens, and Borrichia frustescens, which also extend along the banks of the golf course ponds. This station will be sampled for analytical and in-situ water quality parameters.

8.4 Monitoring Schedule Georgia EPD has established criteria for the number of monitoring events required for longterm monitoring. The GA EPD has also established criteria for scheduling water quality, bacteriological, and biological monitoring events. An estimated schedule for water quality monitoring is detailed in Table 1. This schedule may be adjusted throughout the monitoring period to coincide with existing golf course pond water quality monitoring the Jekyll Island Conservation Program is currently conducting. Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring was last conducted in July, 2013. The next macroinvertebrate sampling event is therefore scheduled for July, 2017.

8.5 Monitoring Procedures 8.5.1 Water Quality Monitoring Three annual dry weather monitoring event samples will be collected as grab samples. At least one dry weather water quality event will be conducted annually between October and February. Dry weather monitoring will be conducted immediately prior to benthic macroinvertebrate sampling semi-annually. The remaining two dry weather events will be conducted annually between May and October.

One wet weather monitoring event will occur annually. Wet weather monitoring events are timed to collect composite samples over the course of the complete hydrograph for a storm event of at least 0.2 inches (0.5 cm) of rainfall and at least 72 hours since the last storm event. During wet weather events, a rain gage will be used to estimate precipitation during the monitoring event; precipitation data from the closest climatic data station will be obtained and used in interpreting monitoring results.

Samples will be collected at mid-channel one meter below the water surface or at locations where total water depth is less than 2 meters; samples will be collected at mid-depth.

Metal samples will be collected using "clean techniques" (EPA Method 1669). Samples for dissolved metals will be field-filtered using a 0.45 micron capsule filter; other samples will be collected as unfiltered samples. Field parameters (temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, salinity, and specific conductance) will be measured in-stream with a multi-parameter sonde; turbidity samples will be collected for field analysis. Field measurements and observations will be recorded on a watershed monitoring field data sheet, or equivalent data will be recorded in a field notebook. To minimize potential disturbance of stream sediments, all samples that will be submitted to a laboratory for analysis will be collected prior to performing field parameter measurements.

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

16 APPENDIX I 161

All samples collected for laboratory analysis will be field preserved in accordance with the requirements of the analytical methods presented in Table 2. Metals samples will be individually double-bagged. Sample containers will be placed in an ice chest with ice to maintain samples at a temperature of 4° C or less until they are received by the analytical laboratory.

A chain of custody form noting sample identification, date, time, number of containers, sample matrix, sample parameters, preservatives, laboratory, sampling personnel and project manager will be completed and will accompany the samples to the laboratory. The chain of custody will be signed by the field sampler and the date and time noted, then the chain of custody will be sealed in a Zip-loc bag and taped inside of the lid of the ice chest.

Samples will be transmitted by overnight courier to the analytical laboratory and will be analyzed within the holding times specified for the analytical methods listed in Table 2.

8.5.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Biological monitoring will be conducted once every four years during WPP monitoring. One water quality sample event will be conducted during the benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring.

A physical habitat assessment will be conducted at each site where biological monitoring is to occur, and will utilize the habitat assessment protocol provided in the Georgia EPD Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment of Wadeable Streams in Georgia (GAEPD, 2007) SOP. The parameters that will be included in this assessment are: epifaunal substrate and instream cover, embeddedness, velocity/depth combinations, pool/substrate variability, channel alteration, sediment deposition, channel flow status, channel sinuosity, riparian vegetation, bank stability, and bank vegetative protection.

Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling will occur between the months of October and February and will utilize the low-gradient Georgia Macroinvertebrate Assessment SOP (GAEPD, 2007).

One dry weather water quality monitoring event will be conducted synoptically with the macroinvertebrate sample event. In addition to the water quality parameters listed in Table 2, alkalinity will also be measured during macroinvertebrate sampling. Sampling will be conducted using a D-frame dip net in the following habitats when present: 8 net sweeps of woody debris, 3 net sweeps of sand or bottom substrate, 6 net sweeps of undercut banks or root mats, 3 leaf pack collections, and 3 net sweeps in macrophyte beds.

Samples will be processed and subsamples taken in a Caton-type subsampler to attain 200 (Âą 20%) individuals. Most taxa will be identified to either the genus or species level, but some taxa, including Oligiochaeta, Polychaeta, Nemata, Hirundina, Cladocera, Ostrocoda, Neoloricata, and Planaria, may remain at a higher taxonomic level. Chain of custody records, basic sorting and subsampling techniques, identification methods, and level of effort will be documented (GAEPD, 2007). Other quality control/assurance measures, including duplicate subsampling, making voucher collections, estimates of precision, calculating sorting efficiency, and long term specimen storage are not required by Georgia EPD. Several metrics will be calculated from the community data for the Tidal 75j subecoregion of the larger Southern Coastal Plain Ecoregion and compared with ecoregion specific reference data supplied by Georgia EPD to assess stream ecological condition (GAEPD, 2007).

8.5.3 In-situ Water Quality and Flow

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

17

Water quality monitoring parameters, test methods, detection limits and water quality standards are summarized in Table 2. Temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, salinity, and specific conductance will be measured in the field using a multi-parameter sonde that has been calibrated in advance of monitoring. Due to a general lack of flow in Jekyll Island streams, flow will be estimated and stage measurements will be recorded from established benchmarks.

APPENDIX I 162

9.0 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Once the Watershed Protection Plan is approved, each June 30th the following will be submitted to EPD: •

Annual certification of WPP implementation;

•

Long-term water quality monitoring data will submitted in electronic format utilizing the EPD Excel data template. Biological monitoring data, as wells as all field data sheets, laboratory taxa lists, and macroinvertebrate multi-metric spreadsheets will also be submitted in electronic format;

•

Documentation of water quality improvements;

•

Outline of specific watershed protection actions that have been implemented throughout the year; and

•

Summary of any changes and/or revisions to the Watershed Protection Plan, if necessary.

Table 1. Estimated 2015 and 2016 long-term monitoring schedule.

Table 1. Estimated 2015 and 2016 long-term monitoring schedule.

2015 2016 2015 2016 Sampling Task Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Sampling Task Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Water Quality Water In-situ Quality W D D D D W In-situ Analytical W D W D D W D D D D D W Analytical W D D D W Bacteria (Enterococci) X X D X BacteriaBiological (Enterococci) X X X Biological Benthic BenthicMacroinvertebrate* Macroinvertebrate* Annual Status Report AnnualDue Status JuneReport 30 Annually X Due June 30 Annually Notes: D = dry weather monitoring, W = wet weather monitoring, X = generalXsample event or report submittal

2017 2017 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Ju Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun D D D D D D D D X X

X

Notes: D =*Next dry weather monitoring, sampling W = wet weather monitoring, = general macroinvertebrate event scheduled for XJuly, 2017 sample event or report submittal *Next macroinvertebrate sampling event scheduled for July, 2017

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

19

Nutter &Nutter Associates, Inc. & Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX I 163

X

Table 2. Water quality parameters, test methods, and reporting limits, Jekyll Island Watershed Assessment.

Parameter Temperature, Air (oC) Depth of sample

Method Detection Reporting Method Limit Limit mg/L except as noted Water Quality Standard 32.2EC (equivalent to 90EF) Within the range 6.0 - 8.5 A daily average of 5.0 mg/L; no less than 4.0 mg/l at all times

Temperature, Water (oC) pH (S.U.) Dissolved Oxygen Specific Conductance (µS/cm) Salinity( ppt) Biochemical oxygen demand, 5day Total suspended solids Total Phosphorus Phosphorus: ortho Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Ammonia nitrogen Nitrate-Nitrite nitrogen 10.0 LITERATURE CITED

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR). 2005a. Sampling Protocols and SOP. Part I: Standard Operating Procedures for Conducting Biomonitoring on Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Fisheries Management Section. June 1, 2005.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR). 2005b. Sampling Protocols and SOP. Part

II: Scoring criteria for the index of biotic integrity and the index of well-being to monitor fish communities in wadeable streams in the Piedmont Ecoregion of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Fisheries Management Section. June 1, 2005.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD). 2002. Turkey Branch Dissolved Oxygen TMDL. Alapaha River Basin (HUC 03110202) in the Suwanne River Basin.

Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD). 2007. Macroinvertebrate Biological Assessment of Wadeable Streams in Georgia - Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Water Protection Branch. May, 2007.

Jekyll Island Conservation Plan 2011. Web access July, 2014. http://issuu.com/jekyllisland/docs/925conservation_plan_combined

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

20

405.1

2

2

160.2 365.4 365.1 351.2 350.1 353.2

3.2 0.03 0.015 0.13 0.024 0.018

5 0.1 0.05 0.5 0.05 0.05

0.13

0.5

1.1

5

0.5

1.5

8.4

20

0.05 0.5

0.25 1

Cd - Total and dissolved1 (µg/L) Cu - Total and dissolved1 (µg/L) Pb - Total and dissolved1 (µg/L)

6020A

Zn - Total and dissolved1 (µg/L) Total Hardness, Ca, Mg Total Organic Carbon

SM 2340B SM 5310C

10 (MCL) Freshwater .25 (2.0); Coastal 8.8 (40) Freshwater 9.0 (13.0); Coastal 3.1 (4.8) Freshwater 2.5 (65); Coastal 8.1 (210) Freshwater 120 (120); Coastal 81 (90)

1 Standards for metals are expressed as chronic or acute for freshwater and for coastal and marine estuarine waters. Acute criteria are in parentheses, chronic criteria without parentheses. Acute criteria will not be exceeded under 1Q10 or higher flow; chronic criteria will not be exceeded under 7Q10 minimum flow. The in-stream criterion for metals is expressed in terms of the dissolved fraction in the water column. Conversion factors used to calculate dissolved criteria are found in the EPA document National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002, EPA 822-R-02-047, November2012.

Nutter & Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX I 164

APPENDIX J PREDICTED UPLAND CONVERSION IN RESPONSE TO SEA LEVEL RISE

165

Potential upland conversion in 2050 due to a 1 meter projected sea level rise by year 2100

Legend Upland Change 2050

Coastal Georgia is experiencing rising sea levels at a rate of 3.33 mm per year as recorded by the tide gauge at Ft. Pulaski in 2019. The sea level rise rates are projected to increase over time. The Coastal Georgia Management Program (GCMP) has identified rising seas as an important planning component due to the low lying geographic nature of the coastal area and large area of impact from higher seas. The GCMP has worked with research institutions to model sea level rise through the Sea Level Affecting Marsh Model (SLAMM) developed by Warren Pinnacle Consulting. Several versions of SLAMM have been modeled in Georgia with each new version adding components to more accurately model future scenarios. The latest version SLAMM 6.3 was completed in 2016 by Dr. Ellen Herbert at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and Dr. Christine Hladik at Georgia Southern University. SLAMM 6.3 incorported a new salinity model, newer sediment transport modeling, and had finer pixel resolution. SLAMM 6.3 was run at 25 year increments modeling a 1 meter rise by the year 2100. The UplandChange2050_Class dataset was extracted by comparing developed and undeveloped upland in 2006 to remaining upland in 2050. The areas of upland change were focused on to assist in planning for potential future inundation of upland where humans live or could live.

This dataset was created to show the potential conversion of uplands to wetlands due to a 1 meter projected sea level rise by the year 2100.

SLAMM Class Codes were reclassified to only dispay simple change from upland to wetland.

2013 Image

.

0

0.25

0

1,250

0.5

2,500 1:18,000

1

5,000

1.5

7,500

2 Miles

10,000 Feet

1 inch = 1,500 feet

APPENDIX J 166

APPENDIX K DUKE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR STUDY

167

APPENDIX K Management for an imperiled reptile on a barrier island: Eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus)

By: Kelly L. Joyner and Hannah M. Royal

Dr. John Poulsen & Dr. Nicolette Cagle, Advisers April 24th, 2020

Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment of Duke University

1 APPENDIX K 168

Executive Summary Open-canopy, early successional habitats like the longleaf pine ecosystem once dominated the southeastern coastal plains of the United States. Historically covering 60-90 million acres, these habitats were naturally maintained through frequent, low-intensity fire regimes. However, pressure from human activities like the timber industry, urban and agricultural development, and fire suppression have reduced the ecosystem to roughly 3% of its former extent. Many wildlife species associated with longleaf pine and other open-canopied communities have struggled to persist as ecological quality and habitat connectivity have decreased. Habitat restoration, a practice aimed at recovering ecological functionality, is often considered a valuable management tool to reverse the harmful impacts of human alterations to the landscape. However, a disconnect between wildlife ecologists and land managers has left focal wildlife species out of many habitat restoration initiatives, resulting in a lack of measurable results, structured studies, and reproducible projects for managers to base decisions on. Using eastern diamondback rattlesnakes (Crotalus adamanteus) as a focal species, this study incorporated movement data with corridor analyses to examine a potential habitat restoration project on Jekyll Island, Georgia, on a retired golf course site.

On Jekyll Island, development concentrated in the center of the island has prevented the snakes from traversing end to end, leading to two genetically distinct populations. Using eight years of telemetry data on 26 C. adamanteus, we compared home range sizes across habitat types (forest, dune, marsh), sex, body-size (snout-vent-length), and seasons. Habitat attributes collected at each point location were then summarized and incorporated in a post-restoration habitat management plan. Additional linear models were employed to determine significant predictors of home range size. With the impending retirement of one of Jekyll Islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s golf courses, we also conducted corridor analyses under four scenariosâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;present state and three different golf course restorationsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;to select a restoration site that best aids in reestablishing gene flow between the disjunct populations, while also identifying ways to minimize connectivity benefits vs. cost of management tradeoffs. Lastly, we researched methods for converting a golf course into a native, coastal maritime grassland, utilizing expert interviews, non-scientific literature, and reaching out to organizations that have undertaken similar projects.

Snakes on Jekyll Island had a mean home range size of 15.3 hectares with habitat type and sex as significant predictors. Home range size varied among seasons (post-hibernation, foraging, breeding, hibernation) but was not significantly different among habitat type, sex, or body-size. C. adamanteus exhibited a preference for 0-25% canopy cover with 76-100% cover density. We also determined that the restoration of a combination of courses best improves end to end snake connectivity potential, but the analysis can be adjusted to accommodate varying project goals. The maritime grassland restoration plan for the decommissioned golf course was split into four phases. The first two phases focus on turfgrass eradication through chemical sprays and mechanical disturbances and soil preparation. Phase 3 focuses on successfully establishing native plant species, while the final phase lays out long-term snake and habitat monitoring plans that will ultimately determine project success.

2 APPENDIX K 169

Introduction and Background Reptile and amphibian species experience the negative effects of habitat degradation like other wildlife species; however, they are not often the target of wildlife management activities, such as protective policy implementation and targeted habitat management. Except for sea turtles, reptiles lack public support for specific conservation efforts, as evidenced by the shortage of management plans and prescriptions to sustain many at-risk populations. Even though most are small, ground-dwelling animals, many reptile species require large, intact swaths of habitat to maintain population viability. Without adequate space, quality habitat, and connectivity opportunities, populations become disjunct and are unable to survive in the long run.

Furthermore, habitat restoration projects often fail to translate wildlife ecology into useful applications for land managers.

Eastern diamondback rattlesnakes (Crotalus adamanteus) populations have declined in the last several decades due to a combination of factors related to habitat degradation. Because snakes are often deemed an undesirable animal by the general public, species like this go unaccounted for when implementing broader conservation measures. The objectives of this study support conservation management efforts on a barrier island for a declining snake species, the eastern diamondback rattlesnake. This was done through analyzing movement data, examining current and potential habitat corridors on the island, and determining the best methods for restoring a native grassland that will generate high quality habitat critical for the species.

Due to the increase in human population and the associated increase in developed landscapes, ecological quality, especially in terms of habitat quality and habitat connectivity, has diminished. Loss of contiguous, high-quality habitat has given rise to the need to restore degraded landscapes to mitigate these negative effects on natural communities (Morrison, 2002). Habitat restoration can be broadly defined as the physical, biological, and chemical manipulation of current site conditions to return some natural functioning to an ecosystem that has been altered or manipulated (Block et al., 2001).

Although habitat restoration is widely viewed as a tool for conservation, there are few examples of the restoration of wildlife communities, particularly compared to plant ecology (Miller and Hobbs, 2007; Morrison et al., 1994). Morrison (2001a) described this issue as partially the result of ambiguous definitions of habitat in wildlife ecology, impeding the growth and application of the science that would bolster restoration practices. Habitat is not only the 7 APPENDIX K 170

vegetation or landscape in which a species is found; habitat also encompasses processes that drive wildlife dynamics such as distributions, populations, and abundances (Morrison 2001a). A disconnect between researcher and land manager “perspectives, perceptions, and priorities” also contributes to this lack of wildlife representation in restoration science (Merkle et al., 2019). This shortcoming makes it difficult for land managers and researchers to connect their disciplines in order to develop restoration strategies based on scientific data. Technological advances in wildlife data collection methods have improved the understanding of the complex relationship between an animal and its environment. Wildlife movement studies can give us the necessary information to inform a habitat restoration; habitat requirements, structural components, processes, resource needs for certain species (Miller and Hobbs, 2007). However, applying these components in a restoration or wildlife habitat management setting requires a complex, nuanced understanding of the target species and its habitat. This deep knowledge of the focal species in combination with information on ecosystem dynamics, such as social organizations and the spatial requirements, are required for a successful restoration project (Morrison, 2002).

There are also broad internal and external constraints to consider in restoration. Internal factors include ecological considerations of the site like soil conditions, climate, and existing biotic community, termed “possibilities”. Externalities involve social values at play and economic budgets, termed “realities” (Miller and Hobbs 2007). Although general guidelines on how to restore and/or maintain a habitat for certain taxa is available, specific case-studies applying wildlife data to habitat restoration and management are limited to non-existent. Case studies could increase available information to land managers undertaking similar projects to bridge the gap between restoration science in theory and land management in practice.

Many open-canopy, early-successional habitats such as the longleaf pine ecosystem, grasslands, and prairie systems have been lost as a result of habitat destruction and suppression of natural fire-regimes (Green et al., 2019). These habitats tend to occur on flat topography with dry soils, which makes them desirable locations for development. For example, the longleaf pine ecosystem historically dominated the southeastern coastal plain of the United States from Louisiana to North Carolina but has largely been lost to the combined factors of the timber industry, habitat loss, and land conversion (Guyer and Bailey, 1993; Lear et al., 2005). It is estimated that around 3% of the historical 90-plus million acres remains today (Oswalt et al., 2012). Presently, longleaf pine is found in the largest swaths in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, 8

APPENDIX K 171

and Georgia (Oswalt et al., 2012). Longleaf pine ecosystems are characterized by an open canopy with a dense and diverse herbaceous groundcover that supports a variety of wildlife species in a suite of ecological niches. With habitat loss, wildlife species must adapt to the new environment or populations will struggle to persist and become extirpated.

Across the southeastern coastal plain, the decline of the longleaf pine ecosystem (LLP) had led to declines in populations of reptile species. As a keystone species, the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is an ecosystem engineer that creates burrow systems that support over 300 species (FLFWC, n.d.). One of these species, the Eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus), is an important predator species and uses the burrows as shelter and hibernacula (Gopher Tortoise Council, n.d.). Both species have experienced population declines in the past few decades largely as a result of the loss of LLP (Gopher Tortoise Council, n.d.). Protected by the Endangered Species Act, G. polyphemus must be afforded some degree of federal and state legal protections; whereas, C. adamanteus is mostly unprotected across its range.

Over the last 30 years, studies of C. adamanteus have provided insight into the speciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; natural historyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; home ranges (Timmerman, 1995; Hoss et al., 2010), diet (Timmerman and Martin, 2003), breeding (Fill et al., 2015a), and associated habitat types (Fill et al., 2015b, Waldron et al., 2008). These studies indicate that the snake prefers habitats with diverse structural components like varying canopy cover and dense ground cover, often found in pine savannas (Timmerman, 1995; Waldron et al., 2008). Presently, the species is found in a variety of habitats, including dry sandy areas, palmetto or wiregrass flatwoods, pinewoods, coastal dune habitats, and hardwood hammocks (SREL, n.d.). Several studies make recommendations for conserving areas with the appropriate habitat characteristics for C. adamanteus, such as maintaining early successional habitat through prescribed burns, leaving dead trees and stumps for refugia, and promoting a diverse, herbaceous understory (Bailey et al., 2006). But, to date, this information has not been used to restore habitat for imperiled species, like C. adamanteus habitat.

For example, in 2011, an ongoing telemetry study on C. adamanteus was started on Jekyll Island (Georgia) by the Jekyll Island Conservation Department (study previously housed within the Georgia Sea Turtle Research Department). This long-running study has generated a rich database on a C. adamanteus population inhabiting a coastal barrier island and using a 9

APPENDIX K 172

variety of habitat types in a semi-developed landscape. As of early 2020, forty-two snakes have been a part of the study, with the longest tracking period running for eight years. The database generated by the telemetry study is comprised of over five thousand-point locations of C. adamanteus on Jekyll Island with associated Figure 2. C. adamanteus under saw palmetto on Jekyll Island. (Photo Credit: Chad Harrison)

snake behavior and habitat attributes.

Due to development concentrated near the

middle of the narrow, oblong island, snakes are inhibited from traversing the length of the island, as evidenced by the genetic separation of two distinct populations in the north and south of Jekyll Island (Margres 2016). Prior to Margresâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; study, habitat managers were unaware the snakes could not travel through the center of the island. Presumably, snake movement was severely restricted by development and human activity, eliminating viable corridors between the ends of the island.

With the long-term goal of reestablishing gene flow between the disjunct snake populations, the Conservation Department started to exam the possibility of reclaiming habitat within the center of the island by restoring one of Jekyllâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s four golf courses.

Our project aims to initiate a habitat restoration project on the island, bridging the gap between wildlife ecology and restoration science, using C. adamanteus as a focal species. Our project will provide a species-specific case study demonstrating how to use ecological data to construct a habitat restoration plan and a post-restoration monitoring project to examine the success of the project. Jekyll Island presents a unique case-study for restoration because the restored site is not isolated from current C. adamanteus populated habitat patches on the island Figure 3. C. adamanteus tubed for work-up. Tubing is a safety technique used for morphological measurements, venom extraction, and pre-transmitter surgery.

(Photo Credit: Lance Paden)

and is a semi-developed landscape that aims to balance nature with human-use as a state park.

10 APPENDIX K 173

Focal Species The eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) is a species of snake found in the deep southeastern United States. Historically, its range extended from eastern Louisiana to southeastern North Carolina along the coastal plain (Timmerman and Martin, 2003). Eastern diamondback rattlesnakes typically reach four to five feet in length and are the largest rattlesnake species in the world (Timmerman and Martin 2003). Pre-settlement habitat preferences included open-canopied, pine-dominated landscapes that relied on the presence of fire disturbances (Martin and Means, 2000). Availability of overwintering hibernacula in the form of subterranean refuge (stump holes, root systems, gopher tortoise burrows) is an important factor for local populations, especially in the northern portion of their range (Martin and Means, 2000). Presentday distributions are greatly reduced with C. adamanteus likely extirpated from Louisiana and endangered in North Carolina (USFWS, 2011). C. adamanteus are threatened by several direct and indirect factors with the indirect factors creating the most serious problems for the species: habitat fragmentation and suppression of fire regimes significantly reduce and alter the availability of quality habitat (Timmerman and Means, 2003). Indiscriminate killings and rattlesnake roundups have also reduced populations, but roundups have become less common in recent years.

Presently, there is no specific legal protection for C. adamanteus in any of their range states beyond blanket protection by state agencies for all wildlife, except for North Carolina where they are listed as a State endangered species (Center for Biological Diversity, 2011). The current strongholds for the species are in the core of their range; northern Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia. While herpetologists have witnessed a precipitous decline in C. adamanteus population numbers, with human population growth and development post World War II, there was little to no empirical evidence to back it up (Timmerman and Martin, 2003). In 2011, a petition for listing C. adamanteus as a threatened species was submitted to the USFWS, reasoning that they are likely to become endangered in the future in a large portion of their range.

The petition is still under review (Center for Biological Diversity, 2011). Without large-scale policy or management efforts, regional and local initiatives may be tools for the speciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; conservation.

11

APPENDIX K 174

Figure 4. Transmitter implantation surgery at the Georgia Sea Turtle Center Veterinary Hospital by Dr. Terry Norton, DVM. (Photo Credit: Jekyll Island Website).

Study Area In Georgia, C. adamanteus are found on many of the 14 barrier islands that line its coast.

Jekyll Island is the second southernmost island and is 1 of 4 barrier islands accessible by car.

Native Americans historically used the island for hunting, but permanent settlements werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t established until the 18th century. In the early 20th century, the island was a vacation retreat for the extremely wealthy before becoming property of the State in 1947 and a designated State Park in 1948 (Jekyll Island History, n.d.). The State Park is unique because it is financially selfsustaining, has varying levels of development, and has residential neighborhoods occupied yearround. Development is limited to approximately 1/3 of the islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s area, while the remaining 2/3 must remain in a natural state. The island has roughly 1,000 residents, employs 400 people, and receives around 1 million visitors annually. Jekyll Island Authority (JIA), the governing body on the island, has composed a comprehensive conservation plan that aims to balance the needs of nature and wildlife, largely the responsibility of the JIA Conservation Department. The conservation plan was intended to guide the Conservation Department in managing and restoring natural habitats that sustain wildlife and their habitats given the number of human activities. The 12

APPENDIX K 175

conservation planning committee has the following mission: 1) preservation of biological communities and species diversity, 2) restoration, maintenance, and management of the island’s ecological processes, 3) nature-based tourism and recreation, and 4) environmental education (Jekyll Island, 2011).

Jekyll Island covers 5,847 acres, including marsh, characterized by maritime forest hammock, salt marsh, and dunes. Development makes up 616 acres of the island’s area and is largely concentrated at its center (Figure 5). The radio telemetry study on the island is largely split into north-end and south-end areas by bisecting roads and various levels of development.

North-end habitats are dominated by maritime live oak hammocks, southeastern Florida maritime hammocks, and maritime slash pine-longleaf pine upland flatwoods. South-end habitats consist of Atlantic coast interdune swales, live oak-yaupon-wax-myrtle shrublands, and maritime live oak hammocks. South Atlantic Upper Ocean Beach lines the eastern shore and both endpoints of the island (Jekyll Island Conservation Plan, 2011). Limited access is permitted in dune and marsh hammocks per the Georgia’s Shore Protection Act (1979, amended 2019), a state-wide effort to reduce human-induced erosion on barrier islands. Virtually all habitats undergo mechanical and chemical treatments to remove introduced and invasive plant species.

Forest thinning is not authorized on Jekyll Island and prescribed fire is limited but will be increasingly implemented in the future.

Estuarine and Inshore Marine Waters Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Maritime Live Oak Hammock Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Developed: High Golf Course Transportation South Atlantic Upper Ocean Beach Red-cedar - Live Oak - Cabbage Palmetto Marsh Hammock Quarry/Stripmine Southeastern Florida Maritime Hammock Atlantic Coast Interdune Swale Sea-oats Temperate Herbaceous Alliance Open Field South Atlantic Coastal Shell Midden Woodland

9980.3 8429.3 1080.3 673.8 616.3 448.6 415.2 295.3 208.8 100.1 80.1 70 66.4 61.4 35.3

Live Oak - Yaupon - (Wax-myrtle) Shrubland Alliance Coastal Salt Shrub Thicket Parks and Recreation Red Maple - Tupelo Maritime Swamp Forest Outer Coastal Plain Sweetbay Swamp Forest Loblolly-bay Forest Blackberry - Greenbrier Successional Shrubland Thicket Sand Cordgrass - Seashore Mallow Herbaceous Vegetation South Atlantic Coastal Pond Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Carolina Willow Dune Swale Mid-Successional Cabbage Palm Hammock Mid- to Late-Successional Loblolly Pine - Sweetgum Forest Pond/Open water Southern Hairgrass - Saltmeadow Cordgrass - Dune Successional Broom-sedge Vegetation Sawgrass Head

60.6 56.9 30.7 26.6 24.9 21.8 15.3 11.3 8.1 6.1 5.4 4.7 2.9 2.1 1.9 1.6

Table 1. Land use/land cover class acreage

13

APPENDIX K 176

Figure 5. Complexity of habitats found on Jekyll Island Figure 5. Complexity of habitats found on Jekyll Island

Objectives With the pressing need to address the conservation of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake, Objectives wildlife managers must seek (at a minimum) local protections and enact localized management With the pressing need to address the conservation of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake, plans that promote hospitable habitats for the species to maintain viable populations. Populations wildlife managers must seek (at a minimum) local protections and enact localized management on barrier islands like Jekyll warrant expeditious action because of habitat limitations and space plans that promote hospitable habitats for the species to maintain viable populations. Populations constraints not experienced by most mainland populations. Fortunately, Jekyll Island has spatial on barrier islands like Jekyll warrant expeditious action because of habitat limitations and space data on its C. adamanteus residents, which can provide an empirical foundation for a sound constraints not experienced by most mainland populations. Fortunately, Jekyll Island has spatial eastern diamondback rattlesnake management plan. In support of ongoing management efforts, data on its C. adamanteus residents, which can provide an empirical foundation for a sound we used multiple spatial datasets to develop a site-specific plan to restore a rare maritime grassland habitat in the center of the island with the goal of re-establishing C. adamanteus eastern diamondback rattlesnake management plan. In support of ongoing management efforts, grassland habitat in the center of the island with the goal of re-establishing C. adamanteus connectivity, expanding optimal habitat for snakes and other wildlife species, and creating we used multiple spatial datasets to develop a site-specific plan to restore a rare maritime 14 connectivity, expanding optimal habitat for snakes and other wildlife species, and creating educational and recreational opportunities for island visitors. educational and recreational opportunities for island visitors.

14 Our project addresses the following questions: Our project addresses the following questions: • How are Eastern diamondback rattlesnakes using space on Jekyll Island?

•• How areare Eastern rattlesnakes using space Jekyll Island?of a retired golf Where currentdiamondback habitat corridors located and how willonthe restoration • Where are current habitat corridors located and how will the restoration of a retired golf course affect connectivity? affect connectivity?

• course What are effective methods to convert a golf course back into a natural habitat?

• What are effective methods to convert a golf course back into a natural habitat?

APPENDIX K 177

C. adamanteus Movements, Home Ranges, and Habitat Use Data Jekyll Island Conservation Department provided us with 4,000+ GPS points on 26 C. adamanteus collected with radio telemetry. Snakes were collected opportunistically using snake tongs and held for surgery in latched storage bins. Animals were typically scheduled for transmitter implementation surgery within a week of capture. Transmitters for radio telemetry were surgically implanted (SI-2, Holohil Systems Ltd. 2019, R-1530, ATS Inc. 2015) into C. adamanteus (females n=13, males n=13) using the technique described by Reinert and Cundall (1982) at the Georgia Sea Turtle Center Veterinary Hospital. Transmitters weigh 11-13 grams and are less than 5% than a snakeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bodyweight, per IACUC protocol. During surgery, snakes were sexed by cloacal probing and body length (snout-vent-length, SVL) was measured. All surgeries were considered successful with no animal fatalities post-surgery. Snakes were returned to their capture location within two days after surgery. Snakes were subsequently tracked twice per week at varying times of day, year-round, using an R1000 telemetry receiver (Communication Specialists Inc. 148.000 to 174.000 mHz) and a three-element folding yagi (13863: 162-166 mHz, ATS Inc. 2015). JIA Conservation Department staff and technicians were responsible for tracking animals and training was done by a staff member with the project since 2011. When a snake was located, the data collector typically stayed at the location for 10 minutes to obtain the point and record data. Efforts were made to cause little to no disturbance to the study animals when approached.

Individual snakes used in the analysis had at least one year of tracking data by March 2019 (females n=13, males n= 13). On average, each snake was located 165 times (range = 62405 locations) and tracked for 12 to 83 months. Of the 26 animals in this study, 13 were found dead (two found dead on road), five were released, five had unknown fates, and three are currently being tracked in 2020. From 2013-2018, eight births from telemetered females were recorded. For the purpose of this analysis, snakes were categorized into one of three broad habitat types found on the island; dune, forest, and marsh (dune n = 8, forest n = 10, marsh n = 8). At each location, cover density and canopy cover were recorded in one of the following categories: (1) 0-25%, (2) 26-50%, (3) 51-75%, or (4) 76-100%. Canopy cover is defined as the

16

APPENDIX K 178

coverage by mature trees directly above an animal. Cover density is defined as vegetative ground cover surrounding the animal from ground-level to 3 ft.

Methods Home Range Estimation Using the GPS data, we calculated 95% and 50% home-range estimations for all snakes as well as seasonal home-range sizes and seasonal home-range sizes by year. We define 95% home ranges as the amount of space used by an individual animal over the entire period of tracking, minus 5% of outliers. We define 50% home ranges as core areas of concentrated use by an individual animal (Samuel et al., 1985). We estimated seasonal home ranges based on four seasons of activity defined by the JIA Conservation Department and based on their experience monitoring the animals. Waldron (2008) was also consulted for seasonal activity patterns. Active season 1 (MarchApril) snakes emerge post-winter and do some foraging; Active season 2 (May-July) snakes primarily forage; Active season 3

Figure 6. Visualization of habitat type locations on Jekyll Island for home range analyses. Points represent animal locations.

(August-October) snakes forage and breed; and Non-active (November-February) snakes demonstrate little movement and/or hibernation. We employed fixed local convex hull method (locoh-k) for all calculations through the adehabitatHR package (Calenge, 2006). LocoH was selected because it is non-parametric, recognizes hard boundaries, and works well in dynamic landscapes (Getz et al. 2007). Home-ranges were also calculated using the minimum convex polygon (MCP) method to compare with previous studies on C. adamanteus (Anderson, 1982).

17

APPENDIX K 179

Statistical Analyses We used linear models to determine whether sex, habitat type, and body size (SVL) predict home range size (95% and 50%, locoh). We employed linear mixed effect modeling to assess whether sex, habitat type, and body size determine differences in C. adamanteus seasonal home range sizes for all years of data and annually. Body size, sex, habitat type, and season were treated as fixed effects and snake identity was treated as the random effect to account for repeated measures because the same animals were tracked over time. We log-transformed the home range size to meet assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity and conducted the models in the lme4 package (Bates et al., 2015). The model was constructed using the lme4 package in R Studio (R Core Team, 2019). The significance level for all tests was đ?&#x17E;Şđ?&#x17E;Ş = 0.05. All home range calculations and statistical analyses were performed in R Studio (R Core Team, 2019).

Habitat Attributes Habitat variables were collected at each C. adamanteus location. Because the species is reliant upon denser ground cover cover for concealment and a varied mosaic of canopy cover for thermal regulation (Hoss et al., 2010), the canopy cover and cover density attributes were summarized for all individuals across sex and habitat types. This information will inform the restored habitat plan in terms of habitat structure and a management plan to maintain the desired habitat structure (Table 8).

To compile habitat summaries for individual snakes, we created a model in ArcPro using the Summarize Within tool to generate a list of point counts for each habitat type in which an individual animal spent its time (Appendix Table 2). A land-use-land-cover vector layer provided by the JIA Conservation Department was used as the habitat reference.

Results Home range size (95% isopleths) varied among individuals (đ?&#x2018;Ľđ?&#x2018;ĽĚ&#x2026; =15.3 ha, Ď&#x192; = 10.3 ha, range = 2.4-47.2 ha; Table 2). Sex and habitat type were significant predictors of home range size (95%; F3,100 = 81.9, p < 0.001; Appendix Table 4). Mean 95% home range size of males (đ?&#x2018;Ľđ?&#x2018;ĽĚ&#x2026; = 18.96 ha, Ď&#x192; = 8.02 ha) differed significantly from females ( đ?&#x2018;Ľđ?&#x2018;ĽĚ&#x2026; = 11.7 ha, Ď&#x192; = ha 10.9; t = 3.99, p

< 0.001). The mean 95% home range size of forest snakes (đ?&#x2018;Ľđ?&#x2018;ĽĚ&#x2026; = 24.5, Ď&#x192; = 10.1) was significantly

18

APPENDIX K 180

larger than dune snakes (đ?&#x2018;Ľđ?&#x2018;ĽĚ&#x2026; = 13.1, Ď&#x192; = 4.9 ha; t = 7.24, p < 0.001). The mean 95% home range size of dune snakes was significantly larger than marsh snakes (đ?&#x2018;Ľđ?&#x2018;ĽĚ&#x2026; = 6.4 ha, Ď&#x192; = 2.2 ha; t = -5.7, p < 0.001).

50% home range isopleths also varied significantly among individuals (đ?&#x2018;Ľđ?&#x2018;ĽĚ&#x2026; =1.7 ha, Ď&#x192; = 1.8 ha, range 0.1 ha â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 6.5 ha; Table 2). Habitat type and body size were significant predictors of 50% home range size (F4,99 = 46.41, p < 0.001; Appendix Table 5). The mean 50% home range size of forest snakes (đ?&#x2018;Ľđ?&#x2018;ĽĚ&#x2026; = 3.14, Ď&#x192; = 2.0 ha) was significantly larger than dune snakes (đ?&#x2018;Ľđ?&#x2018;ĽĚ&#x2026; = 1.4, Ď&#x192; = 1.1 ha; t = 5.02, p < 0.001) and the mean 50% home range size of dune snakes was significantly larger than marsh snakes (đ?&#x2018;Ľđ?&#x2018;ĽĚ&#x2026; = 0.3, Ď&#x192; = 0.3 ha; t = -6.63, p < 0.001). Body size did not significantly explain 95% home range size but was significantly related to 50% home range size (t = 2.93, p = 0.004; Appendix Table 5) with larger snakes having larger 50% home range sizes.

Table 2. Mean home range sizes (ha) by habitat and sex

Habitat Marsh Dune Forest

Locoh (95% isopleth) 6.58 12.61 26.35

Standard Locoh (50% Standard Female (13) Male (13) Female (13) Male (13) Deviation isopleth) Deviation 2.3 6.31 7.4 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.3 5.06 10.69 14.53 1.36 1.14 1.23 1.45 10.11 23.67 27.5 3.14 2.01 2.43 3.44

Seasonal home range sizes were significantly different among seasons (F3,75 = 9.53, p < 0.001; Appendix Tables 6 and 7) but were not significantly different based on sex, habitat type, and body size (). For seasonal home range sizes, there were significant differences among active season 1 (t = 2.7, p = 0.008), active season 2 (t = 2.17, p = 0.03), active season 3 (t = 3.01, p =

0.003) and marginal differences with the non-active Season (t = -1.83, p = 0.07; Appendix Table 6). For seasonal home range sizes annually, there were significant differences among active

season 1 (t = 3.04, p = 0.003), active season 3 (t = 4.08, p < 0.001) and the non-active season (t =

-2.28, p = 0.02). There were not significant differences with active season 2 annually (Appendix Table 7).

19

APPENDIX K 181

Table 3. Seasonal home range sizes (ha) by sex and habitat.

All Male Female Marsh Dune Forest Male + Marsh Male + Dune Male + Forest Female + Marsh Female + Dune Female + Forest

Active 1 2.78 2.36 3.33 1.95 2.99 3.15 4.36 1.70 2.17 0.98 4.72 5.42

Active 2 5.84 6.20 5.83 3.04 5.76 7.97 0.82 6.42 7.61 3.93 4.89 8.80

Active 3 7.30 10.35 4.41 2.92 6.59 11.14 5.64 6.85 13.19 1.83 6.33 6.35

Non-active 0.37 0.21 0.46 0.10 0.74 0.22 0.28 0.15 0.23 0.02 1.53 0.21

Figure 7. Home range polygons for snakes visualizing male and female home ranges. Females are represented by pink and purple symbology; males are represented by blue and green symbology.

20

APPENDIX K 182

Figure 8. Visualization of female C. adamanteus spatial use of the southwestern marsh of Jekyll Island. Locations were grouped according to life history events during various times of the year. The kernel density serves as a visual aid of the individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s area of concentrated spatial utilization.

Figure 9. Visualization of male C. adamanteus spatial use of southern end dune system of Jekyll Island. Locations were grouped according life history events during various times of the year. The kernel density serves as a visual aid of the individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s area of concentrated spatial utilization.

21

APPENDIX K 183

Figure 10. Visualization of male C. adamanteus spatial use of northern forests of Jekyll Island. Locations were grouped according life history events during various times of the year. The kernel density serves as a visual aid of the individualâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s concentrated areas of spatial utilization.

Corridor Analyses Data Land Use/Land Cover In 2011, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) conducted a state-wide aerial survey, producing a hierarchical land use/land cover (LULC) and vegetation classification geospatial layer. The map was created with the use of a State plane and post-processed within the Wildlife Conservation Section (Joseph Colbert, pers. comm. 8 Jan 2020). In consultation with the JIA Conservation Department, we selected an attribute field that represented an intermediate level of classification and adequately described the preference of C. adamanteus for specific land 22

APPENDIX K 184

cover types (see Table 1 and Figure 5). Because the data layer is almost ten years old, the LULC patches were inspected and updated, with particular focus on roads and development. One notable area nicknamed the Bone Yard, just north of all four golf courses was classified as Golf Course; however, it actually serves as a dumping site for landscaping waste and is a disturbed field flanked by young, mesic hardwood and pine forest that snakes have been documented using. A solar farm was also recently installed in the Bone Yard, so the area was divided and reclassified into five ecologically relevant classes, including the solar farm as Developed. In addition to the Bone Yard, the Developed class was split into High and Low categories, with Developed: High including commercial properties and paved lots, while Developed: Low includes residential and highly vegetated properties.

The four golf courses on Jekyll Island were not separated within the original LULC shapefile, therefore we manually split them into separate features so that rank and cost values could be adjusted for individual courses at a time (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Golf Coursesâ&#x20AC;?, n.d.). Following manual updates of the shapefile, we prepared the layer for use in the cost surface analysis by converting it from a shapefile to a raster, using a 10m-resolution digital elevation model from The National Map as the snap raster and output cell size. This resulted in a comprehensive habitat raster with 10m X 10m cells (U.S. Geological Survey, 2013).

Traffic Counts C. adamanteus road crossings on Jekyll Island are rare, with fewer than thirty crossings over the course of the study. However, the telemetry data show that the snakes consistently use space within habitat types up to the edge of roads. Because not all roads affect snake movement in the same way, we classified roads as High, Medium, and Low use based on traffic counts from the Georgia Department of Transportation (2018). The definition of categories was based on the spread of the annual average daily traffic (AADT) values on the island and descriptions of traffic patterns by the JIA Conservation Department staff (Joseph Colbert, pers. comm. October 2019; see Appendix D, Table 8). We referenced structure used by the Wildlands Network in the creation of the South Atlantic Landscape Cooperative Conservation Connectivity Models (Sutherland et al., 2015).

23

APPENDIX K 185

Source Patches To maximize North-South movement by snakes on the island, the northernmost and southernmost snake home range polygons, separated by roughly 8200 meters, served as the source patches for the creation of corridors. The north-end patch was 39.6 hectares and the south-end patch was 26.8 hectares.

Golf Courses Jekyll Island currently has four working golf courses totaling 448.4 acres, nearly 10% of the island’s land area (Figure 11). The smallest course, Great Dunes, is a 58.5 acre 9-hole course that runs down the eastern shore of the island. Built in 1926, this scenic and historically valuable course will not be retired (“Golf Courses”, n.d.). The largest course, Oleander, is 147.4 acres and is situated just inland of Great Dunes.

It is surrounded by manmade ponds, upland flatwoods of slash and longleaf pine, maritime live oak hammocks, and high to low development. Due to frequent flooding and increasing operational costs, Oleander Course is the most likely course to be decommissioned in the coming years, and therefore, was included in all restoration Figure 11. Golf course arrangement

scenarios. The remaining two courses lie north of Oleander and

Great Dunes, just across Captain Wylly Road. Similarly sized at 118.2 acres and 124.3 acres respectively, Indian Mound Course and Pine Lakes Course are intertwined in the widest stretch of Jekyll Island, ringed by maritime live oak hammocks, upland flatwoods of slash and longleaf pine, low development, manmade ponds, and loblolly-bay forest.

24

APPENDIX K 186

Methods Cost Surface Corridor analyses attempt to model animal movement across a cost surface, which is a landscape comprised of a mosaic of high- and low-resistance features based on various environmental variables. For C. adamanteus, movement is most influenced by preference for characteristic ground cover within different habitat types and so was the only variable built into the cost surface in this case. For the purposes of the analysis, “cost” does not mean “expense”, but instead is interpreted as antithetical to preference in terms of affecting animal movement (i.e. a low-cost habitat is highly preferred). Although the movement of other species may be influenced by additional factors, such as elevation, single- or multi-component cost surfaces are equally useful for modeling the most efficient paths of travel for terrestrial wildlife species (Schuett-Hames, Robb, and McRae, 2013).

To develop a cost surface raster that represented the preference of C. adamanteus for different habitat types on Jekyll Island, we referenced literature on coastal eastern diamondback rattlesnakes, other connectivity modelling studies, and the GPS locations of the snakes in the telemetry study (Sutherland et al., 2015). The JIA Conservation Department staff are familiar with the study animals and the island’s habitats and assisted in qualitatively ranking each of the thirty-four LULC classes based on suitability for C. adamanteus (Stohlgren, Spear, and Stevenson, 2015; Joseph Colbert, pers. comm. September 2019). Using a scale from 1 to 100, lower values indicated a lower cost (or higher preference) for moving through a cell of a habitat type, while higher values indicated a higher cost (or lower preference) for moving through a cell of a habitat type. Because related studies often used National Landcover Database classifications at a 30m resolution and were developed for significantly larger study areas, we deferred to the JIA Conservation Department’s ranks when habitat type classifications differed (Sutherland et al.

2015).

We then converted ranks into cost units by multiplying them by different weights to stretch out the range of values from 1-100 to 10-10000, creating large enough contrast between habitat types to ensure that corridors avoided the least preferred habitats (see Appendix D, Table 9). Cost values are relative and unitless but serve to capture the spectrum of habitat use by the snakes on Jekyll Island. However, all patches of a habitat type received the same rank and cost value, a generalization and that does not account for the among-patch variation in micro-site 25

APPENDIX K 187

conditions and interspecific competition on the island, such as seasonal flooding or competition with cottonmouths, or availability of prey that could explain the documented use of sub-optimal habitats types. Specific habitat ranks and their corresponding costs values are listed in Appendix D, Table 10.

Corridor Creation Corridors offer realistic conservation targets by connecting areas with swaths of suitable space conducive to animal movement. We first generated two cost distance surfaces, one from each of the source patches. A cost distance surface simulates the accumulative cost acquired by each cell as it moves outward away from a source over a cost surface. The two cost distance surfaces were then added together, creating an island-wide raster in which each cell indicated the minimum cost that a path going through that cell would accrue as it moves between the two source patches, regardless of direction (ESRI, 2019). To narrow the surface to a corridor of only the least costly cells, all cells with a value greater than the bottom 10% of the cost values plus 50,000 cost units were eliminated. A threshold that included only the bottom 10% of the cost values generated a non-continuous corridor and so additional cost units were added to achieve an uninterrupted corridor. However, the value of the threshold was arbitrarily selected to produce corridors with manageable widths that can be adjusted to achieve any subsequently desired corridor characteristics.

Scenarios The steps above were repeated four times, once to document the current condition of the corridor and then for three golf course decommissioning scenarios. The baseline scenario represented the current state of Jekyll Island where all golf courses were an unnatural part of the landscape, unfavorable to snake movement. Due to constant flooding, Oleander Course is the most likely to be retired and was therefore included in the restored acreage in all three restoration scenarios. The restoration scenarios included: decommissioning of only Oleander Course; decommissioning of Oleander Course and Pine Lakes Course; and decommissioning of Oleander

26

APPENDIX K 188

Course, the front nine holes of Pine Lakes Course, and the back nine holes of Indian Mound Course (Figure 12). The cost value applied to the retired golf course(s) within each iteration was lowered to a less costly value more reflective of C. adamanteus usage of a maritime grassland, the target community for the restoration project. The cost

Scenarios

value applied to all other LULC

Oleander 147.4 acres

classes was left unchanged in each

Oleander + Pine Lakes 271.7 acres

iteration. To quantify how each

Oleander + ½ Pine Lakes + ½ Indian Mound 264.5 acres

scenario changed the baseline corridor potential, a least cost path

0 125 250

500 Meters

Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

Figure 12. Restoration scenario site locations

(LCP), a path of single cells linked together to achieve the lowest accumulated cost moving between source patches, was generated through each corridor. Lastly, we calculated the total cost (in cost units) and distance (in meters) of each LCP. Results Positive improvement in North-South island connectivity is indicated by a decrease in the total cost (in cost units) and length (in meters) of a scenario LCP compared to the baseline LCP. In all three scenarios, LCPs decreased similarly in both cost units and meters, indicating that restoration of any of the sites would increase connectivity potential on Jekyll Island by reducing the geographic distance of and costs associated with travelling between source patches (Table 4).

Restoring Oleander Course would drop the cost of the LCP through the corridor by 39.4%, Oleander + Pine Lakes Courses by 39.8%, and Oleander + ½ Pine Lakes + ½ Indian Mound Courses by 41.6%. Because snakes commonly use sub-optimal habitat, the geographic distance between source patches may be a more important indicator for corridor viability than total cost of movement (Ron Sutherland, pers. comm. April 2019). When comparing the travel distance of the 27

APPENDIX K 189

decommission scenarios to the baseline LCP, restoring Oleander Course would reduce the length of the path by 3.0%, Oleander + Pine Lakes Courses by 4.2%, and Oleander + ½ Pine Lakes + ½ Indian Mound Courses by 4.9%.

Table 4. Comparison of the LCP for each scenario to the baseline LCP

Restoration Scenario

LCP (cost units)

Baseline Oleander Oleander + Pine Lakes Oleander + ½ Pine Lakes + ½ Indian Mound

4,058,117 2,459,345 2,444,723

Improvement (cost units) -1,598,772 -1,613,394

2,370,664

-1,687,453

10,794.6 10,468.0 10,336.0

Improvement (m) -326.7 -458.6

10,263.4

-531.2

LCP (m)

However, the spatial location of the LCP changed with each restoration site (Figure 13).

The LCP for Oleander + Pine Lakes is almost the same as the LCP for Oleander alone and they offer similar improvements on the baseline in both meters and cost units. This presents a situation in which the tradeoffs between connectivity and cost of management (as a financial investment) could be minimized. It would be more cost effective to restore 147.4-acre Oleander than the 271.7-acre Oleander + Pine Lakes site because they offer incredibly similar connectivity improvements, but Oleander is roughly half the acreage. However, the most improvement overall occurs when the restoration scenario switches to Oleander + ½ Pine Lakes + ½ Indian Mound.

The LCP shifts several hundred meters eastward to the center of the island, closer to the baseline LCP. The LCPs for all three restoration scenarios take different routes through the northern half of the island but converge just north of Shell Road and overlap all the way to the southern source patch. The baseline LCP hugs low development in the northern half of the island and then follows slender patches of Sea-oats Temperate Herbaceous Alliance and South Atlantic Upper Ocean Beach, hemmed in by development and the ocean. It continues southward down the east side of the island, eventually converging with the three scenario LCPs just prior to reaching the southern source patch. Because population connectivity between the ends of the island will most likely be carried out through the dispersal of young snakes looking to establish territory, the extended duration of high-risk movement within the baseline corridor makes it more likely to be 28

APPENDIX K 190

unsuccessful. Although the baseline LCP does avoid crossing the highly trafficked island access road (GA Route 520), routing around dense beachfront development and squeezing through narrow areas of suitable habitat popular with beachgoers further emphasizes the need to address habitat connectivity issues through the center of the island.

Similar patterns occur within the corridors, as well (Figure 14). The baseline corridor is irregular and very narrow along the eastern shore. The Oleander + Pine Lakes and Oleander + ½ Pine Lakes + ½ Indian Mound corridors generate the most area within corridors created at this threshold (lowest 10% of the values plus 50,000 cost units). However, both have pinch-points, areas where severely restricted suitable habitat funnels snake movement through a narrow space, at different locations along Captain Wylly Road (~95m and

Figure 13. Least cost path for all scenarios

~30m wide, respectively), as well as one at the same location at GA 520 (~85m wide) and Shell Road (~150m wide) (Schuett-Hames, Robb, and McRae, 2013). The large difference in the corridor widths at Captain Wylly Road is likely due to the angle the LCP takes across the road.

The Oleander + Pine Lakes LCP cuts across Wylly at a sharp angle and therefore does not fully intersect as many pixels in the cost surface as does the Oleander + ½ Pine Lakes + ½ Indian Mound LCP, which crosses Wylly more perpendicularly. These areas with very narrow corridor widths represent the biggest barriers to snake movement, a problem that must be addressed to develop an effective corridor. They are also useful for identifying areas to concentrate more targeted conservation efforts because losing a small area of suitable habitat can have a large negative impact on overall connectivity if snakes are unable to reroute around the bottleneck (Schuett-Hames, Robb, and McRae, 2013).

29

APPENDIX K 191

0

375 750

1,500 Meters

Baseline Corridor

Oleander Corridor

Cost

Cost High

High

Low

Low

Least Cost Path

Least Cost Path

Terminal Patches

Terminal Patches

Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

0

375 750

1,500 Meters

Oleander + Pine Lakes Corridor

Oleander + ½ Pine Lakes ½ Indian Mound Corridor

Cost

Cost

High

High

Low

Low

Least Cost Path

Least Cost Path

Terminal Patches 0

375 750

1,500 Meters

Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

Terminal Patches 0

375 750

1,500 Meters

Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

Figure 14. Corridor locations for all scenarios

30

APPENDIX K 192

Restoration Plan Introduction Golf course closings have become a recent phenomenon in the past decade, with nearly 10% of courses in the United States closing since 2006 (Petrovic, 2019). The severe decline in golfâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s popularity has largely been driven by an aging player demographic, expensive user costs, increased popularity of shorter and more athletically challenging sports, and the very public fall from grace of the gameâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s biggest superstar, Tiger Woods (Harwell, 2015). In the 1980s, rapid construction of golf courses outpaced demand, resulting in too many courses relative to the number of players (Petrovic, 2019). Jekyll Islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s golf community is no different, and the trend is pushing island management to reconsider the future of its four golf courses. This presents a unique opportunity for the JIA Conservation Department to lobby to restore a golf course into a native habitat to improve wildlife connectivity through the highly developed mid-section of the island, while also providing a cheaper and more sustainable alternative to commercial development. Due to heavy pesticide use, landscape alterations, and non-native plantings, successfully converting a golf course into native habitat will be a complex, but doable, undertaking. Much attention will be focused on the turfgrass, maintained in dense sheets to form smooth greens, which can be difficult to eradicate (Violi, n.d.). To date, there have been few projects undertaking this type of restoration and no primary literature specifically associated with the topic. Due to this limitation, we relied heavily on expert advice to guide this unique type of restoration project.

Methods Literature on converting a golf course to natural habitat is limited because golf course closings are a rare and recent phenomenon. Most of the information below comes from alternative literature, professional organizations, and expert interviews. Before initiating our research, we worked with JIA Conservation Department staff to construct a detailed outline of the topics and goals most important to the Department. The outline also served as a basis for a questionnaire sent to organizations that have experience with projects of this type, including land trusts, city parks departments, and academic institutions. We used prairies and other grasslands, such as the longleaf pine savanna system, as surrogate habitats to identify related research 31

APPENDIX K 193

literature, per expert suggestion (Karl Ohlandt, personal communication Fall 2019). Professional organizations, such as the Grasslands Restoration Network and the Longleaf Alliance, provided technical guidance for specific restoration issues. Lastly, we reached out to habitat management experts to verify the methods suggested by our research.

To conceptualize the restored habitat structure (cover density, canopy cover) and inform future habitat management plans (prescribed burns, mowing), we summarized the habitat variables collected with the C. adamanteus telemetry data. The telemetry data were also used to determine spatial requirements of the species including home range size, seasonal variation in spatial needs, and pinch points. The results of our corridor analyses determined that restoring Oleander Course, the front nine holes of Pine Lakes Course and the back nine holes of Indian Mound Course to a natural habitat, a total of 264.5 acres, would provide the best North-South corridor, although converting Oleander Course and Pines Lakes Course was a close second option.

The decision to restore the course(s) to a maritime grassland, specifically, was made by the JIA Conservation Department.

Maritime grasslands are productive coastal ecosystems that provide shelter and food for a variety of wildlife species (Ohlandt, 1992).

They are known to support healthy C. adamanteus populations on

Figure 15. Maritime grassland (Photo Credit: LSSI Nature Blog)

other barrier islands and resemble landscapes in which the species was historically found (Joseph Colbert, pers. comm. 2018). Maritime grassland plant species will ideally support prey populations of C. adamanteus, such as hispid cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus), that are associated with high densities of monocot plant species (Sullivan, 1995) and marsh rabbits (Sylvagus palustris). Found along the coast from North Carolina to Texas, the majority of native maritime grasslands have been lost to urbanization (Williams, 2007). The JIA Conservation Department will use our results and conclusions to lobby for the conversion of the selected golf course with

32

APPENDIX K 194

the goal of reestablishing a rare habitat that will serve as an educational outreach and public use opportunity (Bailey et al., 2006).

Phase 1: Removal of Golf Course Legacies The first phase of the restoration project centers around eradicating turfgrass, breaking up hardpans, and controlling non-target invasive plants.

Turfgrass and Hardpan Removal The Jekyll Island golf courses considered for retirement were built between 1922 and 1975 (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Golf Coursesâ&#x20AC;?, n.d.). Due to decades of heavy equipment operating on the land, it is likely that soils have been compacted into hardpans. Hardpan soils can prevent successful root penetration and nutrient uptake, making plant establishment difficult (Bowden & Jarvis, 1985).

Native warm season grasses (NWSG), the focus of this habitat restoration, tend to have deep roots, and therefore breaking up compacted soil will be necessary before planting (Harper et al., 2007). A penetrometer can be used to locate soil compaction and depth by measuring the pressure in pounds per square inch (psi) of soil (Duiker, Sjoerd W., 2002). Penn State Extension (2002) suggests conducting the penetrometer test the day after a heavy rain during Spring months, which is often a period of low penetration resistance. Typically, if fewer than 50% of the samples are greater than 300 psi, soil compaction is low to moderate; whereas if more than 50% of the samples are greater than 300 psi, soil compaction is moderate to severe (Duiker, Sjoerd W., 2002) Hardpan removal techniques depend on the depth of the hardpan. Shallow depths can be broken up by tine or cultivator, which disrupt surface material (Busscher 2014). Depths greater than 15cm may require the use of a shank, the thickness of which can be adjusted depending on hardpan depth (Busscher 2014). If tilling near sensitive areas, such as existing habitat, noninversion tillage is highly recommended (Busscher 2014). This technique is often used in agricultural soil practices and leaves at least 30% residue cover post-drilling, preventing erosion and improving soil matter and stability (Morris et al., 2010).

Breaking hardpan soils can coincide with turfgrass removal as both require the physical movement of the soil surface. Jekyll Island golf courses are largely composed of Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) (Aaron Saunders, personal communication 25 Sept 2019). C. dactylon grass 33

APPENDIX K 195

has proven difficult to eliminate and/or control the spread of new growth in restoration settings.

Although externalities may limit burning on the island, prescribed fires could be used in the late winter to bolster the success of turfgrass removal the following spring, a useful but optional preparatory strategy (Cody Fulk, pers. communication 23 Oct 2019). To remove turf, chemical broadcast spraying should be conducted in the Spring while the turfgrass is growing and before seed-head production (Violi, n.d.). Mowing and chemical broadcast sprays applied when the grass reaches 6 inches in height will activate growth (Longleaf Alliance, n.d.). The LLA recommends spraying with glyphosate, imazypr, or a mixture of both at the highest acceptable rates of application (Longleaf Alliance, n.d-B). Glyphosate should only be used pre-planting; imazypr or fluaziflop-P-butyl can be used post-planting as spot-treatments (Longleaf Alliance Herbicidal Training, 2019).

Physical alterations to the ground surface should start one month after the initial chemical application. If no hardpans are present, post-chemical spray scalping can be used remove the top layer of soil, cutting out the above- and below-ground turfgrass biomass. With hardpans present and/or if the site has not been sub-soiled recently, scalping should be followed by the subsoiling/tillage methods described above (Longleaf Alliance, n.d.-B). Contours should be followed during scalping to prevent soil movement and maintain water quality and soil productivity (Longleaf Alliance, n.d.). Disking of the ground surface should continue every 4-6 weeks for 6 months during the growing season with a final disking several weeks before planting (Walker and Silletti, 2006; Cody Fulk, pers. communication 23 Oct 2019). A final chemical application can be sprayed a few weeks before planting begins (Walker and Silletti, 2006).

Non-Target Invaders Following turfgrass and/or hardpan removal, colonization of exposed soil by both native and non-native pioneer species will occur quickly. If the start of Phase 3: Native Species Plantings must be delayed, herbicide treatments should be used to limit recruitment of non-target species, after which mechanical treatments may be required, particularly for removing young woody species. The most likely invasive species on the island largely occur in areas surrounding the golf courses (see Appendix Table 12 for the best methods to eliminate early establishing individuals of these species; Jekyll Island Conservation Plan Appendices, 2011). Soil left exposed by late spring or summer will also be subject to faster rates of erosion from rainfall, as 34

APPENDIX K 196

the rainy season starts in May and peaks in August (Eva Furner, pers. communication 20 Dec 2019). If bare ground must be left exposed for extended amounts of time, seeding the area with a cool season cover crop can prevent soil loss (Cody Fulk, pers. communication, 23 October 2019; Ryan Wallin, pers. Communication, 8 August 2019). Seeding a cover crop could also reduce competition from undesirable species (Natural Resources Conservation Service, n.d.). If maritime grasslands species naturally establish prior to the start of Phase 3: Native Species Plantings, they can be left to grow; however, species like Andropogon sp. can overtake disturbed sites and inhibit the success of target species later. Chemical control can also inhibit early runaway growth and can be stopped once other target species have established (Brakie, 2009).

Phase 2: Ground Prep The second phase of the restoration project focuses on soil-related issues that should be addressed before seeding and/or planting begins to augment seedling success and prevent potentially expensive remedial action later.

Pre-Sowing Efforts taken to remove turfgrass prepare the site for planting. Scalping and sub-soiling reduce competition between incoming native plants and prepare the soil for seeds and/or plugs.

Following scalping, the soil should be allowed to settle for several weeks before planting (Longleaf Alliance, n.d.). Alternatively, the tilled soil can be compacted with a roller packer for faster planting (Rothbart and Capel, n.d.). For seed-based methods, the soil should be disturbed prior to seeding (standard tilling) and smoothed post-sowing to securely press seeds into the soil (Cox et al., 2004). For plugs or seed-drilling, existing vegetation needs to be removed by mowing or chemical treatments (Cody Fulk, pers. communication 21 January 2019). Prescribed burning, as mentioned in Phase 1, can be used for seed- or plug-based planting, and offers a quicker and less involved alternative to labor-heavy mechanical or chemical efforts (Cody Fulk, pers. Communication 21 January 2019).

Soil Considerations Soils should be tested before planting to check for unsafe levels of harmful compounds, such as arsenic and mercury, that may have accumulated after decades of turfgrass management 35

APPENDIX K 197

(Minnesota Department of Agriculture, 2018). Non-compliant soil conditions could restrict recreational use of the property, as well as how soil may be moved around or removed from the site (Eva Furner, pers. communication 20 Dec 2019). Golf course managers likely have records of fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide applications throughout the years to use as reference if a chemical issue is identified. If soil sampling records are not available for the course(s), the USDA Cooperative Extension may provide sampling at no cost during certain times of the year (Cody Fulk, pers. communication, 23 October 2019). It is also likely that years of course fertilization has fortified the soil, enabling it to support new vegetation (Cody Fulk, pers. comm.

23 October 2019). Since fertilizers support the growth of both target and non-target species, continued application of fertilizers after planting is not recommended to minimize any competitive advantage of fast-growing non-target species. Native coastal plants are adapted to thrive in conditions where nutrients are low and supplying additional nutrients may impede their success (Lisa Stratton, pers. communication 27 September 2019). Also, nutrient runoff into nearby waterways, which can spawn harmful algae blooms, should be considered prior to fertilizer application at any time. Runoff issues can be mitigated by installing temporary silt fences and creating native plant buffers, typically 50 feet in width, to filter surface water before it reaches ponds or marshes (Cody Fulk, pers. communication 23 October 2019).

Nonetheless, impaired soil can sometimes be recovered. Soil treatments were mentioned twice in responses to our questionnaire. Cody Fulk, Conservation Lands Manager of Three Rivers Land Trust (Salisbury, NC), cited lime treatments as a soil stabilizer (personal communication 23 October 2019). Lisa Stratton, UC Santa Barbara, stated that they successfully improved soil by ripping in 2 inches of compost and 8 tons of biochar/acre underneath the top layer of soil. Compost and a humate/gypsum conditioner were then added to the top layer of soil (Lisa Stratton, personal communication 27 September 2019). If soil fertility levels are low, Rothbart and Capel (n.d.) suggest applying potassium and phosphorus treatments for warmseason grass stands. However, soil preconditions do not have to be a priority for project success.

The Ozaukee Washington Land Trust were cognizant of past chemical and fertilizer use but did not consider it extensively in project implementation (Ryan Wallin, pers. communication 8 August 2019).

In addition to understanding soil conditions prior to planting, Eva Furner of Lemon Bay Conservancy also recommended excavating the edges of the inter-course ponds, forming a more 36

APPENDIX K 198

gradual slope to encourage wetlands species establishment (personal communication, 20 Dec 2019). Because Oleander Course frequently floods, the ponds scattered throughout this highly modified section of the island can serve as stormwater wetlands, whose banks are typically no steeper than a 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) ratio (Bass et al., 2012). Wetland plants act as natural water filters and would reduce stormwater runoff and help remove legacy chemicals before reaching waterways for years to come (Line et al., 2008).

Phase 3: Native Species Plantings The third phase of the restoration project concentrates on building a successful maritime grassland through the establishment of native species in characteristic arrangement and details the most accepted planting methods, potential plant sources, and estimated costs of the project.

Habitat Arrangement Ohlandt (1992) provided the most comprehensive examination of the maritime grassland habitat in a detailed restoration project on Folly Island, a barrier island off the coast of South Carolina. Although a few other technical documents described the habitat generally, Ohlandt (1992) was the only source of extensive restoration design elements useful to this project. His main findings offer a useful guide as JIA conducts species selection, species zonation, and seeding mixes and/or plug counts. The Jekyll Island species list and vegetation patterns may differ from the tables below, but they can help navigate initial steps towards the restoration design.

One goal of Ohlandtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (1992) restoration was to create a site that balanced aesthetics with ecological functionality, not unlike many project goals on Jekyll Island. Ohlandt analyzed several maritime grassland sites around South Carolina and generated a species list for his site that he then organized into zones (see Tables 5 and 6). Species in Table 5 were found in varying, overlapping arrangements within the zones, which were based on vegetational patterns along an elevation gradient observed at other study sites. It should be noted that Zone 1 (near Myrica cerifera) and Zone 4 (berm) are not natural components of a maritime grassland. They exist in Ohlandtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s project to reflect the surroundings of the restoration site, mimic the areas found bordering a maritime grassland, and to work with what existed. Muhlenbergia filipes numbers were also notably increased to accommodate harvesting by local basket weavers. JIA 37

APPENDIX K 199

Conservation Staff can use the following tables to guide their species selection, incorporating species that are available to harvest and/or purchase from a local nursery and adjusting based on availability (Tables 5-7).

The species mix selected in Ohlandt’s restoration is an assortment of grasses, flowering herbaceous plants, asters, sedges, and forbs. Grasses (7) make up most species used with M. filipes as the dominant, native warm-season grass. In the fall, this species displays an attractive pink/purple show with its flowering stalks, which would contribute to the aesthetic quality of the restored site. Flowering plants are appealing visually, often attracting visitors when in bloom. The concentration of grasses, monocots, will support small mammal and bird populations. Many of the forbs and flowering plants

Table 5. List of plant species and numbers used in Ohlandt’s (1992) 2acre restoration site.

Scientific Name Common Name Abbr.

Ap Agalinis purpurea (Ap) - Purple false foxglove Andropogon virginicus (Av) - Broomsedge bluestem Av Cp Chloris petrea (Cp) - Pinewoods fingergrass Ec Erigeron canadensis (Ec) - Horseweed Fs Fimbristylis spadicea (Fs) - Marsh fimbry Hb Heterotheca subaxillaris (Hs) - Camphorweed Hs Hydrocotyle bonariensis (Hb) - Largeleaf pennywort Ln Lippia nodiflora (Ln) - Turkey tangle frogfruit Mf Muhlenbergia filipes (Mf) - Muhly grass Oenothera humifusa (Oh) - Seabeach evening primrose Oc Oh Opuntia compressa (Oc) - Eastern prickly pear Pa Panicum amarum (Pa) - Bitter panicum R Rubus sp (R) Sb Sabatia stellaris (Ss) - Marsh pink Sp Smilax bona-nox (Sb) - Saw greenbriar Ss Spartina patens (Sp) - Saltmeadow cordgrass Tp Triplasis purpurea (Tp) - Purple sandgrass Up Uniola paniculata (Up) - Sea oats

Total 831 1,216 140 4,435 5,038 942 5,208 2,218 17,884 140 2,110 382 749 376 1,929 1,649 9,774 1,764

will provide excellent ground cover for mammals, birds, and reptiles. Overall, a species mix like this will support a variety of objectives, ecologically and aesthetically.

At Ohlandt’s (1992) site, each species was used in varying amounts within the zones (Tables 6 and 7). As noted above, zones 1 and 4 are transition areas away from the surrounding areas at Ohlandt’s study site and may not be relevant for the JIA golf course project. Zonation on Jekyll Island should be reflective of subtle, elevational gradients and soil moisture on site.

Existing habitat patches on the golf courses and edges near forest habitat could be transitioned into what is zone 1 in Ohlandt’s project. Since Ohlandt’s project was positioned closer to the

38

APPENDIX K 200

back-dune environment and the Jekyll Island golf courses are situated inland, an area like zone 4 may not be relevant to the JIA project.

Table 6. Species zonation from Ohlandt (1992) Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Near Myrica cerifera Low/Wet Higher/Open Berm (Mf) Muhlenbergia filipes (Mf) Muhlenbergia filipes (Mf) Muhlenbergia filipes (Mf) Muhlenbergia filipes (Ln) Lippia nodiflora (Ln) Lippia nodiflora (Ln) Lippia nodiflora (Hs) Heterotheca subaxillaris (Av) Andropogon virginicus (Av) Andropogon virginicus(Av) Andropogon virginicus (Tp) triplasis purpurea (Hs) Heterotheca subaxillaris (Hs) Heterotheca subaxillaris (Hs) Heterotheca subaxillaris (Fs) Fimbristylis spadicea (Ec) Erigeron canadensis (Ec) Erigeron canadensis (Ec) Erigeron canadensis (Oh) Oenothera humifusa (Fs) Fimbristylis spadicea (Fs) Fimbristylis spadicea (Fs) Fimbristylis spadicea (Up) Uniola paniculata (Oh) Oenothera humifusa (Tp) Triplasis purpurea (Oh) Oenothera humifusa (Pa) Panicum amarum (Sp) Spartina patens (Sp) Spartina patens (Hb) Hydrocotyle bonariensis (R) Rubus sp.

(Ss) Sabatia stellaris (Ss) Sabatia stellaris (Sb) Smilax bona-nox (Ap) Agalinus purpurea (Ap) Agalinus purpurea (Up) Uniola paniculata (Cp) Chloris petrea (Pa) Panicum amarum (Oc) Opuntia compressa

Canopy cover and cover density are important habitat attributes to C. adamanteus as shown in the telemetry data. Maritime grasslands, and grasslands in general, are characterized by open canopy cover and higher percentages of cover density. The surrounding forest habitat and existing habitat patches on the golf courses can provide a varied habitat structure from the

Table 7. Species count per zone based on 100ft2 taken from Ohlandt (1992) Zone 1 Near Myrica cerifera Mf - 30 Ln - 3 Av - 2 Hs - 6 Ec - 3 Fs - 2 Oh - 1 Sp - 3 R-1 Sb - 2

restored grassland, supporting a mosaic in which the species historically thrived. Table 7 will give JIA a reference for plant densities per zone, guiding their planting structure, required plant numbers, and future

Avg. % cover: 38.50%

Zone 2 Low/Wet Mf - 18 Ln - 4 Hs - 5 Ec - 7 Tp - 16 Fs - 10 Sp - 5 Hb - 4 Ss - 5 Ap - 2

Zone 3 Higher/Open Mf - 25 Ln - 2 Av - 3 Hs - 8 Ec - 7 Tp - 15 Fs - 6 Oh - 6 R-2 Hb - .5 Up - 2 Cp - .5 Ss - 1 Ap - 1 Pa - .5 Oc - .5 Avg. % cover: Avg. % cover: 32.85% 42.05%

Zone 4 Berm Mf - 3 Hs - 4 Tp - 10 Fs - 2 Oh - 2 Up - 10 Pa - 2

Avg. cover %: 16.70%

*Quantities listed are number of plants per 100sq.ft.

management regimes.

Figure 16 (below) visualizes a planting design for the maritime grassland, as created by Ohlandt (1992). The images can be adapted to fit the acreage of the Jekyll Island site, incorporating the plant numbers from Table 5 above by scaling up from 2 acres (Ohlandt) to the selected site. Although final plant selections may differ from this restoration, the planting design 39

APPENDIX K 201

will guide how to group and layout the species types and achieve a characteristic grassland composition.

Figure 16. Prototypical planting zone plots. Recreated from Ohlandt (1992).

40

APPENDIX K 202

Planting Methods Several planting methods can achieve the same outcome; however, each has tradeoffs that should be tailored to the goals of and resources available to project managers. Our goal here is not to provide a definitive recommendation for a specific method, but rather present information to our client to aid in their decision-making process. Factors outside the scope of this project will undoubtedly influence these important, project-defining decisions. From our research and questionnaire responses, the most effective techniques often include a combination of planting methods (seeding, head-starting, plugs) to achieve a suite of restoration goals. Managers of similar project suggests initially seeding, followed by supplemental plug planting a year or so later (pers. comm 18 February 2020).

Seeding Seeding is an economical planting method that facilitates the introduction of many species at once (Walker and Silletti, 2006) and mimics a natural distribution of plants (Ohlandt, 1992; Walker and Silletti, 2006). Since the JIA Conservation Department has relatively easy access to maritime grassland species on site and from nearby islands, collecting seeds and creating custom seed mixes is a reasonable option (Joseph Colbert, pers. comm. 20 October 2019). Local nurseries or other nearby barrier islands could serve as additional seedbanks in order to diversify genotypes (Joseph Colbert, personal communication 2019). Seeding can be mechanized over large areas during the dormant season, lowering operational costs (Walker and Silletti, 2006). Walker and Silletti (2006) estimate standard seeding to cost around $3,000/acre, although JIA would likely be able to abate some costs due to easy seedbank access.

Although the cheapest method upfront, seeding presents challenges to managing species competition. In any seeding scenario, pioneer species often quickly disperse and establish faster than target species, especially when invasive species are present. Dealing with golf course legacies, turfgrass can be challenging to completely eradicate and subsequent seeding may result in negative post-planting consequences if the native species are outcompeted for resources during primary growth (Walker and Silletti, 2006). Therefore, thoughtful and consistent site preparation, as described in Phases 1 and 2, is crucial to the success of any seed-based method.

Failure to do so will likely require corrective efforts later on, like re-seeding or requisite chemical treatments, which will only increase project costs. Additional considerations when 41

APPENDIX K 203

seeding include the mix, rate, and species ratios. Certain types of plants, such as native warmseason grasses (NWSG), can outcompete other species in the mix. Mixing lighter rates of NWSG (1-2 kg/ha) can prevent them from outcompeting other important species like forbs (Helzer et al., n.d.). Another work-around is to delay seeding NWSG until after other species are seeded; however, this could allow for the establishment of competitive non-target species in its place (Helzer et al., n.d.). The Grassland Restoration Network (Helzer et al., n.d.) suggests experimenting with seeding rates in sample plots at the restoration site to examine the success of various seed mixes prior to a full-scale effort.

When selecting species to include in the initial seed mix, it may be prudent to harvest seed from plants that are known to reliably produce adequate amounts of seeds for harvest (Helzer et al., n.d.). Early season grasses and forbs are known to not be ideal in this regard (GRN, n.d.). Harvesting and seed planting should both occur during periods of natural seed dispersal and before the season of most reliable moisture (Walker and Silleti, 2006). Seeded areas should not be treated with mulch or fertilizer as to not promote growth of undesirable plants (Walker and Silletti, 2006). Disturbance of restoration sites has been associated with an increase of available nutrients in the soil (Ohlandt, 1992). Past treatments of the turf grass will most likely support new growth on the site (Cody Fulk, personal communication, 23 October 2019).

Seeding techniques, broadcast and drilling, can be used in combination or exclusively. It is suggested that native warm-season grasses with fluffy seeds be planted using a no-till drill to insert seeds into the soil bed (Natural Resources Conservation Service, n.d.). This improves seed placement into the soil vs. broadcast seeding (Natural Resources Conservation Service, n.d.).

Broadcast seeding can be used for native warm season grasses but should be considered as a last option as it is more difficult to achieve adequate seed placement (Natural Resources Conservation Services, n.d.). Broadcast seeding will require a higher seeding rate than drilling (Natural Resources Conservation Services, 2009). Broadleaf plants, forbs, should be planted by dormant seeding because of their 30-90 day stratification before germination requirement (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2011). Native grasses and forbs can be dormant seeded at the same time or forbs can be dormant seeded followed by a native grass planting the following spring (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2011). Questionnaire respondents used a combination seeding-planting method in their restoration projects.

42

A P P E N D IX

K

204

Seed mixes and the plant ratios within will reflect site goals and ecological characteristics of the species. Williams and Smith (2007) found that a rate of grass seed between 280 and 539 seeds/m2 and a rate of forbs between 282 and 558 seeds/m2 achieved a diverse grassland with ample grass establishment. In prairie restoration, seeding rates should be no lower than 40 seeds/ft2, the seeding rate should be 40% perennial forbs, and 2/7 of native grasses should be bunchgrass (MNDNR, 2017). Determining the optimal seed mix/ratios would ideally occur after testing plots on Jekyll with various ratios of grasses and forbs. Due to the unavailability of many target species (see Table 5) from commercial nurseries and the lack of information on sowing rates beyond a few of the common grasses, JIA Conservation staff should rely on test plots to figure out which seeding rates/ratios work best at the site. This will reduce time, effort, and cost in the long run. After extensive research, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s clear that the availability of maritime grassland species seeds is low to non-existent. For this reason, seed collection for seeding and/or headstarting should be conducted by JIA Conservation staff and volunteers on nearby sites or islands.

If a species, such as some forbs, is known to seed inadequately, transplanting individuals from nearby sites may be the best option. Although the methods suggested above are laborious, they will save a great deal of money compared to purchasing plants and seeds from a commercial nursery.

Plugging From an economic and labor standpoint, seeding is an ideal option when funds and personnel are limited. However, the inability to ensure sufficient seed establishment and extensive efforts towards controlling competition from undesirable species can end up increasing overall project costs in the long run. With an estimated price of up to $10,000/acre, plugging offers a more involved, but more reliable, alternative (Walker and Silletti, 2006).

Moreover, access to seedbanks may also help JIA mitigate part of the anticipated costs of plugging, not just seeding. Instead of purchasing plugs from a supplier, seedlings can be grown from harvested (or purchased) seeds and then planted on site after reaching a designated size or age, a method called head-starting. Head-starting allows project managers to manipulate growing conditions that best prepare seedlings for specific environments and apply stressors, like drought or particular competitors, that weed out weaker individuals (Walker and Silletti, 2006).

Glitzenstein et al. (2001) suggests growing head-started plants in soil taken from the restoration 43

APPENDIX K 205

site to cultivate local mycorrhizal relationships. Ohlandt (1992) also suggested using plugs for perennial species and seeding annual species.

Most of the physical labor involved in head-starting programs occurs in greenhouse care and the out-planting process. Space within the greenhouse may limit the number of species and individuals that can be introduced using this method. Planting the site by hand will require more manpower than seeding but creates recreational and educational opportunities for volunteers to get involved with rare habitat restoration (Walker and Silletti, 2006). Ecologically speaking, using head-started plugs reduces the significance of competition with undesirable pioneer species, the need for weed control post-planting, and the number of seeds required while also increasing chances of success for the majority of species (Walker and Silletti, 2006). On Oleander Course, constant flooding may be an advantage when transplanting head-started plugs that are vulnerable to dry conditions (Ohlandt, 1992). Ground preparation for plugging does not require as an intense effort as for seeding.

Plant Sourcing Choosing where the plants for at a site come from is a small decision in overall project development, but one that has dramatic implications for restoring ecological functionality, surrounding ecosystem health, and success of future projects in the area. When transporting plant species around a landscape, a maximum geographic distance from the restoration site is often suggested for seed collection or plug transplants to ensure comparable enough micro-climate conditions that species are able to survive past one growing season. For a similar project in Florida, Lemon Bay Conservancy plans to harvest seeds and plugs from no more than 150 miles away from their site (Eva Furner, pers. com. December 2019). However, the environment can drastically change over short geographic distances, causing vegetative communities to shift as well. Variables, like aspect or watersheds, can make determining the most appropriate distance over which to collect species difficult, so another common rule of thumb is to maintain local ecotypes within a site. Ecotypes are genetically distinct populations within a single species that have finely adapted to localized areas, resulting in different morphology, disease resistance, phenology, etc. when compared to other populations of the same species (Dorner, 2002). Using local ecotypes increases the chance of successful establishment and decreases the risk of introducing weak or harmful genetics into the ecosystem, both of which may be particularly 44

APPENDIX K 206

relevant in the case of Jekyll Island. Ecotypes can be hard to identify, so experts should be consulted if there are concerns about genetic viability. Similarly, foresters have long been operating within the USDA Plant Hardiness Zones when moving trees around to maximize growth success for timber production. Jekyll Island falls well within Zone 9a, which extends along the coast of Georgia from St. Catherineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Island south to the Florida border and inland past Interstate 95 (USDA, n.d.). For restorations on Jekyll Island, the ideal collection site should meet multiple criteria; however, nurseries or suppliers located outside the range defined by one or multiple criteria can still be utilized as long as the origin of their products falls within accepted ranges.

The Georgia Native Plan Initiative (GNPI), a program through the State Botanical Garden of Georgia, offers resources for gardeners, land managers, and landscapers to promote the incorporation of native species in both wholesale and retail settings with a growing focus on land restoration work (Georgia Native Plant Initiative, n.d.). GNPI also provides contact information for nurseries throughout Georgia that produce high quality plants using ethical and transparent practices (State Botanical Garden of Georgia, n.d.). Coastal WildScapes, a non-profit focused on empowering gardeners to be stewards of native environments, also connects people with native plant suppliers in the coastal southeast and has worked with JIA in the past to grow native seeds collected from the island (Coastal WildScapes, n.d.; Harris, 2012). Appendix Table 13 below outlines a sampling of companies that supply a few species from Table 5, many of which are sourced from southeast Georgia. However, as mentioned above in seeding, we found that only a small number of the species listed in Table 5 are supplied by nurseries. Common grasses used in habitat management and landscaping, such as Andropogon spp., sea oats, and cordgrass, are often available commercially. Muhlenbergia filipes was grown and distributed by NRCS in Brooksville, FL but to date there are no remaining suppliers. Otherwise, we found one nursery that sells this variety in S.C. The non-grass species have not been found to be sold by commercial nurseries and as a result will require seed harvesting and/or head starting. Again, this minimizes project costs but brings up the issue of greenhouse space as the project will require a great number of plants.

45

APPENDIX K 207

Cost Estimates The restoration projects we investigated often used a combination of seeding and plugging when establishing new plant communities. As mentioned in previous sections, purchasing the desired native species seeds and plugs from commercial nurseries may not be a viable option because of lack of availability. Again, only a few of the more common grass species are available for purchase commercially from native plant nurseries. If the JIA Conservation staff wishes to use local ecotypes of the restoration species, this most likely will require seed collection by JIA and then head-starting through a contracted nursery. Per communication with Earth Balance nursery in Florida, they can head-start from provided seed depending on the species. JIA may have to extend their seed collection outside of the 100-mile range if they wish to have maximum ecotype diversity. According to Ohlandtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s project, there are a few Sea Islands in S.C. that have maritime grassland sites for potential harvesting. Due to these circumstances, the plant costs will be dictated by head-starting operations, on site or through contractual growing.

Phase 4: Post-Restoration Management and Monitoring The final phase focuses on long-term upkeep and evaluation of project success through monitoring of maritime species establishment and snake utilization of the new habitat. Methods for this phase are very flexible and can be adjusted based on the goals of resources available to the JIA Conservation Department.

Maintenance After the plants have established, long-term site characteristics can be determined by manipulating the location and intensity of maintenance actions during the first two years to attain specific age mosaics and cover or canopy densities (Ohlandt, 1992). C. adamanteus in the telemetry study use a characteristic combinations of ground and canopy cover densities (Table 8). In

Table 8. Cover density and canopy cover combinations used by snakes. Top three combinations are bolded.

Cover Density Canopy Cover Count of Combination 0-25 0-25 258 26-50 26-50 81 51-75 51-75 51 76-100 76-100 68 0-25 26-50 108 26-50 0-25 337 51-75 26-50 87 76-100 51-75 83 0-25 76-100 28 26-50 51-75 58 51-75 0-25 454 76-100 26-50 176 0-25 51-75 73 26-50 76-100 19 51-75 76-100 28 76-100 0-25 1316

46

APPENDIX K 208

addition to creating a habitat mosaic most preferred by Jekyll Island rattlesnakes specifically, maintenance actions can also be tailored to achieve aesthetics for recreational or public access purposes (Ohlandt, 1992).

As the grassland plants mature, invasive species control will again be the most pressing issue, particularly during the first few years following plantings, and can be managed in several different ways. Although opportunities are limited on Jekyll Island, the most cost effective and efficient method is by far prescribed burning. If burning is not a possibility, lighter disking, mowing, and/or bush-hogging treatments are alternative ways to disturb the soil and restart succession (Cody Fulk, pers. comm. 23 October 2019). Once growth has been established, 1/3 of the acreage can be managed on rotation for a successional mosaic (VADGIF, n.d.). Chemical treatments can be administered as previously described in Phase 1 to manage unwanted pioneer species. Spot treatments of most triclopyr-ester herbicides can be applied to non-targets that are not fully eliminated through mechanical control, such as native woody species that are sustained by sprouts or suckers. As a substitute for Figure 17. Wax myrtle/sweetgrass (muhly) burn on Little Saint Simons Island. (Photo Credit: Little Saint Simons Nature Blog)

harmful herbicides, a saline mixture can also effectively control less salt-tolerant

species, such as Morella cerifera, especially when used with the hack-and-squirt method (Ohlandt, 1992). All of these strategies should be conducted seasonally, on a 1-3 year rotation depending on severity of establishment, and often in combination (Cody Fulk, pers. comm. 23 October 2019). Regular disturbance cycles both cripple the establishment of invasive species and maintain the site as an early successional native grass meadow.

Areas that do not successfully establish after multiple growing seasons should be reseeded or re-plugged if encroachment by other target species does not occur, to avoid colonization by invasive species. If seeds were used the first time, using plugs the second time is suggested to even out the competitive advantage of head-started neighbors. Whether or not to

47

APPENDIX K 209

provide supplemental seeds or plugs will depend on the cause of the initial unsuccessful establishment, size of the failed area, and costs associated with replacement.

Monitoring Ongoing monitoring of the site will be important in determining whether the methods employed achieve project goalsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the establishment of a maritime grassland and encouraging C. adamanteus usage of the site as a north-south corridor. Post-restoration monitoring will serve both short- and long-term purposes. In the short-term, regular site observations will allow for quick adjustments to unsuccessful planting methods, evaluation of target cover densities, and advanced notice of non-target species invasion. Long-term monitoring will help determine the success of short-term activities, succession dynamics, community assemblage patterns, and C. adamateus use of the site. Grant programs almost always require some sort of adaptive management to ensure efficient use of their resources, thus building an assessment framework into a restoration plan will make a project proposal more competitive. Golf course restorations are relatively uncommon, especially in the realm of scientific research, so reliable long-term data on the reestablishment of a rare habitat will also be helpful in informing other similar projects.

The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (2012) conducted a long-term muhly grass monitoring project on nearby Little Saint Simons Island. By using the same monitoring protocol, the JIA Conservation Department will have a reference point in terms of succession and establishment for comparison. Although the protocol for the project was not formally written, the JIA Conservation Department has enough information and contact with staff at Little Saint Simons Island to replicate their methods. In addition, conducting plant surveys in the same spot each year with regular photo documentation is suggested by the Grasslands Restoration Network (Helzer et al. n.d.)

The JIA Conservation Department is already well prepared to routinely monitor postproject C. adamanteus utilization of the site because of the ongoing telemetry studies. Snakes currently in the study should continue to be tracked twice per week and, especially the individuals living north of Shell Road around the golf courses, be kept in the study for as long as possible to document potential migration into the site. However, snake health should not be risked by delaying retirement from the study if necessary. Although previous and current individuals in the study were opportunistically added, there should be special focus on enlisting 48

APPENDIX K 210

new eastern diamondback rattlesnakes found in areas that currently lack snake movement data, like the area between GA Route 520 and Shell Road, to fill in spatial gaps in the data.

Radio telemetry generates more data by increasing the likelihood of detecting a snakeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s location, while also reducing the time and labor invested in data collection; however, that data are limited to only telemetered snakes. To find out how other C. adamanteus not included in the study use the restored site, visual encounter surveys (VES) along established transect lines should be conducted twice a month during the active season (March-October) on days when conditions are optimal for snake activity. Because the site will predominantly consist of open habitat, transect lines can be up to 10 meters apart but should be closer together through the thicker patches of habitat, like the clusters of slash pine left between the former links of the golf courses. Transects should not start or end at the boundaries of the restoration site but extend into adjacent natural habitats by several meters to capture edge effects. As surveyors walk along transect lines, they should inspect all potential refugia (stumps, logs, brush piles, other objects) for C. adamanteus presence, recording the GPS coordinates of observed snakes (USFWS, 2011).

Survey quadrats can also be set up in the restored area to conduct population estimates, as is currently being done elsewhere on Jekyll Island. Chance encounters during other on-site activities or periodic drift fence-funnel trapping can provide additional opportunities to collect point locations or usage data for both telemetered and non-telemetered snakes.

Additions Although Ohlandt (1992) included 18 species in his restoration of a small maritime grassland in South Carolina, several of them made up only a very small fraction of the total number of individuals, including Chloris/Eustachys petraea (pinewoods fingergrass), Oenothera humifusa (evening primrose), Panicum amarum (bitter panicum), and Sabatia stellaris (marsh pink) (see Table 5 in Phase 3). If funding or labor is limited,

Figure 18. Jekyll EDB with food bulge.

(Photo Credit: Lance Paden)

49

APPENDIX K 211

somewhat accessory species like these can be introduced later on after focal species have securely established. Other plants to consider are those that serve as major food sources for C. adamanteus prey items, such as Sylvilagus palustris (marsh rabbit) and Sigmodon hispidus (hispid cotton rat). S. paulstris feed on marsh species like common cattail (Typha latifolia), marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata), and switchcane (Arundinaria tecta), all of which could be added in and around ponds or flooded areas (Floral and Faunal Lists, 2007; Thompson, 2008). Although S. hispidus largely feeds on Andropogon virginicus (broomsedge bluestem), additional food sources often include perennial legumes like Cassia fasciculata (partridge pea), which will also strengthen soil fertility through nitrogen fixation (Randolph et al., 1991; Floral and Faunal Lists, 2007).

Moreover, maritime grasslands often contain multiple members of the same genus and adding in related species will increase species diversity and habitat heterogeneity as species sort along environmental gradients. Potential supplemental species may include Andropogon glomeratus (bushy bluestem), Muhlenbergia sericea (sweetgrass variant), Erigeron quercifolius (oakleaf fleabane), Opuntia pusilla/drummondi (cockspur prickly pear), Panicum virgatum (switchgrass), Smilax auriculata (wild bamboo), and Spartina bakeri (sand cordgrass) (Floral and Faunal Lists, 2007).

Discussion and Conclusions As urban and semi-urban environments are transformed by expanding human development, restoration will be increasingly crucial to rebuild ecological communities. On Jekyll Island, opportunities to develop new sites are minimal but many formerly developed sites have been redeveloped in the past decade, increasing the amount of human activity on the island through seasonal tourism and permanent residents. Due to changing economic and cultural trends, Jekyll Island is considering decommissioning golf course acreage to decrease maintenance costs. This creates an opportunity to expand the natural areas on island in support of biodiversity, such as declining species like C. adamanteus. We combined telemetry data from 26 snakes and spatial modeling to identify potential corridors to connect disjunct sub-populations of C. adamanteus through a restored coastal grassland on a retired golf course. Although an animalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relationship to the landscape is complex, the home range calculations, habitat summaries, and corridor analysis will support the JIA Conservation Departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s initiative of 50

APPENDIX K 212

strengthening the C. adamanteus populations on the island by increasing habitat area and connectivity for a locally threatened snake species. Small scale conservation projects like this can have disproportionately large impacts if broader scale initiatives, such as species listings and policy changes, fail to protect wildlife and their habitats in a timely manner.

Understanding the spatial ecology of declining wildlife species like C. adamanteus is necessary to maintain viable populations in increasingly disconnected landscapes through targeted habitat management. Certain life history traits, like slow reproduction and high site fidelity, make C. adamanteus particularly vulnerable to landscape-level changes (Waldron et al., 2013). Management for habitat conservation maintains areas for breeding, foraging, and hibernating crucial for adult snake populations; whereas, improving connectivity through corridors facilitates the dispersal of neonates and generational stability (Waldron et al., 2013).

We found that Jekyll Island C. adamanteus use smaller, but comparable, amounts of space than other eastern diamondback rattlesnake studies, with forest snakes inhabiting larger home ranges compared to dune and marsh snakes. Although we did not recommend a specific golf course for the restoration project, we calculated how three restoration scenarios improved on the current north-south corridor on the island and identified ways that tradeoffs between cost of management and connectivity benefits could be minimized, allowing for cost effective decision making by island managers.

Home Ranges The results of the home range analysis showed movement differences between sexes and habitat types. Males exhibited home range sizes 37% larger than females, probably due to movements to seek females for breeding (Tables 2 and 3; Timmerman, 1995). Among the broad habitat types on Jekyll Island, forest snakes have home range sizes 95% larger than dune snakes; and, marsh snakes have home range sizes 57% smaller than dune snakes (Table 2).

51

APPENDIX K 213

Large variation in habitat configuration could explain the among habitat type differences in movements among the three systems. For example, the forest provides 50-100% canopy cover with 0-50% cover density; whereas much of the dune system is open with just 0-25% canopy cover and an array of vegetation patches with thick cover density (> 50%), which is often untraversable by humans but provides a mosaic of concealment and thermoregulatory opportunities for C. adamanteus. The dune system on Jekyll Island is thought to resemble the habitat structure of the longleaf pine ecosystem, where C. adamanteus was historically prevalent (Joseph Colbert, pers. comm. 23 October 2019; Martin and Means, 2000; Timmerman and Martin, 2003; Waldron et al., 2006). The marsh areas inhabited by telemetered snakes are mostly scrub habitat, characterized by some ground cover and a dense midstory of briar and vines at waist to head level. Much like the Figure 19. C. adamanteus under palmetto in forested habitat on Jekyll Island. Photo Credit: (Chad Harrison)

dune system, the marsh habitat provides an ideal thermal gradient

for snakes. Vegetation in the dune and marsh systems is early successional, with abundant species that create dense ground cover, supporting healthy populations of C. adamanteus prey.

Smaller home range sizes in the dune and marsh systems may be partially attributed to the configurational differences among the habitat types.

Home range size may be partially attributed to island configuration. For example, the large home range size of forest snakes may be because the north-end forest system is larger and more contiguous than habitats located on the southern end of the island. In contrast, the dune system is limited by open beach on one side and human development (roads, houses, parks) on the other. The marsh system is also limited by human development to the east as well as elevational and tidal gradients to the west (Figure 6). From visualizing the telemetry data, snakes make use of the space available to them by inhabiting slim, linear patches of habitat; however, they seem to avoid traversing human-dominated areas no matter the level of development 52

APPENDIX K 214

(Figures 6, 8, and 9). In 8 years of data collection and over 5,000 data points, the snakes have made less than 30 road crossings.

Lastly, prey availability may drive differences in animal movements among habitat types.

The forest habitat is generally characterized by an oak or pine overstory with a semimonocultured understory of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). With a lack of understory management and a high deer population on the island, palmetto has overtaken much of the understory space in forest habitats, limiting understory vegetational growth that would support C. adamanteus prey populations and a more complex habitat structure (Kilheffer et al., 2019). This may result in increased movements to seek food sources (Timmerman, 1995). As mentioned above, dune and marsh systems provide a dynamic habitat structure with diverse vegetation, supporting herbivorous small mammal populations. In harsh environments like the dune and marsh, vegetational succession largely sorts itself out and a lack of management prescriptions is not as impactful as they are in the forested habitats. Also, the marsh system has abundant marsh rabbits (Sylvilagus palustris) which are a primary food source for larger C. adamanteus (Joseph Colbert, pers. comm 19 Feb 2020). Marsh rabbits are not found in the forest.

Our seasonal home range results align with results from previous studiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;breeding season areas are larger for males, animals are less active during winter months, and animals moderately increase movements during post-emergence and foraging (Timmerman and Martin, 2003; Table 3). Variation within the breeding season can be attributed to males expanding movements in search of female mates (Timmerman and Martin, 2003). Seasonal spatial use is an important consideration for land managers; areas of seasonal significance can help target management prescriptions. Important foraging areas can be managed to support healthy prey populations; over-wintering and gestational areas can be managed to support adequate refugia.

This is especially crucial for mature individuals with established movement patterns and will be crucial to the speciesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; conservation (Waldon et al., 2013).

Compared to previous studies of C. adamanteus home ranges, male snakes on Jekyll Island exhibit smaller mean home ranges than males in other studies (Kain, 1995; Timmerman, 1995; Waldron et al., 2006a) (Table 9). Mean female home range size was comparable to other studies, except for female snakes in Putnam that had very large homes sizes (Table 9). Possible explanations for these variances among home range studies may include study area size, landscape configuration, and habitat configuration. Jekyll Island roads and development appear 53

APPENDIX K 215

Table 9. Comparison of home range sizes across C. adamanteus studies.

Location / Study Glynn County, GA (current study) Baker County, GA (Hoss et al., 2010) Hampton County, SC (Waldron et al., 2006) Forrest County, MS (Kain, 1995) Putnam County, FL (Timmermann, 1995)

Males 29.5 (13) 30.49 (4) 84.82 (6) 74.10 (5) 50.40 (4)

Females 21.76 (13) 20.59 (6) 28.63 (13) 19.60 (1) 46.50 (2)

Home Range Method 100% MCP 100% MCP 95% KDE 100% MCP 100% MCP

to hinder the movements of telemetered C. adamanteus due to their avid avoidance of crossing those areas. The landscape configuration and influence of human development for the other studies is unknown. Jekyll Island is smaller (~4,400 acres) than the other study areas (~7,000â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 30,000 acres) (Hoss et al., 2010; Waldron et al., 2006). Habitat configuration likely varies among sites and could also account for differences in mean home range sizes. Life history requirements, such as prey abundance, mating, and refugia, can affect spatial use of the landscape (Waldron et al., 2013). Jekyll Islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s dune and marsh systems are productive, heterogenous environments known to support C. adamanteus and healthy prey populations, with study animals in this system exhibiting smaller home ranges than the more homogenous forested habitat. This might decrease movements needed to carry out foraging. It is interesting to note that the Hoss et al. (2010) study had a significantly larger study area, ~30,000 acres, than Waldron (2006) at ~7,000 acres, yet had smaller mean home range sizes, highlighting the effect that ecological dynamics can have on home range sizes.

Corridors and Pinch-Points Snake home ranges informed corridor design by identifying habitat widths necessary for C. adamanteus and potential areas of high-density movement. Although large swaths of habitat are ideal, costs associated with habitat management (labor, funding, time) often limit how activities can be implemented, so identifying priority areas in which to focus restoration efforts is important for maximizing population connectivity with each management decision. Habitat management within the optimal corridor identified in our analysis may be limited by factors out of the control of the Conservation Department, like funding or a lack of support from other departments at JIA; therefore, awareness of pinch-points and highest cost areas within the

54 APPENDIX K 216

corridor can help prioritize management decisions if the project cannot be completed in its entirety or all at once.

Home range polygons indicate that C. adamanteus can use small areas of habitat (see Figure 8). Two marsh snakes consistently pass through areas less than 10 meters wide. The highly developed center of the island presents an obstacle to snake movement, with an assortment of costly habitat types bisected by highly trafficked roads. However, one of Jekyll Islandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s four golf courses is likely to be retired in the next few years because of high operation costs, creating an opportunity to restore natural habitat within the midsection of the island. To understand how the conversion of a golf course into a maritime grassland, a habitat type preferred by the species, would change the present baseline corridor, we conducted a series of corridor analyses under three restoration scenarios: decommissioning Oleander Course; decommissioning Oleander Course and Pine Lakes Course; and decommissioning Oleander Course, the front nine holes of Pine Lakes Course, and the back nine holes of Indian Mound Course (Figure 12). Within each scenario, only the golf course(s) was treated as maritime grassland while all other land cover types remained unchanged, allowing for easy comparisons to the baseline corridor.

The baseline corridor is very constricted (< 50m) for much of its length and although telemetry data indicate that C. adamanteus can move through narrow strips of land, the low-cost dune habitat within that section is hemmed in between high-cost development and high-cost ocean (see Figures 13 and 14). The baseline corridor has limited north-south movement potential on Jekyll Island: the least cost path through it is 3% longer (in meters) and 39.4% more costly (in cost units) than the restoration scenario with the most similar numbers (Oleander Course). In each of the three restoration scenarios, the corridor shifted westward, illustrating how any addition of suitable habitat within the center of the island significantly increases the ecological plausibility of population connectivity. By pulling the least cost path to areas buffered by more low-cost habitat types, corridor area increases, and pinch-points become more evident. The corridors in all restoration scenarios included a pinch-point at the same three roads. The location of the pinch-points along Captain Wylly Road varied among scenarios; however, the pinchpoints at Shell Road and GA Route 520 were at the same location in every scenario, indicating a prime location for potential wildlife underpasses. Knowing how connectivity bottlenecks shifts

55

APPENDIX K 217

as habitat arrangement changes is useful for various decision the Conservation Department may make about this project.

Because externalities will be involved in the decision about which course(s) to retire, we also identified ways that tradeoffs between connectivity and cost of management could be minimized. Compared to the baseline corridor, any scenario is a positive improvement and indicates future success of one of these corridors (Figure 20). From a fiscal standpoint, Oleander alone provides nearly identical connectivity improvement as Oleander and Pine Lakes. At nearly half the acreage, restoring just Oleander would save JIA a lot of time, effort, and money for comparable connectivity benefits. However, results indicate that the largest improvement in connectivity will occur with the restoration of Oleander Course, the front nine holes of Pine Lakes Course, and the back nine holes of Indian Mound Course. Ultimately, long term corridor success will be measured by the successful reestablishment of gene flow between the northern and southern C. adamanteus populations. Only one or two C. adamanteus per generation need to successfully disperse, crossing roads and traversing the island, to unite the populations genetically (Joseph Colbert, pers. comm. March 2020). For a long-lived and slowly reproducing species like C. adamanteus, re-connecting the two populations may take decades of dispersal by neonates (Jungen, 2018).

56

APPENDIX K 218

Figure 20. Snake point locations overlaid on the northern half of each corridor

Our results mirror findings of other C. adamanteus corridor and movement analyses; however, most other studies were conducted at much larger scales, making our fine-scale analysis more novel and site specific. Corridor analyses are commonly used in conservation planning or habitat modelling to promote landscape-level habitat or population connectivity, often for specific terrestrial wildlife species and using a suite of software programs including ArcGIS, Circuitscape, CAT, and PATH (Schuett-Hames, Robb, and McRae, 2013). One of the largest scale connectivity studies that included eastern diamondback rattlesnakes was conducted by the Wildlands Network and covered the entire south Atlantic region of the United States. The 57

APPENDIX K 219

study found that, even at broad scales, C. adamanteus were more dependent than other study species on the maintenance of small-scale localized connections, where high densities of individuals are funneled through tight pinch-points, between larger areas. Although their data were of much coarser resolution (90m vs. 10m), our study applied similar methods and techniques to enhance connectivity between isolated populations at the local level, which was a main goal of the Wildlands Network project (Sutherland et al., 2015b).

Moreover, the pinch-points identified in our analysis occur at highly trafficked roads, a well-known barrier to terrestrial wildlife movement, especially slow-moving reptile species like snakes (Stohlgren, Spear, and Stevenson, 2015). Andrews, Gibbons, and Reeder (2005) established that it takes roughly 11 minutes for a snake to cross a road with a vehicle approaching because their natural response is to rely on their camouflage, freezing and waiting until vehicle movement ceases before moving again. These pinch-points are also likely the locations of highest risk of mortality for C. adamanteus on Jekyll Island. Our results will help inform local conservation planning on the island and drive more targeted habitat restoration, support for effective wildlife road crossing structures, and environmental education opportunities throughout the implementation process (Sutherland et al., 2015b).

Our connectivity analysis could be improved by incorporating additional variables in the cost surface or including multiple source patches. More complex cost surfaces could include social variables, such as likelihood of human activity in an otherwise highly preferred habitat, or other data like cover density. By including human activity, beach areas, for example, may modify the location of the baseline corridor to be more like the restoration scenarios located in the center of the island. While the methods used in this project cannot include more than two source patches, other software programs like Circuitscape could be integrated to allow for multipatch connectivity analyses.

Implications and Utility Our results have laid the groundwork for the JIA Conservation Department to lobby for the restoration of the decommissioned golf course(s) with the goal of establishing a rare maritime grassland. Additional research should assess the success of the corridors, using before-and-after impact study designs. The continuation of the telemetry study and onsite snake surveys will be critical for determining when snakes begin to use the newly restored area, the kinds of activities 58

APPENDIX K 220

(foraging, breeding, etc.) they use it for, and how it changes snake movements in the surrounding area. It is rare that that new, natural habitat is inserted into a landscape. This project presents a unique opportunity to document spatial and temporal dynamics during colonization by both plant and animal species. Similarly, long term genetic samplingâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; whether it be from new individuals recruited into the telemetry study, opportunistic encounters, or road killâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;will be the ultimate measure of the corridorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s success; however, it may take decades to detect measurable gene flow between the north- and south-end snake populations. As habitat fragmentation, urbanization, and fire suppression continue to endanger this at-risk species, a better understanding of the present state of the populations on Jekyll Island is needed, including individuals that are not in the telemetry study. Presently, the JIA Conservation Department is conducting occupancy studies through quadrats dispersed around the island. This may shed light on the distribution of island population densities and why more snakes are found on the southern end of the island compared to the north, despite the north-end habitats being much more contiguous.

The project also demonstrates the tremendous value of telemetry data, the foundation of both the home range and corridor analyses, in applied management. The statistical methods used here can be broadly applied to other habitat restorations with focal wildlife species, especially those with tracking data. By collecting environmental variables along with point locations, conservationists are able to tailor habitat management decisions, like the restoration of whole patches of acreage or minor manipulation of existing vegetation, to the needs of specific populations of a species and not just for the species in general. Comparing the home range sizes of individuals between sites or populations may also identify differences in resource availability that affect snake health. Additionally, telemetry data provide site-specific information for the parameterization of environmental variables in movement analyses for reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, making them more likely to represent the reality of the population and generate more accurate conclusions regarding movement (Mateo-Sanchez et al., 2015). Analyses like this may be more pertinent to populations of sensitive or threatened species with long life spans and slow reproduction, including C. adamanteus populations in other regions.

Our results and conclusions can inform conservation beyond Jekyll Island, as well. By including our results in the Eastern Diamondback Conservation Action Plan, an initiative of the Rattlesnake Conservancy, which JIA Conservation Department staff are involved with, they can improve management at a regional scale (The Rattlesnake Conservancy, n.d.; Joseph Colbert, 59

APPENDIX K 221

pers. comm. March 2020). Because C. adamanteus is historically associated with longleaf pine, it can also be easily incorporated into monitoring programs, management decisions, and recovery efforts of longleaf pine ecosystems, a heavily funded restoration initiative in the southeast and home to many other declining reptile species under various levels of protection. Groups like the Longleaf Alliance, Nokuse Plantation, USFWS, USFS, and other state agencies often emphasize the needs of wildlife species during longleaf pine restoration planning, including gopher tortoises, eastern indigo snakes, and eastern diamondback rattlesnakes.

A novel use of a largely untouched dataset, our study also demonstrates the necessity of active management in the age of the Anthropocene. Modern conservation initiatives can no longer rely on land acquisition alone, especially when restrictions prevent any alterations to habitats at a site. Population isolation will only be exacerbated by dispersal limitations in the face of climate change-induced range shifts, habitat fragmentation, and disruption of other ecological processes. Active management will be increasingly critical for mitigating these effects and maintaining viable populations of various species both inside and outside of protected areas (Volis, 2019). Historic conservation activities have largely focused on “charismatic megafauna” like pandas and tigers, a designation not applied to most reptiles, with the exception of the sea turtle (Badger, 1999). Studies like ours are urgent and crucial for the conservation of less alluring species like snakes.

Additional Opportunities for JIA Decommissioning any acreage of golf course on Jekyll Island into quality habitat will undoubtedly improve habitat connectivity, provide mosaiced habitat structure for forest wildlife, and create a unique educational opportunity on the island. Studies of converted golf-courses are essentially non-existent. As JIA Conservation staff carefully plan, execute, and manage/monitor the site, valuable new information will become available for other organizations and researchers to explore related projects. As more golf courses close in the future and course managers reassess their role in culture and land management, this project can serve as a template to achieve a variety of post-development goals.

The island’s natural beauty draws thousands of visitors to the island every year and JIA already provides opportunities for environmental education through the Georgia Sea Turtle Center and the Conservation Department’s Ranger programming. A restored, rare grassland 60

APPENDIX K 222

habitat would provide additional opportunity to teach island-goers about coastal habitats, their wildlife inhabitants, and habitat restoration in general, while also providing a unique aesthetic not currently found on the island. Much of the habitat where eastern diamondback rattlesnakes currently reside on the island is not easily traversable. Existing golf cart paths could serve as nature paths through the restored areas. Visitors could experience the ecosystem and learn about its wildlife residents through educational signage, guided ranger walks, and live video monitoring of artificial refugia. Often, the fear of snakes and other â&#x20AC;&#x153;undesirableâ&#x20AC;? species is generated by misguided myths and a lack of proper education. The restoration project would create additional opportunities for the public to better understand the snakes, their important role as predators, and the threats they face, hopefully overcoming negative bias in the process.

Projects like this help the lay public appreciate the ecological value of all coastal habitats (not just the beach!) and inspire the next generation of wildlife conservationists.

Figure 21. JIA Conservation Staff conducting outreach (left) and radio telemetry (right) (Photo Credit: Lance Paden)

61

APPENDIX K 223

Bibliography *Notable sources for client Anderson, D. John. (1982). “The Home Range: A New Nonparametric Estimation Technique.”

Ecology 63(1):103-112. JSTOR. Accessed at www.jstor.org/stable/1937036 Andrews, Kimberly, J. Gibbons, and T. Reeder. (2005). How Do Highways Influence Snake Movement? Behavioral Responses to Roads and Vehicles. Copeia 772-782.

10.1643/0045-8511(2005)005[0772:HDHISM]2.0.CO;2.

Bailey, M., N. J. Holmes, K. Buhlmann., and J. Mitchell. (2006). Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles of the Southeastern United States.

Bass, K., M. Burchell, R. Evans, B. Hunt, D. Line, and D.S. Carley. (2012). “Stormwater Wetlands for Golf Courses”. NC State Extensions Publications. Accessed at https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/stormwater-wetlands-for-golf-courses Block, William M., Alan B. Franklin, James B. Ward, Joseph L. Ganey. (2001). “Design and Implementation of Monitoring Studies to Evaluate the Success of Ecological Restoration on Wildlife.” Restoration Ecology 9(3):293–303. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1046/j.1526-100x.2001.009003293.x.

Brakie, M. (2009). “Broomsedge Bluestem Andropogon virginicus L”. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed at https://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_anvi2.pdf Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). (2011). Petition to list The Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus Adamanteus) as Threatened under The Endangered Species Act. Accessed at https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/reptiles/eastern_diamondback_rattlesnake/pd fs/Eastern_diamondback_rattlesnake_Listing_Petition_08-22-2011.pdf on 15 October 2018.

62

APPENDIX K 224

https://opendata.atlantaregional.com/datasets/c9ce7fe9c5f94f338422e4d5c7119158_0?ge ometry=-81.531%2C31.026%2C-81.284%2C31.077 Georgia Native Plant Initiative. (n.d.). State Botanical Garden of Georgia, University of Georgia.

Accessed at https://botgarden.uga.edu/conservation-science/georgia-native-plantinitiative/ Glitzenstein, J.S., D.R. Streng, D.D. Wade, and J. Brubaker. (2001). “Starting new plants of longleaf pine ground-layer plants in the outer coastal plain of South Carolina, USA”.

Natural Areas Journal, 21:89– 110.

“Golf Courses”. (n.d.). Jekyll Island Activities. Accessed at https://www.jekyllisland.com/activities-category/golf-courses/ on 3 November 2019. *Greene, R.E., R.B. Iglay, and K.O.Evans. (2019). “Providing Open Forest Structural Characteristics for High Conservation Priority Wildlife Species in Southeastern U.S. Pine Plantations.” Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 453.

ScienceDirect, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2019.117594.

Gopher Tortoise Council. (n.d). Eastern diamondback rattlesnake: Species of Special Concern.

Retrieved from https://gophertortoisecouncil.org/pdf/diamondback_brochure.pdf Guyer, C., and M. A. Bailey. (1993). Amphibians and reptiles of longleaf pine communities.

Pages 139–158 in Proceedings of the 18th Tall Timbers fire ecology conference. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida. *Helzer, Chris., et al. (n.d.) Lessons learned from the Grassland Restoration Network: 20032010. Accessed at https://theprairieecologist.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/grnlessons2010.pdf Harwell, D. (2015). “Why America fell out of love with golf”. The Washington Post. Published 5 March 2015. Web. Accessed at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/05/why-america-fell-out-oflove-with-golf/ Hoss, Shannon K., C. Guyer, L. Smith, and Gordon W. Schuett. (2010). “Multiscale Influences of Landscape Composition and Configuration on the Spatial Ecology of Eastern Diamond-Backed Rattlesnakes (Crotalus Adamanteus)”. Journal of Herpetology 44(1):110–23.

Floral and Faunal Lists. (2007). Jekyll Island Conservation Plan, Jekyll Island Authority.

Accessed at http://www.savejekyllisland.org/CP_Appendix_C._Flaura_and_Fauna.pdf Jekyll Island Conservation Plan. (2011). Jekyll Island Authority. Retrieved from https://www.jekyllisland.com/jekyllislandwp/wpcontent/themes/jekyllisland2016/files/conservation-plan-2011-09.pdf Jekyll Island Conservation Plan Appendices. (2011). Jekyll Island Authority. Accessed at https://www.jekyllisland.com/jekyllislandwp/wpcontent/themes/jekyllisland2016/files/conservation-plan-appendices.pdf Jekyll Island History, n.d. Island History. Accessed at https://www.jekyllisland.com/history/island-history Kilheffer, C.R., H. Brian Underwood, Lindsay Ries, Jordan Raphael, Donald J. Leopold. (2019).

Effects of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) exclusion on plant recovery in overwash fans after a severe coastal storm, AoB PLANTS, Volume 11, Issue 5. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plz059 Coastal WildScapes. (n.d.). Resources. Accessed at https://coastalwildscapes.org/Links Cox, A.C., D.R. Gordon, J.L. Slapcinsky, and G.S. Seamon. (2004). “Understory Restoration in Longleaf Pine Sandhills”. Natural Areas Journal, 24:4-14.

Dorner, J. (2002). “An introduction to using native plants in restoration projects”. Center for Urban Horticulture, University of Washington. Accessed at https://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/Native_Plant_Materials/documents/intronatplant.pdf Douglas Bates, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. (2015). Fitting Linear MixedEffects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 148.<doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01>.

Duiker, Sjoerd W. (2002). Diagnosing Soil Compaction Using a Penetrometer. Penn State Extension. Retrieved from https://extension.psu.edu/diagnosing-soil-compaction-using-apenetrometer-soil-compaction-tester Edgar, P., Foster, J. and Baker, J. (2010). Reptile Habitat Management Handbook. Amphibian and Reptile Conservation, Bournemouth. Retrieved from http://bailey.personapi.com/Public-Inquiries/A465-English/11%20-%20Nature%20Conservation/11.2.19%20%20reptile_habitat_management_guidelines%202010.pdf ESRI. (2019) “Understanding cost distance analysis”. Applied Analysis. Accessed at https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/analytics/case-studies/understanding-cost-distanceanalysis.htm Ferrell, J.A. and B.A. Sellers. (2013). “Blackberry and Dewberry: Biology and Control”.

University of Florida, IFAS Extension, via the Electronic Data Information Source (EDIS). Accessed at https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/AG/AG23800.pdf Fill, J.M., J.L. Waldron, S.W. Welch, M. Martin, J. Cantrell, S.H. Bennett, W.G. Kalinowsky, J. Holloway, and T.A. Mousseau. (2015a). Breeding and reproductive phenology of eastern diamond-backed rattlesnakes (Crotalus adamanteus) in South Carolina. Journal of Herpetology 49:570-573.

Fill, JM., J.L. Waldron, S.M. Welch, J.W. Gibbons, S.H. Bennett, and T.A. Mousseau. (2015b) “Using Multiscale Spatial Models to Assess Potential Surrogate Habitat for an Imperiled Reptile.” PLOS ONE, vol. 10, no. 4. PLoS Journals, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123307.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. (2012). “Conserving Georgia Wildlife, 2012 Fiscal Year Report”. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame Conservation Section. Accessed at https://georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/wrd/pdf/nongame-annualreports/2012_DNR_Nongame_Report.pdf Georgia Department of Transportation. (2018). GDOT Traffic Counts (AADT and Truck Percent) 2008 to 2017. Atlanta Regional Commission. Accessed at

63

64

APPENDIX K 225

Longleaf Alliance Training, June 11-12, 2019. Longleaf Academy 201: Herbicides and Longleaf.

Elizabethtown, NC. *Longleaf Alliance. (n.d. A). Agricultural Fields and Pastures. Retrieved from https://longleafalliance.org/what-we-do/restoration-management/restoration/determinethe-starting-point/agricultural-fields-and-pastures *Longleaf Alliance. (n.d. B). Check #2: Determine the Site Preparation that Fits the Situation.

Retrieved from https://longleafalliance.org/what-we-do/restorationmanagement/restoration/preparing-the-site-for-restoration/preparing-the-site-forrestoration-situation-2-abandoned-agricultural-fields-pastures/check-2-determine-thesite-preparation-that-fits-the-situation Jungen, Michael Thomas. (2018). Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) telemetry techniques and translocation (Masters Thesis). Marshall University.

Kain, P. (1995). Home range, seasonal movements, and behavior of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus). Hammond, LA, Southeastern Louisiana University.

Line, D.E., G.D. Jennings, M.B. Shaffer, J. Calabria, and W.F. Hunt. (2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of two stormwater wetlands in North Carolina. Transactions of the ASABE. 51(2): 521-528.

MacDonald, G., B. Sellers, K. Langeland, T. Duperron-Bond, and E. Ketterer-Guest. (2008).

Invasive Species Management Plans for Florida. University of Florida, IFAS Extension, Circular 1529. Accessed at http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/plant-profiles/ Margres, M.J. (2016). “The Genetics of Adaptation of Island Rattlesnakes”. Accessed at http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_FA2016_Margres_fsu_0071E_13496 Martin, William and D. Means. (2000). Distribution and habitat relationships of the eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus). Herpetological Natural History. 7. 9-34.

Merkle, J.A., Anderson, N.J., Baxley, D.L., Chopp, M., Gigliotti, L.C., Gude, J.A., Harms, T.M., Johnson, H.E., Merrill, E.H., Mitchell, M.S., Mong, T.W., Nelson, J., Norton, A.S., Sheriff, M.J., Tomasik, E. and VanBeek, K.R. (2019), A collaborative approach to bridging the gap between wildlife managers and researchers. Jour. Wild. Mgmt., 83: 1644-1651. doi:10.1002/jwmg.21759 Miller, J.R. and Hobbs, R.J. (2007). Habitat Restoration—Do We Know What We’re Doing?

Restoration Ecology, 15: 382-390. doi:10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00234.x Minnesota Department of Agriculture. (2018). “Golf Course Contamination from Pesticide Use”.

Accessed at https://www.mda.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/inlinefiles/golfcoursecontamination_1.pdf Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (MNDNR). (2017). Prairie Restoration Diversity – Planting and Seed Mixes. Accessed at https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_resources/prairies/podcast/prairiepodcast_episode5_restoration.pdf *Morrison, Michael L., Thomas A. Scott, and Tracy Tennant. (1994). Wildlife-Habitat Restoration in an Urban Park in Southern California. Restoration Ecology, 2(1):17-30.

65

APPENDIX K 226

Accessed at https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy.lib.duke.edu/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1526100X.1994.tb00038.x Morrison, Michael L. (2001a) A Proposed Research Emphasis to Overcome the Limits of Wildlife-Habitat Relationship Studies. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(4): 613-623. *Morrison, M.L. (2001b) Introduction: Concepts of Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat for Ecological Restoration. Restoration Ecology, 9: 251-252. doi:10.1046/j.1526100x.2001.009003251.x Morrison, Michael L. (2002). Wildlife Restoration: Techniques for Habitat Analysis and Animal Monitoring. Island Press, Washington D.C. Natural Resources Conservation Service. (n.d.). Establishing Native Grasses; Conservation Reserve Program Job Sheet. Accessed at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_017880.pdf Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2011). Native Forb Information Sheet. NRCS Missouri. Retrieved from https://prod.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_010792.pdf Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2009). Plant Materials Technical Note No. 12: Calculating Seed Mixtures.

Ohlandt, Karl. (1992). “Where the Sweetgrass Grows: The Restoration of a Maritime Wet Grassland, Incorporating the harvesting of Muhlenbergia filipes (Masters Thesis)”. The University of Georgia.

Oswalt, Christopher M. et al. (2012) History and Current Condition of Longleaf Pine in the Southern United States. USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station General Technical Report. Retrieved from https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_srs166.pdf Randolph, J.C., C.N Guy, and J.A. Wrazen. (1991). “Dietary choice of a generalist grassland herbivore, Sigmodon hispidus”. Journal of Mammalogy 72(2):300-313. Accessed at https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/articleabstract/72/2/300/838345?redirectedFrom=fulltext Reinert, H.K. And D. Cundall. (1982). An Improved Surgical Implantation Method for RadioTracking Snakes. The American Society for Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. Vol. 1982, No. 3. pp. 702-705. Accessed at https://www.jstor.org/stable/1444674 on 23 January 2020.

Samuel, M. D., D.J. Pierce, and E.O. Garton. (1985). “Identifying Areas of Concentrated Use within the Home Range.” Journal of Animal Ecology, 54(3):711–719. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4373 Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL) .(n.d.). Eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) Species Profile. Accessed at https://srelherp.uga.edu/snakes/croada.htm Sellers, B.A., P. Devkota, and J.A. Ferrell. (2013). “Dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium): Biology and Control”. University of Florida, IFAS Extension, via the Electronic Data

66

APPENDIX K 227

Information Source (EDIS). Accessed at https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/AG/AG23300.pdf Shore Protection Act. (1979, amended 2019). Official Code of Georgia Annotated. Chapter 5, Title 12. Accessed at http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20192020/187634.pdf *State Botanical Garden of Georgia. (n.d.). “Recommended Native Plant Nurseries List”.

Georgia Native Plant Initiative. Accessed at https://botgarden.uga.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/Directory-of-Native-Plant-Nurseries.pdf Stohlgren, K.M., S.F. Spear, and D.J. Stevenson. (2015). “A Status Assessment and Distribution Model for the Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteaus) in Georgia”.

The Orianne Society. Accessed at https://georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/wrd/pdf/research/GaStatus_DistributionMo del_EasternDiamondbackRattlesnake_Report.pdf.

Sullivan, J. (1995). “Sigmodon hispidus”. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Accessed at www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/schi/all.html on 27 January 2020 Sutherland, R., P. Leonard, D. Fedak, R. Carnes, A. Montgomery, and R. Baldwin. (2015).

Identifying and Prioritizing Key Habitat Connectivity Areas for the South Atlantic Region. Appendix B: Detailed GIS Methods for South Atlantic LCC Connectivity Models. Retrieved from Ron Sutherland, Wildlands Network.

Thompson, L. (2008). "Sylvilagus palustris". Animal Diversity Web. Accessed at https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Sylvilagus_palustris/ Timmerman,W.W. (1995). Home range, habitat use, and behavior ofthe eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) on the Ordway Preserve. Bull. Florida Mus. Nat. Hist.

38, Pt I(5):127-158.

Timmerman, W.W., and W.H. Martin. (2003).” Conservation Guide to the Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake Crotalus adamanteus”. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular No. 32.

USDA. (n.d.). “Plant Hardiness Zones Interactive Map”. Zip Code 31537. Accessed at https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/InteractiveMap.aspx U.S. Geological Survey. (2013). USGS NED n32w082 1/3 arc-second 2013 1 x 1 degree ArcGrid: U.S. Geological Survey.

USFWS. (2011). Survey protocol for the Eastern Indigo Snake, Drymarchon couperi, in North and Central Florida. Accessed at https://www.fws.gov/panamacity/resources/surveyprotocol.pdf Van Lear, David H., W.D. Carroll, P.R. Kapeluck, and R. Johnson. (2005). “History and Restoration of the Longleaf Pine-Grassland Ecosystem: Implications for Species at Risk.” Forest Ecology and Management, 211(1):150 65.

ScienceDirect, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.02.014.

67

APPENDIX K 228

*Violi, Helen. (n.d.) Element Stewardship Abstract for Paspalum notatum Flugge, Bahiagrass.

For The Nature Conservancy’s Stewardship Staff. Accessed at https://www.invasive.org/gist/esadocs/documnts/paspnot.pdf Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VADGIF). (n.d.). Native Warm Season Grass (NWSG). Accessed at https://www.dgif.virginia.gov/quail/managing-yourland/old-field-management/nwsg/ Waldron, Jayme L., S.M. Welch, and S.H. Bennett.(2008). “Vegetation Structure and the Habitat Specificity of a Declining North American Reptile: A Remnant of Former Landscapes.” Biological Conservation, 141(10):2477– 82. ScienceDirect, doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.008.

Waldron, Jayme L., S.M. Welch, S.H. Bennett, W.G. Kalinowsky, and T.A. Mousseau. (2013).

Life history constraints contribute to the vulnerability of a declining North American rattlesnake. Biological Conservation, 159:530-538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.11.021 Waldron, J.L., S.H. Bennett, S.M. Welch, M.E. Dorcas, J.D. Lanham, and W. Kalinowsky.

(2006). Habitat specificity and home‐range size as attributes of species vulnerability to extinction: a case study using sympatric rattlesnakes. Animal Conservation, 9:414-420. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00050.x Walker, J.L., and A.M. Silletti. (2006). “Chapter 10: Restoring the Ground Layer of Longleaf Pine Ecosystems”. In: Jose S., Jokela E.J., Miller D.L. (eds) The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: Ecology, silviculture, and restoration. New York, NY: Springer: 297-325.

Accessed at https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/2006/ja_2006_walker_001.pdf Williams, M.J. (2007). Native Plants for Coastal Restoration: What, When, and How for Florida.

USDA, NRCS, Brooksville Plant Materials Center, Brooksville, FL. 51p. Accessed at http://www.fl.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/pmc/flplantmaterials.html

68

APPENDIX K 229

Appendix A: Snake Habitat Attributes Table 1. Counts of points with cover density and canopy cover selected.

Cover density % 0-25 498 26-50 533 51-75 666 76-100 1809 NA 917

Canopy Cover % 0-25 2405 26-50 453 51-75 268 76-100 146 NA 1148

Table 2. Habitat summaries for individual snakes. Note: Point count is the number of unique points.

Snake

Habitat

BB

Forest

Cruella

Dune

Damia

Dune

Delilah

Marsh

Duffy

Forest

Athena

Dune

Habitats Used

Maritime Live Oak Hammock Atlantic Coast Interdune Swale Live Oak - Yaupon - Wax Myrtle Shrubland Alliance Sea-Oat Temperate Herbaceous Maritime Live Oak Hammock Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Outer Coastal Plain Sweetbay Swamp Forest Maritime Live Oak Hammock Atlantic Coast Interdune Swale Live Oak - Yaupon - Wax Myrtle Shrubland Alliance South Atlantic Upper Ocean Beach Atlantic Coast Interdune Swale Sea-Oat Temperate Herbaceous Southern Hairgrass - Saltmeadow Cordgrass Atlantic Coast Interdune Swale Live Oak - Yaupon - Wax Myrtle Shrubland Alliance Maritime Live Oak Hammock Maritime Live Oak Hammock Coastal Salt Shrub Thicket Transportation: Low Developed: High Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Maritime Live Oak Hammock Red Maple - Tupelo Maritime Swamp Forest Loblolly - bay Forest Blackberry - Greenbrier Successional Shrubland Thicket Southeastern Florida Maritime Hammock

Point Count 122 110 80 5 73 27 27 73 46 33 17 11 1 1 92 83 2 46 43 25 20 6 4 123 29 29 14 3 3

69 APPENDIX K 230

Elouise

Forest

Esteven

Forest

Elvira

Marsh

Fiona

Marsh

Flemming

Dune

Hannibal

Dune

Ila

Dune

Ivan

Forest

Louie

Forest

Loverboy

Marsh

Mantunaaga

Forest

Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Maritime Live Oak Hammock Blackberry - Greenbrier Successional Shrubland Thicket Sawgrass Head Maritime Live Oak Hammock Red Maple - Tupelo Maritime Swamp Forest South Atlantic Coastal Pond Blackberry - Greenbrier Successional Shrubland Thicket Coastal Salt Shrub Thicket Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Coastal Salt Shrub Thicket Developed: High Developed: Low Transportation: Low Live Oak - Yaupon - Wax Myrtle Shrubland Alliance Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Maritime Live Oak Hammock Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Live Oak - Yaupon - Wax Myrtle Shrubland Alliance Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Red Maple - Tupelo Maritime Swamp Forest Atlantic Coast Interdune Swale Live Oak - Yaupon - Wax Myrtle Shrubland Alliance Atlantic Coast Interdune Swale Live Oak - Yaupon - Wax Myrtle Shrubland Alliance Maritime Live Oak Hammock Sea-Oat Temperate Herbaceous Live Oak - Yaupon - Wax Myrtle Shrubland Alliance Atlantic Coast Interdune Swale Maritime Live Oak Hammock Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Blackberry - Greenbrier Successional Shrubland Thicket Red Maple - Tupelo Maritime Swamp Forest Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Maritime Live Oak Hammock Golf Course - Pine Lakes Red cedar - Live Oak - Cabbage Palmetto Marsh Hammock Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Maritime Live Oak Hammock Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods

52 68 1 1 60 3 1 2 1 2 140 140 55 44 14 14 38 31 10 6 1 55 47 271 56 24 11 138 108 42 21 8 2 2 41 29 5 72 6 60 42

70 APPENDIX K 231

Marcy

Dune

Palehorse

Dune

Ptolemaeus

Forest

Quaid

Dune

Rhea

Forest

Romeo

Forest

Sheeva

Forest

Zelda

Marsh

Zenida

Marsh

Live Oak - Yaupon - Wax Myrtle Shrubland Alliance Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Red - cedar - Live Oak - Cabbage Palmetto Marsh Hammock Coastal Salt Shrub Thicket Coastal Salt Shrub Thicket Red - cedar - Live Oak - Cabbage Palmetto Marsh Hammock Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Atlantic Coast Interdune Swale Live Oak - Yaupon - Wax Myrtle Shrubland Alliance Maritime Live Oak Hammock Southern Hairgrass - Saltmeadow Cordgrass Maritime Live Oak Hammock Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Outer Coastal Plain Sweetbay Swamp Forest Atlantic Coast Interdune Swale Live Oak - Yaupon - Wax Myrtle Shrubland Alliance Sea-Oat Temperate Herbaceous South Atlantic Upper Ocean Beach Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Maritime Forest Atlantic Coastal Plain Streamhead Seepage Swamp, Pocosin, Baygall

Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Maritime Live Oak Hammock Mid-Successional Cabbage Palm Hammock Blackberry - Greenbrier Successional Shrubland Thicket Outer Coastal Plain Sweetbay Swamp Forest Maritime Live Oak Hammock Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Blackberry - Greenbrier Successional Shrubland Thicket Mid-Successional Cabbage Palm Hammock Maritime Live Oak Hammock Red Maple - Tupelo Maritime Swamp Forest Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Coastal Salt Shrub Thicket Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Coastal Salt Shrub Thicket Maritime Live Oak Hammock Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Red cedar - Live Oak - Cabbage Palmetto Marsh Hammock

11 5 5 1 95 83 28 126 96 6 2 41 12 9 106 24 3 2 249 43 47 13 9 3 1 58 21 4 3 71 12 9 9 9 67 59 21 11 6

71

APPENDIX K 232

Appendix B: Home Ranges Table 3. Home range summaries for all snakes.

Appendix C: Other Statistical Model Results Table 4. Linear model output for 95% home range sizes

df 1 2 100

Sex Habitat Type Residuals

SS 12.92 23.7 14.9

MS 12.923 11.85 0.149

Table 5. Linear model output for 50% home range sizes

Sex Habitat Type Body Size (SVL) Residuals

df 1 2 1 99

SS 14.92 92.53 5.19 60.07

MS 14.92 46.26 5.19 0.61

F 86.7 79.5

F 24.589 76.253 8.555

p 3.2e-15 *** < 2e-16 ***

p 0.00000294*** < 2e-16*** 0.00427**

72

APPENDIX K 233

Table 6. Linear mixed effects model output (all years).

Fixed effects: (Intercept) Active Season 2 Active Season 3 Non-active Random effects:

Estimate SE df 2.872 1.062 91.555 2.966 1.364 75 4.099 1.364 75 -2.495 1.364 75 Snake ID SD = 2.268

t 2.704 2.174 3.005 -1.829

p 0.00817 0.03284 0.00361 0.07145

** * ** .

Table 7. Linear mixed effects model output (year to year).

Fixed effects:

Estimate SE (Intercept) 0.7866 0.259 Active Season 2 0.3661 0.3067 Active Season 3 1.2568 0.3079 Non-active -0.6665 0.2929 Random effects: Snake ID SD=0.6655

df 106.9757 215.3192 215.5288 215.9942

t 3.037 1.194 4.082 -2.275

p 0.003** 0.2339 0.0000628*** 0.0239*

Appendix D: Corridor Analysis Table 8. Average annual daily traffic (AADT) counts and their assigned road classifications used to break up roads

AADT 2000-4000 1000-1999 < 999

Traffic Category Description Beach side, commercial roads High Bisecting, connector roads Medium Neighborhood, south-end roads Low

Table 9. Equations for reclassification of ranks into cost values

Rank < 50 > 51

Equation Rank * 10 Rank * 100

73

APPENDIX K 234

Table 10. All land use/land cover types ranked by C. adamanteus preference and the corresponding cost values Land Use/Land Cover Type Blackberry - Greenbrier Successional Shrubland Thicket Atlantic Coast Interdune Swale Coastal Salt Shrub Thicket Developed: High Developed: Low Estuarine and Inshore Marine Waters Golf Course Live Oak - Yaupon - (Wax-myrtle) Shrubland Alliance Loblolly-bay Forest Maritime Live Oak Hammock Maritime Slash Pine - Longleaf Pine Upland Flatwoods Mid- to Late-Successional Loblolly Pine - Sweetgum Forest Mid-Successional Cabbage Palm Hammock Open Field Outer Coastal Plain Sweetbay Swamp Forest Parks and Recreation Pond/Open water Quarry/Stripmine Red Maple - Tupelo Maritime Swamp Forest Red-cedar - Live Oak - Cabbage Palmetto Marsh Hammock Sand Cordgrass - Seashore Mallow Herbaceous Vegetation Sawgrass Head Sea-oats Temperate Herbaceous Alliance South Atlantic Coastal Pond South Atlantic Coastal Shell Midden Woodland South Atlantic Upper Ocean Beach Southeastern Florida Maritime Hammock Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Carolina Willow Dune Swale Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain Salt and Brackish Tidal Marsh Southern Hairgrass - Saltmeadow Cordgrass - Dune Fingergrass Herbaceous Vegetation Successional Broom-sedge Vegetation Transportation: High Transportation: Medium Transportation: Low

Rank 5 30 10 99 70 99.9 65 25 50 15 15 65 30 65 30 90 90 90 15 40 45 45 30 65 70 88 15 80 55 25 10 100 80 60

Cost Value 50 300 100 9900 7000 9990 6500 250 500 150 150 6500 300 6500 300 9000 9000 9000 150 400 450 450 300 6500 7000 8800 150 8000 5500 250 100 10000 8000 6000

74

APPENDIX K 235

Appendix E: Restoration Project Table 11. Suggested equipment for restoration project and the phase(s) in which theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll be used

Name

Phase 1

Cultivator or Tine Broadcast Seeder Broadcast Chemical Sprayer Penetrometer Shank Mower Scalper Tractor Disc Roller Packer Drip Torch Excavator Seed Drill Bush Hog

x x x x x x x x x

Phase 2

Phase 3

Phase 4

x x

x

x x x x x x

x x x

Table 12. Probable non-target invaders of exposed soil and optimal methods to control early seedling establishment.

All information obtained from MacDonald et al. (2008) unless otherwise noted.

75

APPENDIX K 236

Scientific Name Cinnamomum camphora Ligustrum sinese Ligustrum japonicum Triadica sebifera Elaeagnus pungens Albizia julibrissin Lygodium japonicum Lantana camara Rubus spp.

Andropogon spp.

Eupatorium capillifolium

Treatment Frequent mowing to kill seedlings and resprouts 20% triclopyr-ester in oil basal bark application to Chinese Privet stems <0.5 inches in diameter 25% glyphosate solution (with surfactant) foliar Japanese Privet application to stems <0.5 inches in diameter Frequent mowing to kill seedlings and resprouts; Chinese Tallow foliar application of 5% triclopyr-ester during the Repeated foliar applications of 10% imazapyr or Thorny Olive 20% glyphosate solutions with surfactant Foliar application of 2% glyphosate, or triclopyr Silktree Mimosa with 0.25% non-ionic surfactant 2-3% glyphosate and/or metsulfuron, both with Japanese Climbing Fern 0.25% surfactant, applied in the Fall Mowing followed by basal application of fluroxpyr Common Lantana or imazapyr Fall mowing followed by summer application of triclopyr + fluroxpyr mixture (3:1) or metsulfuron Blackberry spp products (Ferrell and Sellers, 2013) Repeated spot applications of glyphosate during Broomsedge spp the growing season (Brakie, 2009) 2,4-D amine at 2 qts/acre for stems <20 inches in Dogfennel height (Sellers et al., 2013) Common Name Camphor Tree

Table 13. Sample of potential suppliers

Name Southern Native Plantings at Longwood Plantation Rock Spring Restoration Roundstone Native Seed Mellow Marsh Farms Baker Environmental Nursery Flat Creek Natives NatureScapes Vincent Gardens Trillium Gardens Thompsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Gardens Southern Habitats Earth Balance Carolina Native Nursery

Location Newington, GA Atlanta, GA Upton, KY Siler City, NC Hoschton, GA Perry, GA Beaufort, SC Douglas, GA Tallahassee, FL Brooklet, GA Greenville, FL Nocatee, FL Burnsville, NC

Contact www.southernnativeplantings.com www.longwood-plantation.com http://rockspringrestorations.com/index.html https://roundstoneseed.com https://www.mellowmarshfarm.com https://bakerenvironmentalnursery.com flatcreeknatives@gmail.com https://naturescapesofbeaufort.com https://vincentgardens.com https://trilliumgardensnursery.com dsmillerfl@aol.com https://www.southernhabitats.com http://www.earthbalance.com/native-nursery/ https://www.carolinanativenursery.com

76

APPENDIX K 237

Appendix F: Personal Communications Table 14. Professional association for all personal communications cited, including questionnaire respondents

Name Joseph Colbert Ron Sutherland Karl Ohlandt Aaron Saunders Cody Fulk Eva Furner Ryan Wallin Lisa Stratton

Organization JIA Conservation Department The Wildlands Network Spring Island Land Trust Jekyll Island Golf Club Three Rivers Land Trust Lemon Bay Conservancy Ozaukee Washington Land Trust UC Santa Barbara

77 APPENDIX K 238

APPENDIX L A GEODESIGN APPROACH TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ON JEKYLL ISLAND

239

A Geodesign Approach to Sustainable Development on Jekyll Island

FIG 1:Panorama of Jekyll Island. Image Credit: www.jekyllisland.com

In his book, “A Framework for Geodesign,” Dr. Carl Steinitz states, ”The framework for a particular geodesign study will be shaped by its many participants, and especially by the issues and requirements posed by the people of the place.(1)” This is especially true of Jekyll Island, Georgia. Jekyll Island is a 5500-acre barrier island with unique history and characteristics. There is pristine natural beauty, affordable and diverse tourist, entertainment, and recreation opportunities, and easy access to plentiful amenities.

The people that live, work, and visit this area all claim that the island has a special qualities that cannot be found in many other places. They all feel connected to the land and the unofficial motto: “Island Life for the Average Georgian” is being resonated in many ways.

This quote from the 2011 conservation study sums it up well: “Georgia law specifically designates Jekyll Island as a State Park, meaning that the land and its flora and fauna belong to all citizens of Georgia.”(2) Jekyll Island faces many issues with the main one being that the is island being “loved to death.” Statistics and demographic studies show that population in Georgia is increasing (3), which will lead to an increase in visitors to the island. The threat of sea level rise, an increase of high-level flooding, and the potential for more frequent devastating hurricanes and storms all have the potential of causing significant pressure on the island. How can the Jekyll Island take steps ensure that the resilience of the island increases with these different pressures?

Jekyll Island has a unique governing structure as the Island is overseen by the Jekyll Island Authority (JIA) which is a Georgia State Agency.

“Recognizing that Jekyll Island’s natural beauty and vibrant history set it apart from any other coastal retreat, the Governor and the Georgia State Legislature established the island as a state park and entrusted its care to the Jekyll Island Authority. The Jekyll Island Authority is a self-supporting state agency responsible for the overall management and stewardship of Jekyll Island.” (4)

As stewards of Jekyll Island’s past, present and future, we’re dedicated to maintaining the delicate balance between nature and humankind.(5) - JIA Mission Statement This report outlines how the geodesign framework could be used to help Jekyll Island plan for its longterm future.

Dan Meehan Capstone Project – Final Report Advisor: James Sipes Penn State University MPS in Geodesign – AUGUST 2019

APPENDIX L 240

Historical Timeline

Jekyllisland.com OVERVIEW

ITERATION 1 Scoping

ITERATION 2 Methods

ITERATION 3 Action

Through over 40 years of practice, Dr. Steinitz has refined a method for how to tackle complex land use issues that involve multiple systems and numerous stakeholders.

This process involves going through three separate iterations of six different models (FIG 2). Models in this study can be thought of as very generic and only specific to that particular study.

This report describes each model and each iteration of the framework to outline the scoping, methodology and implementation of this process. We will begin to create multiple long-term scenarios for development that JIA may use to guide them in making decisions about what happens on the island. The growth strategies for JIA that will be rooted in the values of the people of the place and backed up by data and science based on the geospatial and modelling tools used.

This paper outlines how the process will be implemented in three phases: scoping, methods, action. Each of these phases will be outlined and elaborated on in in this report.

WHY?

HOW?

WHAT? WHERE? WHEN?

FIG 2: The Steinitz Geodesign framework is organized in three iterations of 6 models. These images were adapted by D. Goldberg from Carl Steinitz. (6)

“Georgia law specifically designates Jekyll Island as a State Park, meaning that the land and its flora and fauna belong to all citizens of Georgia.”

(7)

- 2011 Conservation Plan FIG 3: Series of maps showing the project area.

Georgia

Glynn County Jekyll Island

N

N

• 5,530 Acre Costal Island • Owned by State of Georgia • Operated by Jekyll Island Authority

N Data: Glynn County, State of GA, Esri

Discovered by General James Oglethorpe and named In honor of Sir Joseph Jekyll

French Discovery

1562

1733

GA Law Established: Only 35% of land may be developed

Senator Nelson Aldrich led a party of financial leaders to Jekyll Island to create the forerunner of the Federal Reserve.

Sea cotton plantation

Hunting Club: Rockefeller, Morgan, Vanderbilt, Pulitzer, Baker.

1792

1886

Max of 1675 Acres can be developed

Sold back to state. Established as State Park.

1910

1947

1971

2014

FIG 4: Jekyll Island timeline. Image Credit: www.jekyllisland.com

PROJECT SCOPING

The First Iteration 1.1 REPRESENTATION

Jekyll Island has unique history since the French landed there in 1562. It has been a plantation, hunting getaway, closed for war and reopened as a state park.

The 2014 master plan outlines that only 1675 acres can be developed (8). Currently there are 1609 acres of developed land leaving only 64 acres which have been designated or designed as either developed or undeveloped. According to JIA: “All of the acreage not currently classified as developed is in fact undeveloped.

The 64 acres is the hypothetical amount that developed land could potentially be expanded. Only 20 acres of this could be utilized for commercial or residential purposes.

The other 44 acres is hypothetically available for development with an explicit public purpose and use e.g. infrastructure, access, safety, etc.”(9) This does not leave much wiggle room.

More recently the JIA has placed an emphasis on a variety of issues that are getting increasingly important.

Impor tant Issues: • • • • • • • •

Controlling Number of Visitors Development of Vacant Lands Housing for Residents, Workforce, & Visitors Infrastructure Improvements & Enhancements Impact on Natural Areas & Systems Long Term Carrying Capacity Climate Change & Sea Level Rise Natural Disaster & Flooding

1.2 PROCESS In a geodesign study a process can be thought of as something that happens with a site that can be related to physical, ecological, human, or geographic characteristics. On Jekyll Island, the most critical of systems are natural or related to preserving or protecting natural systems. Also of importance is how humans interact with those systems in a way that can be sustained for many years into the future. Without long term economic viability, nothing that happens on this island would be possible. This report outlines how geodesign can take on all of these issues in a symbiotic manner.

APPENDIX L 241

Jekyllisland.com

Jim Remlin

FIG 5: There are 3.5 golf courses on Jekyll Island and over 20 miles of safe bike trails.

1.3 EVALUATION

1.5 IMPACT

“It is the people of the place who most directly know and perceive the conditions of the study area, and which aspects are working well or not.” (10) Jekyll Island benefits from having multiple studies at its disposal, all of which were used in this project. Some of these studies included numerous interviews with various stakeholder groups that represent different interests on the island.

The beauty of Jekyll Island is also it’s largest weakness.

The pristine natural beauty is also extremely fragile. If the land is not protected and managed properly, this unique resource could be lost for good. Sea level rise and frequency of intense storms are increasing and could cause harmful change, the island needs to be prepared properly. If no action is taken, the impacts could be serious or irreversible.

1.6 DECISION

1.4 CHANGE Regardless of what actions the JIA undertakes, the island will need to adapt. Change from within JI might not happen too rapidly, but processes and systems outside of the island will change rapidly. This will apply more pressure on the island to change. And pressure from the residents and homeowners will only get louder. This will be taken into consideration. In many ways and both offensive and defensive strategies need to be implemented to handle this change.

The geodesign team will need to sort through the ample amount of information that is available to them in order to determine the proper sequence of events that need to occur on the island. Ultimate decision making will come from the JIA, but they need to be sure that the decisions they make align with the values of the people of the place and backed up by the scientific data to support the decisions.

FIG 6: Beautiful beaches and dunes (left). The Horton House was constructed in 1743 (right).

Jim Remlin

APPENDIX L 242

There are numerous stakeholder groups that have provided input to this study.

We can now begin to outline the purpose of this study:

STAKEHOLDERS:

PURPOSES:

• Jekyll Island Authority • Executive Committee • Conservation • Historical • Facilities, Operations, & Infrastructure • Recreation • State of Georgia • Business Owners • Residents & Homeowners • Tourists • Beach Goers • Bicyclists • Camping and RV • Wildlife Observation • Sea Turtle Center and Hospital • Conservation and Protection Groups • Flora & Fauna

• Provide guidance to the decision makers of this island.

• Utilize a transparent process for allowing all voices to be heard.

• Protect the island and ensure that it can be enjoyed by future generations.

• Identify actions that need to be undertaken by both the public and the government.

• Determine the best path for being responsible stewards of the land.

• Devise plan to conserve environment and encourage sustainability.

• Accurately measure existing conditions by understanding systems.

• Identify redevelopment opportunities • Determine Suitability of proposed changes..

• Generate scenarios for long term planning purposes.

There is both agreement and contention between these groups that will need to be managed and negotiated. In addition to physical boundaries such as the shoreline and rising ocean levels this study includes detailed information about the values of the people of the place. There are cultural, authoritative, logical, rational, and emotional values that will all need to be considered. While the island has many physical limitations, the largest bounding factor is the law that says only 64 additional acres can be developed.

This completes the first iteration of the study which focuses on the scoping aspect of this Geodesign problem. This phase was intended to be a quick look at the study area and to provide some initial information in order to develop the next step, outlining the methods of this process.

FIG 7: Contention is a constant in a geodesign study. This political cartoon is an example of some stakeholder’s current opinions of the JIA. (Sam C. Rawls. www.savejekyllisland.org)

APPENDIX L 243

FISHING PIER AIRPORT

RV LOT

HISTORICAL AREA GOLF COURSES (3.5) SUMMER WAVES VILLAGE CAMP JEKYLL

Data: Esri, Jekyll Island

FIG 8: Oblique view of Jekyll Island with major attractions labeled.

PROJECT METHODS The Second Iteration 2.1 DECISION We now start to ask the questions about how this study will take place. How will the decisions about what change happens on JI be made, and by whom? In this case, the Jekyll Island Authority Executive Board has full control over any design or change decisions that happen on this island. Similar to any municipal governing body, project proposals need to get approvals and go through a formal planning and review process for any new construction or modifications on the island.

In order to make decisions, JIA will need clear and concise information upon which to draw. This will require synthesis of existing studies that can be easily accessed. We used a variety of spatial tools and mapping data to assess this information including an online collaboration tool called Geodesign Hub (GDH).

GDH provides a transparent system of record for solving complex land use issues that have many stakeholders and systems operating in the same spaces.

GDH allows for anyone who wants to have a say on what should happen in a project to have their say. As Dr. Steinitz says: “Understanding how public and private decisions to alter or conserve the landscape are made within that geodesign context is a basic element of a geodesign methodology.” (11) Throughout this process, we encouraged JIA to utilize the existing scientific evaluations that are available to them. In the case of JI, we are fortunate to have multiple existing studies that have been done on JI. Each study was analyzed in detail to summarize the findings and conclusions.

EXISTING STUDIES:  2008 – Coastal Hazards Assessment  2011 – Conservation Study  2014 – Master Plan Study  2016 – Transportation Study  2017 – National Golf Foundation, Golf Study  2018 – Infrastructure & Carrying Capacity Assessment

APPENDIX L 244

Jekyllisland.com

Jim Remlin

FIG 9: The Village is a popular place with shops and restaurants (left). The JI Campground has over 20 acres for all sizes of RV.

In addition to the studies listed above, JIA personnel have integral, institutional, and historical knowledge of the island process and operations. Some have been coming to this island since they were children. Their inherent knowledge of the place was heavily relied on for this study. JIA staff resources were also utilized to help determine which additional stakeholder input needed to be included. Regular JIA board meetings were used as sounding board throughout the process.

2.2 IMPACT A goal of this project is to help the JIA outline both vulnerabilities and opportunities within the island. The existing studies will be broken down and itemized to find where there is agreement and where there is contention. This process will help them determine which values are important to each of the stakeholder groups.

The saying “Island life for the average Georgian” has been a recurring theme in this process. This means that there is consensus on this island remaining an affordable location for all Georgians to visit. No matter how the island changes in the future, it should still be accessible to those who want to get here. This can be accomplished by continuing to offer low-cost recreation opportunities, free beach access, and by keeping lodging costs low.

Once the information from interviews and existing studies is synthesized, it will be organized in rank order so that priorities may be determined. The metrics to measure suitability and vulnerability for each system will be discussed and agreed upon so that the project team is all on the same page.

2.3 CHANGE Change is a constant on Jekyll Island on numerous scales. The State of GA requires that all plans address a 2’ Sea Level Rise. No matter when it happens, this would be a direct impact to JI. And with storms and flooding increasing in magnitude, the vulnerability of the island is ever increasing.

General population increases in the state of Georgia will likely mean an increase in visitors. Jekyll Island needs to be prepared to handle that without the ability to use more than 20-acres for development. Existing pressures from both the inside and outside of the island were addressed in this study.

Change will be proposed in the form of diagrams in GDH. A diagram can be thought of as a project, or some change that will take place on the land. A series of diagrams will then be selected to make a design.

FIG 10: The Georgia Sea Turtle Center releasing a rehabilitated turtle back into the wild. (left). Summer Waves Water Park (right).

@MissionBlue

Jekyllisland.com

APPENDIX L 245

2.4 EVALUATION Jekyll Island’s natural beauty makes it a very attractive place. There are some areas of the island that are functioning well and others that are operating at a financial loss. The island gets about 40K visitors a year and that’s expected to increase as the state population increases (12). As indicated earlier, the island’s land development capacity has nearly been met. One question to consider in the evaluation process is how can JIA increase economic viability within existing developed land.

The locals take pride in the lack of development and often reference their noisy neighbors to the north, St Simons Island (SSI), as a place they do not want to become. SSI is overcrowded and largely developed. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Cumberland Island, located just south of JI, is a National Seashore and is largely undeveloped. Each of these areas will be compared in the evaluation process.

Geospatial tools and technologies were used to evaluate existing conditions on the island. The team used the existing studies and information collected to determine the most important systems that operate on the island. Once systems are determined they were evaluated for suitability for change. The scale used to make the measurements is red, yellow green.

FIG 12: The map showing the evaluation layer for the Recreation, Entertainment and Tourism (RET) system.

As an example, we have provided a map (FIG12) showing the evaluation GIS layer for the recreation, entertainment, and tourism (RET) system. The areas in red are existing RET functions or activities that are operating well, these areas should not change. The areas in yellow are not appropriate for change to RET function. For example, the northwest part of the island is largely tidal flood basin, this area will never be a suitable place for any type of RET function. The areas in green are suitable for change to a RET activity. These areas are not operating well and would be suitable for change to RET functions.

2.5 PROCESS

FIG 11: GDH scale for suitability for change.

For this study we used the following suitability criteria:

 RED = Existing – This land is operating well in this system context. It does not need to change.  YELLOW = NOT APPROPRIATE – This land is not appropriate for this system. It does not need to be considered for change.  GREEN = SUITABLE – This land is not functioning well in its current context. It is suitable for change.

We again rely on the past studies conducted by the JIA to help determine which processes are the most important on JI. Approximately 70% of Jekyll Island exists in its natural state. There are numerous species of flora and fauna that are present on this island and they need to be protected as coastal barrier islands are under constant change and pressure.

Once again, all the previous steps in this geodesign framework have helped to drive this part of the study.

We can begin to outline the processes or systems that will need to be evaluated for this project and break them into relevant categories.

APPENDIX L 246

Current Developed Land

64 Acres to be Developed

1,609 – 30%

Developed Undeveloped

N

3,920 – 70% FIG 13: Current breakdown of developed land as determined by the 2014 Master Plan.

This is an initial list of systems that are operating on JI. Some of the initial systems include: • Physical: • Utility • Roads • Bike Paths • Beaches • Historical Area • Accessibility • Commercial Development • Hotels • Parking • Golf • Maintenance • Ecological: • Natural Area • Tides • Sensitive Flora • Fauna Habitat • Wetlands • Conservation Areas • Coastal Ecosystems

• Human: • Recreation • Tourism and Eco-Tourism • Resident • Events • Housing Availability • Sustainability • Social • Economic Sustainability • Environmental Education • Affordability This initial list will be narrowed down based on the information gathered by the geodesign team. Issues such as model complexity and how they should be visualized will also need to be determined by the team.

2.6 REPRESENTATION In a typical project involving the use of geospatial technologies, a common first step is to search for data that is available to the team. The geodesign framework differs in that the data collection effort truly happens at the end of the outline of methodologies.

APPENDIX L 247

2014 Land Use Total Acres based on NOAA Mean High Water Estimate.

According to 2014 Master Plan.

4.6%

0.3%

0.…

12.8% 4.8% 4.1%

70.9%

1.6% N

FIG 14: Current Land Use map as outlined by the 2014 Master Plan.

The geodesign framework dictates that the action of collecting geospatial information should not happen until the end of the scoping process. This allows the team to have a better understanding of what data is needed so they can focus on the important issues. The team will also have a solid grasp on how the information should be visualized and what tools and applications will be necessary. Fortunately, the scale of our project is not an issue as the island has a distinct boundary. That said, considerable pressure from forces outside of the island will be taken into account.

We now have a thorough understanding of the study area and what data is available to the team. We have also outlined methods for how this study will take place.

We can now work to implement the plan to complete this project.

PROJECT ACTION The Third Iteration This aspect of the report will focus on how the project is implemented. The what, where and when questions will be addressed in this final iteration through the geodesign framework.

3.1 REPRESENTATION As indicated earlier, we will utilize GDH as a tool for negotiation. We will also use the ESRI platform and their suite of geospatial analysis tools to implement our project plans. These tools include ArcMap, ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online (AGOL), and GeoPlanner, among others.

GIS DATA COLLECTED: PHYSICAL • • • • • • • • • •

Parking Bike & Ped Trails Building Footprint Utility Facility Water Tower Water, Storm and Sanitary Lines Septic Tanks Hydrants Roads Tax Parcel

NATURAL • • • • • • • • •

Vegetation Species Beaches Land Use Boundary Shoreline Soils Golf Course 1FT Contours Elevation Model

APPENDIX L 248

Most GIS data was provided by JIA and Glynn County and some was collected using outside sources. An initial data assessment was performed to figure out what information needed to be updated or added.

In addition to the data listed above, the team created their own GIS data to supplement what was provided.

Cloud based data storage, including AGOL, was used to share data and information among the team.

3.3 EVALUATION Each of the system GIS layers were created by evaluating the land for its suitability for change. These maps help guide the geodesign team in determining which areas will be suitable for different needs of JI. Each system is listed below and named along with their GDH abbreviation.

3.2 PROCESS The team identified all natural, physical, cultural, and social “systems” that are operating on the island. They narrowed down the relevant systems to use in this study to the following ten (in no specific order):

SYSTEMS 1. Residential • Single family homes, apartments, longterm-lodging.

2. Transportation • Public roads.

3. Parking • Existing general parking areas.

4. Commercial / Hotel • Existing businesses and hotels.

5. Eco Tourism • Bike and pedestrian trails, environmental education, ecological friendly activity.

6. Recreation, Entertainment, Tourism • General category for all recreational, entertainment and tourism activities.

7. Golf • Existing golf courses.

8. Medium Density Development • New development that is medium density.

Could include mixed-use, housing, institution, or commercial.

9. Coastal Ecosystem • Environmental systems and green infrastructure.

10. Historical Area • Areas that are of historical significance to the island.

FIG. 15 RESIDENTIAL - RES

FIG. 16 TRANSPORTATION - TRANS

A separate GIS layer was created for each system and the entire island was evaluated for its suitability for change.

Jim Remlin

APPENDIX L 249

FIG. 17 PARKING - PKNG

FIG. 20 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; RECREATION, ENT, TOURISM - RET

FIG. 18 COMMERCIAL, HOTEL - COM

FIG. 21 GOLF - GOLF

FIG. 19 ECO TOURISM - ETRS

FIG. 22 MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING Jim Remlin

APPENDIX L 250

For this project, these are the change teams that were chosen. These teams represent the goals of multiple stakeholders who share common interests:

CHANGE TEAMS AND GOALS: • HISTORICAL: Protect and enhance existing historical areas • NATURAL: Ensure natural areas will not be impacted • TRANSPORTATION: Safe, easy, and dependable transportation systems.

• RECREATION: Affordable and diverse recreation activities.

• ECONOMY: Financial viability for the future.

1 FT Sea Level Rise

• Education: Continue to educate the public on environmental stewardship • History: Ensure future generations can continue to learn about the past.

The JIA must act quickly in order to protect the island’s unique natural resources while allowing for sustainable development or change within a limited capacity. In order to have a full understanding of the path forward, they also need to recognize the risks that they are facing:

FIG. 23 COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS - ENV

• Overuse of the island • Demands on infrastructure and services • Pressure to increase tourism and revenue • Development threatens fragile ecosystems • Climate Change & Sea Level Rise

3.4 CHANGE

There are proposed changes and potential projects that are already being planned for JI. Each of these projects, as well as other ideas proposed by people of the place and stakeholders, were added to GDH in the form of a diagram. The diagrams are organized in categories that align with the systems.

FIG. 24 HISTORICAL AREAS - HIST

In addition to evaluating the systems the team is also able to succinctly outline the values of the people of the place. As indicated earlier, these values should be the driving force behind the decisions that are made by the JIA. • Attitude: Relax, disconnect, unwind • Accessibility: Easy and affordable recreating opportunities • Conservation: Protect natural beauty and vibrant ecology • Protection: Maintain “Island life for the average Georgian.”

FIG 25: Diagrams from Geodesign Hub.

3 FT Sea Level Rise Change teams then chose the diagrams that they thought were the most important. These diagrams make up a design in GDH. 3.5 IMPACT In order to better understand the various impacts that might happen on the island from outside forces, spatial analysis was utilized. Impacts were assessed using ArcMap and ArcGIS Pro. Sea Level Rise will have impacts on JI but the JIA has already done a good job in planning the development on the island. Even a 5FT. SLR has minimal direct impact on existing structures and infrastructure. This can be seen by the maps depicted in this section.

RISE

ACRES

DECLINE

Current

5530

-

1 FT.

4270

-23%

3 FT.

3780

-11%

5 FT.

2745

-27%

5 FT Sea Level Rise FIG 27: Maps showing Sea Level Rise data from NOAA. Buildings are represented in green and extruded at equal heights. Red buildings are going to be impacted by SLR.

FIG 26: Potential land loss due to Sea Level Rise. Data source: NOAA.

FIG 28. Driftwood Beach on the northeast side of Jekyll Island.

APPENDIX L 251

N

FIG 29: The potential impact of Sea Level Rise on Jekyll Island.

N

Utility Impacted

Road Impacted

FIG 30: The potential impact of Sea Level Rise on roads and utility structures.

N N

FIG 31: The potential impact of Sea Level Rise on sanitary pipes.

N

FIG 32: The potential impact of Sea Level Rise on water infrastructure.

APPENDIX L 252

3.6 DECISION The decision phase is never simple. There is a lot of information to keep track of and sort through in a meaningful manner. The decisions that are made by the JIA are important and will impact the island for many years in the future. They must not rush into decisions without having been completely informed of all factors and potential outcomes.

FIG 34. Part of a hexbin map that was used for the suitability modelling. Each hexagon is about 40x40ft and represents about 1/16th of an acre.

In addition to the process described thus far, the geodesign team also assembled a suitability model, which is also known as a multi-criteria analysis. This task came about after JIA members expressed interest after seeing a demo from another project. The team had to work within limited technical scope as some of the latest tools to be able to produce this type of analysis were not available to them. The team used ArcMap and ArcGIS Pro to create a hexbin coverage of the area.

FIG 33. Each hexbin in every layer in the model was rated from 1-5. 1 being the most vulnerable and 5 being the most suitable.

FIG 35. Individual suitability maps that went into the model.

The JIA provided input on what layers they would like to see in the analysis. After the first demonstration of the tool, they decided to include additional layers, as depicted below.

INITIAL ANALYSIS

SECONDARY ANALYSIS

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK

PROXIMITY TO SANITARY

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK v2

PROXIMITY TO PARKING

PROXIMITY TO WATER

PROXIMITY TO HISTORY

SEA LEVEL RISE

FLOOD RISK

PROXIMITY TO TRAIL APPENDIX L 253

EVENLY WEIGHTED

HIGH CLIMATE CHANGE

LOW CLIMATE CHANGE

FIG 36. The maps that were provided to JIA as a result of the suitability modelling.

The team created maps from resultant suitability models which are shown in FIG. 35 above. For each model, the different layers were given a weight based on their importance to that stakeholder. They weights allow the user to see the most suitable or vulnerable locations based on their own values and priorities.

Additional layers were overlain on the suitability model to show areas that are considered constraints (FIG.36.).

The environmental constraint showed vegetative species that are the most vulnerable and the developed land shows only the land that is currently classified as developed.

Another tool that that team created to assist them in the decision-making process is an agreement and importance table. This table takes the projects that were identified and ranks them in order of importance.

The table also adds in where there is disagreement and agreement. This helps the team and the client determine which projects will be easy to implement and which will require more effort.

ENVIR CONST

DEVELOPED LAND

FIG 37. The maps that were provided to JIA as a result of the suitability modelling.

APPENDIX L 254

FIG 38. Determining where there is the most agreement among important projects on Jekyll Island. Ranking of 5 is highest priority.

The table in FIG. 37 is a rank order of projects that are most important to stakeholders. Agreement is then measured by prioritizing the projects where stakeholders agree. Each stakeholder group ranks each project based on their own priority, giving it a value of 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 5 with 5 being the highest priority. We total the priority rankings to determine which projects are the most important to all stakeholders.

An agreement ranking is then calculated by giving a point to the projects that have the highest rankings. The projects that have high agreement and a high importance ranking should be the projects that are given the most priority. Building a new beach wall, connecting existing bike paths, enhancing the water park, and changing a golf course to a natural area.

The geodesign team has provided data and information that can be used by JIA to make final decisions about how Jekyll Island plans for future development. It will be important to include feedback throughout the process. If there are new ideas or issues that come to light as a result of the study, the information can be incorporated back into the models and re-analyzed.

The geodesign team would recommend that the JIA continue this process and utilize GDH to help them with determining the best plan for the future of Jekyll Island.

The software will provide a transparent system of record that allows all voice to be heard and accounted for.

Economic Sustainability

Historic & Cultural

Natural Resources

Transport & Infra

Design Timeline

Budget & Cost

Recreation

FIG 39. Some potential design ideas that were simulated based on feedback from stakeholders and public opinion. Designs can be compared against each other and budget info can be added.

APPENDIX L 255

CONCLUSION The geodesign framework is best suited to solve complex issues that involve diverse groups with multiple stakeholders. The long-term planning for Jekyll Island was an ideal issue to utilize this framework.

This report outlines the process that was undertaken in an educational setting. In an ideal world, the JIA would take the information from this report and continue the effort in a more detailed manner. They could host a geodesign workshop using GDH, invite stakeholders and key personal to participate, and get a complete and holistic understanding of the issues that face their island. Most importantly, they would be able to produce a plan that would allow the island they love to continue to be enjoyed by their fellow Georgians and anyone who would like to visit this beautiful island.

FIG 2: Looking northeast at the Sydney Lanier bridge from the Jekyll Island Club Resort at low tide.

Dan Meehan Advisor: Jim Sipes Penn State University Capstone Project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Report MPS in Geodesign â&#x20AC;&#x201C; AUGUST 2019

APPENDIX L 256

SOURCES AND CITATIONS • (1) Page 1 – “Chapter 3.” A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design, by Carl Steinitz, ESRI, 2012, pp. 25–25.

• (2) Page 1 – Jekyll Island Authority. (2014). Master Plan & Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.jekyllisland.com/jekyll-island-authority/master-planannual-report/ • (3) Page 1 – Jekyll Island Authority. (2018). Carrying Capacity and Infrastructure Assessment. PG25.

Retrieved from: https://www.jekyllisland.com/jekyll-island-authority/jekyll-island-carrying-capacityinfrastructure-assessment/ • (4) Page 1 – “Jekyll Island Authority.” Jekyll Island - Georgia's Vacation, Conservation and Educational Location, http://www.jekyllisland.com/jekyll-island-authority/ • (5) Page 1 – “Jekyll Island Authority.” Jekyll Island - Georgia's Vacation, Conservation and Educational Location, http://www.jekyllisland.com/jekyll-island-authority/ • (6) Page 2 – Steinitz models adapted by D. Goldberg from A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design, by Carl Steinitz, ESRI, 2012.

• (7) Page 2 – AECOM. (2011). Jekyll Island Conservation Plan. PG6. Retrieved from: https://www.jekyllisland.com/jekyllislandwp/wp-content/themes/jekyllisland2016/files/conservationplan-2011-09.pdf • (8) Page 3 – Carl Vinson Institute of Government, University of Georgia. (2014) The Jekyll Island Master Plan, PG 24. Retrieved from: https://www.jekyllisland.com/jekyll-island-authority/masterplan-annual-report/ • (9) Page 3 – Jekyll Island Authority. (2018). Carrying Capacity and Infrastructure Assessment. JIA Comments. Retrieved from: https://www.jekyllisland.com/jekyll-island-authority/jekyll-islandcarrying-capacity-infrastructure-assessment/ • (10) Page 4 - A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design, by Carl Steinitz, ESRI, 2012, pp. 38.

• (11) Page 6 – “Chapter 3.” A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design, by Carl Steinitz, ESRI, 2012, pp. 29.

• (12) Page 8 – Island Authority. (2018). Carrying Capacity and Infrastructure Assessment. PG38.

Retrieved from: https://www.jekyllisland.com/jekyll-island-authority/jekyll-island-carrying-capacityinfrastructure-assessment/

APPENDIX L 257

APPENDIX M STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS PERTAINING TO THE OCTOBER 2020 DRAFT CONSERVATION PLAN UPDATE

258

Conservation Plan 2020 Draft Public Comments #

Name

Message

1

Katherine Doherty

2

Beverly E Hopkins Hopkins

6.2 Material-Waste Reduction Specific and achievable goals need to be put in place for the Island for waste diversion percentages from the landfill and targets to decrease waste outputs all together. More focus on alternative resource recapture streams needs to be implemented. These alternative systems should be improved and extended, such as recycling and composting. Industrial composting is extremely important to consider here. Though there are financial costs, there are also many places already doing industrial composting in locations of a similar scale. Considering that the island already has yard waste collection and processing facility in place, that could be an excellent place to add industrial compost capacity, or off island locations could be considered. Industrial composting companies also are becoming available in multiple locations nation wide and working at the home and business level to collect organic material. In the same way that the solar farm generates island income a composting company could do the same through offering additional paid for services to island residents, off island residents and independent businesses. Compost Now is a industrial composting company operating in numerous cities, to reference.

Additionally, "green fees" could assist in raising funds for sustainable island initiatives. These small fees could be applied to new builds on the island and generate money specifically for sustainable improvements to other facilities.

I have watched the use of EAP in recent years for development projects on Jekyll. It was disappointing to 10/20/20â&#x20AC;Ś 1 28pm see how little attention was actually given to the findings (particularly for the Moorings). I was also concerned by the heavily JIA weighted teams. If this process is meant to be objective, then more outside members are needed. I do not think having 2 outside members chosen by the Exec. Director achieves that. I can't offer a real solution to how you do it, but believe there should be 4 team members free of any JIA connection. Doing this would decrease the perception of JIA bias in any EAP recommendations.

3

debra glidden I support the comments made by 100 Miles on Jekyll's Conservation Plan. Jekyll is a wonderful resource for all of us! Thank you, Deby Glidden

11/11/2020 11 52am

4

Kristi L Smith Smith

11/11/2020 12 05pm

The 2020 plan should: Update the Environmental Assessment Procedure (EAP) described in Chapter 7 to be more transparent and offer opportunities for public review.

While we are pleased to see more non-JIA staff included in the EAP process, it is important that decisions and recommendations be shared with the public prior to consideration by the JIA Board of Directors.

Establish a standing technical advisory group to review and offer recommendations for management strategies and enhancement or development projects.

Many of the ecological strategies in the updated plan could be strengthened with input from a standing group of experts convened to consider island-wide and regional impacts of the projects.

Specify areas on Jekyll Island that are not appropriate for redevelopment or development.

Because of sea level rise and changing climate conditions, many areas once considered appropriate for development on Jekyll may now put residents and visitors at risk should redevelopment or development occur.

Submission Date & Time 10/19/20â&#x20AC;Ś 11 13am

259

#

Name

5

Elizabeth King I would like to see a standing technical advisory group established to review and offer recommendations for management strategies and enhancement or development projects.

6

Josh Messer

Message

Submission Date & Time 11/11/2020 5 10pm

11/12/20â&#x20AC;Ś 8 04am Hello, I am a supporter of One Hundred Miles and their efforts to preserve and protect our coastline. With regard to the updates being considered for Jekyll's 2020 conservation plan, there are also some areas that we feel need improvement.

In particular, the 2020 plan should: Update the Environmental Assessment Procedure (EAP) described in Chapter 7 to be more transparent and offer opportunities for public review.

While we are pleased to see more non-JIA staff included in the EAP process, it is important that decisions and recommendations be shared with the public prior to consideration by the JIA Board of Directors.

Establish a standing technical advisory group to review and offer recommendations for management strategies and enhancement or development projects.

Many of the ecological strategies in the updated plan could be strengthened with input from a standing group of experts convened to consider island-wide and regional impacts of the projects.

Specify areas on Jekyll Island that are not appropriate for redevelopment or development.

Because of sea level rise and changing climate conditions, many areas once considered appropriate for development on Jekyll may now put residents and visitors at risk should redevelopment or development occur.

260

#

Name

7

Lois Weitz Weitz

Message Section 7, “Environmental Assessment Procedure” (EAP) This section deals with the environmental impact of proposed development projects, For the sake of transparency, explain how the EAP process works, including how project recommendations are formulated by the EAP team, half of which consists of JIA staff members.

Make the preliminary recommendations of the EAP team regarding projects under evaluation available for public review on the JIAʼs website.

Post comments submitted by the public on the EAPʼs findings.

Archive on the JIA's website all EAP final reports, along with public comments.

Submission Date & Time 11/13/20… 12 28pm

Section 7.1 “Special Protected Areas” (SPA) This section should include a high-resolution map indicating areas of the island that are not subject to development.

There is ambiguity regarding whether the area between the beach and Beachview Road running from Shell Road to Oceanview Beach Park is included as one of the SPAs. For reasons that are unclear, this vegetated area, which provides a wide-open view of the Atlantic Ocean, is currently defined as “developed” in the 2014 Jekyll Island Master Plan. If this land is to be “specially protected,” then it should be reclassified as “undeveloped” and specifically cited as a SPA. The 2020 Jekyll Island Golf Course Master Plan recommends converting 82 acres of the golf course into natural green space. The CPU should include a provision that prevents this area from being subject to development in the future. Designating this land as one of Jekyllʼs Special Protected Areas ineligible for commercial or residential development would be a good way to secure this goal.

Section 5.2 Park-wide Management - Sea Level Rise This section includes a recommendation to revise the Jekyll Island Design Guidelines to require, prior to concept approval, a sea level rise and coastal flooding resiliency analysis for evaluation by the EAP Review Team. This important recommendation should include a corollary stating that, resiliency aside, areas having exceptional exposure to storm events and sea level rise should be off limits for development or redevelopment.

11/13/20… 3 18pm I agree with the recommendations as stated in the proposal. We need to protect Jekyll Island's beauty needs to needs to be protect from further unnecessary damage from new development. The uniqueness of the island is part of it's attraction from tourist which are necessary for the economy of the state and island.

8

Phyllis Patterson

9

Elizabeth Knowlton

As a user of public lands on Jekyll and in Geogia, I am most concerned about Section 7, “Environmental Assessment Procedure” (EAP). It needs to be clearer which areas of the island are not subject to development because, as we all know, developers must be aggressive in order to make a living. Please add a high-resolution map showing those areas so that it is clear to all what cannot be developed.

11/14/20… 7 58am

10

Steve Newell

Comments: p.83 2.vi. & vii. Shouldn't it be stated that these persons in an EAP group are not to be associated with the group proposing the real-estate development under consideration? p.84 4. & 5. As stated here, the public doesn't have access to the EAP report until it is final. Wouldn't it be reasonable to present the report to the public on the JISPA website in an early form, following its review by the Executive Director? Then, after the public has offered advice on the report's construct, it could be presented again in potentially amended final form on the JISPA website.

Thank you, Jay & Ben, for all the hard work that has been required to produce this important document!

11/14/20… 5 09pm

261

#

Name

Message

11

Beth Cheetham

I think the golf courses are so important for Jekyll. They need a better management team as Andy and Aaron do not meet Par for the course. Spencer, the Head Golf Pro seems to take favorites rather than being diplomatic. Also I am not in favor of more housing. The new building at the marina should not have happened, but I suppose it was needed for money matters. I think it has a flood issue?

12

Earl Hess

Section 7.1: (1) The area between the beach and Beachview Rd. (from Shell Rd. to Oceanview Beach Park), 11/15/20… 12 46pm which provides a wide-open view of the Atlantic Ocean, needs to be reclassified from “developed” to “special protected area.” (2) The 82 acres of the golf course that are planned to be converted to natural green space need to be reclassified from “developed” to “special protected area.”

13

Pratibha Dabholkar

11/15/20… 1 08pm --I support (and second) the previous comment about important changes needed in Section 7.1 --Regarding the bobcat population (surreptitiously introduced by JIA in 2014 and now grown to 5-10), I urge JIA not to increase this population further, as suggested in the plan. Instead, please move all the bobcats off the island. Let the deer live peacefully. “Over-browsing” is not a big deal, but killing fawns is!

It is shocking and ironic that deer are referred to as a "threatening species" and bobcats are referred to as a “wildlife priority population.” I urge JIA to adopt a more humane mindset and treat deer (and fawns) with respect and consideration.

14

Howard Sculthorpe

I agree with the IPJI recommendations.

15

Joanna Baxter Thank you for the time and thought put into this document. I found the data and fats about the island very 11/15/20… 8 13pm interesting.

Section 7.0 with your concept explanation of the EAP and Design Guidelines working together to be "guardrails" with strict attention to the details of all project proposals for development or change to the island is especially significant to me. This is so important. I was there in October and saw the "King Tide."

I am in favor of the minimal recommendations being proposed by the IPJI for clarification of the areas they cite. For example, there are so many helpful maps and diagrams in this document, but it is not shown exactly what areas are designated SPA. Thank you for including this opportunity for concerned citizens who enjoy Jekyll so much to understand and be involved in its future.

Submission Date & Time 11/14/20… 7 08pm

11/15/20… 4 29pm

262

#

Name

16

Jane McKinley Section 7, “Environmental Assessment Procedure” (EAP) For transparency, explain how the EAP process works, including how project recommendations are formulated by the EAP team.

Make the preliminary recommendations of the EAP team regarding projects under evaluation available for public review on the JIAʼs website.

Post comments submitted by the public on the EAPʼs findings.

Archive on the JIA's website all EAP final reports, along with public comments.

Section 7.1 “Special Protected Areas” (SPA) Include a high-resolution map indicating areas of the island that are not subject to development.

There is ambiguity regarding whether the area between the beach and Beachview Drive running from Shell Road to Oceanview Beach Park is included as one of the SPAs. For reasons that are unclear, this vegetated area, which provides a wide-open view of the Atlantic Ocean, is currently defined as “developed” in the 2014 Jekyll Island Master Plan. If this land is to be “specially protected,” then it should be reclassified as “undeveloped” and specifically cited as a SPA. The 2020 Jekyll Island Golf Course Master Plan recommends converting 82 acres of the golf course into natural green space. The CPU should include a provision that prevents this area from being subject to development in the future. Designating this land as one of Jekyllʼs Special Protected Areas ineligible for commercial or residential development would secure this goal.

Section 5.2 Park-wide Management - Sea Level Rise The Jekyll Island Design Guidelines should require, prior to concept approval, a sea level rise and coastal flooding resiliency analysis for evaluation by the EAP Review Team. This important recommendation should include a corollary stating that, resiliency aside, areas having exceptional exposure to storm events and sea level rise should be off limits for development or redevelopment.

11/16/20… 5 41pm Kay Hoffman Page 33, Wildlife and Inhabitants. Threats and Stresses, "Human caused disturbances for nesting and roosting shorebirds...

There is never I time when I walk the "Glory Beach" that I fail to see people walking, running or bicycling through hundreds of resting pelicans, terns, sea gulls, sanderlings etc. If the JIA is serious about conservation, significant signage needs to be established at the end of every beach access, warning of the damage these irresponsible activities do to our threatened seabird populations. While I understand the need to limit signs as a way to maintain the island's beauty, this is a completely different situation. It is vital for the JIA to stringently enforce protections of our frequently endangered shorebirds. To ignore the general public's consistent irresponsible behavior is to condone it.

11/18/20… 11 46am Patrick I believe development on Jekyll Island needs to stop and the uniqueness of the island firmly protected Stafford from avarice and greed. The condo's built there and the subsequent huge rock wall to protect them at the South end of Driftwood Beach are just a joke. They should never have been built! As far as the golf courses, there is nothing wrong with them as is that a little renovation wouldn't take care of. Those are the kinds of things that the public is and should be outraged against, especially the people who live there.

My desire is to see protection, not further development and desecration for profit.

17

18

Message

Submission Date & Time 11/15/20… 10 23pm

19

Ernie McDaniel

No more new developments on Jekyll Island, please! Itʼs already overdeveloped as it is and Iʼm afraid the island will lose its charm and turn into another overcrowded resort. We enjoy coming to Jekyll Island 3 or 4 times a year and weʼve noticed all the changes over the years. Not all of the changes are good but itʼs still a charming place nevertheless.

11/18/20… 12 03pm

20

Denise Griffin I have been coming to Jekyll Island as long as I can remember. I am now 51 and it is truly my happy place.

Jekyll does not need to be developed any further and needs itʼs lands protected. We choose to come to Jekyll because it isnʼt so developed. Those of us who choose to vacation in Jekyll love the quietness of the island. We are not Panama City people, nor do we want to be. Please not more development of hotels or condos. The nature and wildness at Jekyll is what brings us back. I have utterly loved kayaking with Turtle Tides Jekyll this year, especially this summer to see the pod of manatees there. I didnʼt have to go to Florida for that! Please keep our island safe from further development.

11/18/20… 12 58pm

263

#

Name

21

Mark and Janet Brown

22

Message

Submission Date & Time 11/19/20â&#x20AC;Ś 9 43am

Our family has been coming to Jekyll Island for at least a week every year since 1983. WE LOVE THIS ISLAND!!

We were involved attending hearings for the re-development plan of 2011. We thought the compromises made then were one of the best examples of two sides who truly wanted the best for the future of Jekyll.

This was accomplished by reaching an agreement that guaranteed the financial stability of Jekyll while realizing the island's natural beauty and relative lack of development were critical to maintain.

We would like to see the debate of the Master Plan of 2020 also result in a balanced plan that maintains the incredible biodiversity of Jekyll. The development that has happened should be considered virtually complete for the next generation. I heartily recommend that the JIA do everything it can to guarantee the island is maintained as a haven for marine and mammal live in the area. We humbly request the JIA follow the IPJI recommendations regarding the 2020 master plan.

Thanks for all you do for the Jekyll lovers in this world. I look forward to my grandchildren enjoying the same essential Jekyll that we and our children have over the past 37 years.

Mark and Janet Brown 11/19/20â&#x20AC;Ś 4 26pm Lisa Johnston We all recognize that conservation planning for Jekyll is a challenge -- should you feed the desire for development by some when so many others who want the status quo? The answer is in the middle.

I've been going to and spending my money on Jekyll since a kid in 1959. I go there for the rare feel of untamed Nature, the chance to explore the woods and trails, the quiet feel and the dwindling beach. But chopping the island up for more properties, more parking lots, more traffic, more crowds, and more asphalt is killing the reason we go to the island in the first place.

The new conservation plan lacks transparency, which serves on developers. It adds dangerous ambiguity where details should be spelled out, again serving only developers. It enables condos to be built in a flood zone. It ignores the natural ebb/flow of the Atlantic Ocean and will allow developers to build too close to the beach -- which will HARM their properties in the long term as storms continue. The Special Protected Areas are discussed so vaguely as to practically promise that wiggle room will be given to anyone with deep enough pockets.

I stay in hotels, rent homes, patronize shops and restaurants, enjoy tennis and don't see why you are DEAD SET ON BREAKING THE BACK OF THE ISLAND. You are peeing in your own water, don't you see?

Please take time to think long term on the Plan and not just to quick bucks to make a few happy, who will pay down the road by chopping up and not working WITH the natural state of the island.

264

#

Name

Message

23

Ann Pequigney

My name is Ann Pequigney and I live in Sea Palms West on SSI. I'm sharing the goals and objectives of our plan to transform a former 9 hole golf course into a green space.

Please see below.

As a golfer, I understand the trajectory of golf continues to head downward. Millennials don't want to play and the ability of an aging population to play is diminishing.

How many holes of golf can Jekyll Island sustain without operating in the red? The expense of maintaining multiple golf courses is cost prohibitive.

Are tax payer dollars being used for this project?

The budget that was reported (most likely on the VERY low side) in the Brunswick News does not appear sufficient for the scope of the project.

PLEASE take a good look at the economics of trying to justify all these golf courses.

I would much rather see more emphasis on more green space, bike paths and natural habitats.

Here is the background of our community's goals and objectives of turning a former golf course into a green space.

We are a community of 338 homeowners within 9 sub communities.

In 2018, our community collectively purchased a former 9 hole golf course with the express desire to thwart further development in Sea Palms West. Preserving the natural character of the landscape and our neighborhood was the driving force behind our success in purchasing this property. Our desire is to transform approximately 40 acres of bermuda grass fairways, lagoons, sand traps, greens and cart paths into a green space we can all enjoy.

Mission Statement: To restore the property to an ecologically sound, natural green space for our community to enjoy in perpetuity. Our goal is to assess the water quality of lagoons, evaluate water management to mitigate flooding and storm water run off, to identify invasive species, to attract more native species, and implement a neighborhood survey to enhance user expectations and experience.

Scope of project: A former 9 hole golf course encompassing approximately 40 acres.

Project Goals and Objectives: Forestry/ Wildlife Goals: 1. Inventory Species: Plants and Wildlife 2. Inventory Invasive Species: Plants and Wildlife 3. Maintain green space with minimal maintenance without irrigation 4. Recommend Plantings, Seedings 5. Maximize aesthetic appeal Water Resources Management Goals: 1. Storm water management 2. Storm surge management 3. Flood management 4. Sea level rise 5. Plan for protecting wetlands and marshes Fisheries/Lagoons Goals: 1. How do lagoons interconnect with each other 2. How do lagoon interface with marsh and wetlands 3. Determine health of lagoon after many years of chemical treatment as a golf course 4. Plan for reintroducing wildlife in and around lagoons 5. Plan for riparian buffers around lagoons 6. Algae growth management Parks and Recreation Goals: 1. Create and implement a user survey 2. Encourage neighbors to interact with nature and each other 3. Encourage a deeper sense of ownership through volunteer activities 4. Increase community awareness of water management, erosion, storm surge and flood mitigation Finally - here are my comments regarding Environmental Assessment Procedure (EAP) process: -- In an effort to be more transparent in what is recommended to developers or project managers, it would be helpful to share EAP recommendations with the public. The information can be posted online prior to projects being implemented and before meetings where they are discussed with the JIA Board of Directors.

-- Invite the public to review and offer feedback on large projects that will have a significant impact on the quality of life and natural resources on Jekyll. Open the EAP recommendations and projects to public review, similar to the public review of site plans and development projects reviewed by Glynn County and/or the City of Brunswick .

Submission Date & Time 11/19/20â&#x20AC;Ś 5 19pm

265

#

Name

Message

24

Charles Catlett

As ones who have been spending a month every year for 20 years, we fully support and endorse IPJIʼs recommendations regarding the Jekyll Island Conservation 2020. These recommendations are necessary to preserve Jekyll Island as the unique and magical place we have always known it to be. Jeff and Karen Catlett

25

David Kyler

26

Charles McMillan

11/20/20… 11 17am Comments on the Jekyll Island Conservation Plan Update November 20, 2020 On behalf of the Center for a Sustainable Coast Sea-level rise is a factor of pivotal importance for the planning and conservation of barrier islands. While the Jekyll Island Conservation Plan Update (CPU) acknowledges rising sea-level, based on the science available we firmly believe that the issue and its impacts deserve far more emphasis in the document.

In the proposed “management strategies” the CPU allows for no possibility of sites being, or becoming, so flood-and-risk prone that they must not be developed or redeveloped.

Given the accelerating trends of global climate disruptions that are driving rising sea-level, the CPU and other planning for Jekyll Island must provide pragmatic assessment of flooding and storm surge risks that are likely to result in some areas of the island being – or becoming – either too dangerous or prohibitively expensive to be actively used.

Accordingly, all related management decisions must be guided by reliable, accountable procedures that are based on well-informed assessment of the impacts of rising sea-level. Such procedures must accommodate the possibility that managed areas will become irreversibly unsuitable for active use.

The approach needed under these circumstances is best described as "adaptive management," the benefits of which will vitally depend on consistently applying rigorous, science-based monitoring and assessment of conditions and trends affecting the future of Jekyll Island State Park.

In support of our position, consider this citation from a recent scientific study (see link below): “Present-day extreme water-level events will become commonplace within the next few decades. Given established emissions trajectories and sea-level projections, the odds of extreme coastal flooding will double every 5 years into the foreseeable future at most locations in the U.S. The near-constancy (in space and time) of the 5-year doubling period found here is particularly consequential: Sea-level rise will likely increase the odds of flooding by a thousand-fold … in a half-century.”

Source: “Sea-level rise exponentially increases coastal flood frequency” Published: April 16, 2020 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-62188-4#Sec4 11/20/20… 3 35pm November 20, 2020 Mr. Jones Hooks Executive Director Jekyll Island Authority (JIA) 100 James Road Jekyll Island, Georgia 31527 RE: Comment Letter, Georgia Conservancy Jekyll Island Conservation Plan Dear Jones, The Georgia Conservancy is pleased to provide this letter of comment for the 2020 Jekyll Conservation Plan update. Georgia Conservancy would like to convey its broad support for the 2020 Jekyll Island Conservation Plan. The update provides a more sophisticated approach to conservation and highlights how far JIA has come since the 2011 plan. The island has seen a notable rebound in island visitation and extensive redevelopment. Thus, most of our comments relate to the importance of balancing the island's ecology with changes in use brought by the JIA. The Georgia Conservancy is a statewide conservation organization that works to develop solutions to protect Georgia's natural resources through advocacy, engagement, and collaboration on conservation issues. The conservation, protection, and enjoyment of Jekyll Island for the people of Georgia has been a high priority for the Georgia Conservancy throughout its entire 53-year history.

Submission Date & Time 11/20/20… 8 55am

266

#

Name

Message The 2011 Jekyll Island Conservation Plan set a high bar for conservation at this state park. The 2020 update builds upon evolving best practices in environmental science and ecology and incorporates important lessons learned on Jekyll since 2011. The continued focus on the science for enhancing ecological restoration is laudable.

The concerns and issues expressed in this letter center on three ongoing concerns that impact conservation on the island: â&#x20AC;˘ Balancing ecology and visitation: The 29% increase in visitation (page 98) since 2014 highlights the challenge in maintaining wildlife and natural habitats in an increasingly popular state park. There needs to be stronger alignment between the Conservation Plan update and JIA's foundational documents, including the park's enabling legislation, the 2018 Jekyll Island Carrying Capacity and Infrastructure Assessment, Jekyll Island Design Guidelines, and the Jekyll Island Master Plan, among others. â&#x20AC;˘ Redevelopment: The golf course redevelopment represents a significant opportunity to implement ecological restoration at a scale that could greatly benefit Jekyll Island. Georgia Conservancy sees that the Conservation Plan Update's sound science and goals will greatly benefit the golf course master plan currently under review by JIA. It is hard to overstate the importance of this new habitat for both the island's ecology and what can be learned and applied elsewhere along our coast. â&#x20AC;˘ Process and JIA institutional operational comments: o Mandating the use of the Coastal Supplement in Stormwater Design for redevelopment is a welcome addition. Jekyll Island has the opportunity to set the standard for appropriate coastal development criteria, using this document's approach as a foundation. o The Environmental Assessment Process (EAP) on Jekyll has had mixed success. Given the scale of redevelopment Jekyll over the last nine years, there have been some notable gaps in project design, review, and implementation. The updated conservation plan envisions using this process more broadly, which Georgia Conservancy wholeheartedly supports. The EAP is a useful framework, but it could benefit from several procedural improvements that will improve its effectiveness and build broader support for implementation, which we have listed below: Incorporate EAP and Design Guidelines in the schematic and concept phase of design. Developers need to have the information from the Conservation Plan very early in the scoping and design process.

This will save mandating costly changes after project design has been developed and should result in projects that have less environmental impact.

A more transparent EAP process is warranted. Consideration should be given to posting more information online for active and past projects. o If there is not a peer group of external (non-JIA staff or consultants) advisors that oversee the increasingly complex ecological restoration planning and the resultant adaptive management, we recommend forming one to ensure long-term ecological health and sustainability in the park.

The addition of Institutional Sustainability included in Chapter 6 is a notable example of how a park-level action by a state authority can provide leadership on Climate-related issues.

Lastly, I would like to thank the Jekyll Island Authority for your partnership with the Georgia Conservancy Stewardship Program. Each year we host an outing to Jekyll, and your interpretative staff provides a wondrous experience for our trip participants. This represents a fruitful example of the nature-based education and outdoor recreation discussed in Chapter 8 of the plan.

Thank you for seeking comments and for using a process that allows for input from stakeholders. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any information.

Sincerely, Charles H. McMillan, III Natural Resource Director The Georgia Conservancy, Inc.

Submission Date & Time

267

#

Name

Message

27

Betsy Rogers

28

Al Tate

Growing up in Brunswick, I have spent quite a bit of time on Jekyll Island. It's definitely one of my favorite places in the world. Reading the Conservation Plan, I think the JIA is taking many steps in the right direction; recognizing that Jekyll Island's wild beauty is part of its broad appeal and that the JIA has a responsibility to preserve the diversity of habitats throughout the island is a positive step.

There are, however, some areas in which the Conservation Plan could be improved: Update the Environmental Assessment Procedure (EAP) described in Chapter 7 to be more transparent and offer opportunities for public review.

Establish a standing technical advisory group to review and offer recommendations for management strategies and enhancement or development projects.

Specify areas on Jekyll Island that are not appropriate for redevelopment or development.

These three improvement areas are called for by the organization One Hundred Miles, and I support their recommendations. I'd also go a step further and recommend a specific area not appropriate for development: the southern end of the island. Not only would a development there destroy the duneslough wetland system, but it would also take out dune scrub and forest. As a long-time volunteer with Jekyll Island Banding Station (JIBS), I would like to see this southern end habitat protected because of the important role it plays in bird migration. The importance of this habitat is attested to by 43 years of continuous bird banding data from the southern end of the island. Preserving this area not only is important to the migrating birds that use the Atlantic coast as a flyway, but also would help assure that bird migration research would continue in the future. Thank you!

11/20/20… 5 06pm Comments on 2020 Draft Conservation Plan Round 2

By Al Tate November 19,2020 I wish to thank Ben Carswell for alerting me to my strange oversight of commenting on the original 2011 plan. It was a bizarre and humbling experience. In reading again through the 2020 Draft, I find a more reasonable and encouraging document. The following comments are referenced by page and paragraph number in the Draft. p 13, Figure 2: This figure has no readable labels or reference legend to indicate the extent of the study area for this Conservation Plan p 16: Text ends in mid-sentence at the bottom of the page. An illustration that locates the First Creek tidal system and the failed Marina construction project would be helpful here. The “novel ecosystems” on the old dredge spoils described in this paragraph result from succession of pioneer vegetation that colonized the sandy piles of dredge slowly over several years. During that time, outwash from the spoil piles covered several acres of salt marsh associated with First Creek and created a large inland beach on top of the salt marsh. Over time the high tides have continued dispersal of this sand cover and the marsh is beginning to recover. This area remains today as an educational area to see a damaged salt marsh and great place to observe its gradual reclamation. p 17, Par 1 The response of marsh vegetation to the thin layer placement of dredge material should be watched in the coming years. This technique may be helpful to salt marsh recovery from rising sea levels. p 17, Par 2: Shoreline accretion on Jekyllʼs south end has, in the past several years, stopped and the rising tides have created a new “driftwood” beach of tree skeletons there. The dead and fallen trees are difficult to walk around and you can no longer walk on the sand beach at high tide. p 17, Par 3: Tropical storm Fay (August 2008) came in very close to Jekyll with 40-60mph winds and caused beach erosion and tree damage. p 20, Item 6: The meaning of the last sentence is not clear. It is certainly clear that our small freshwater wetlands are disappearing and that surface groundwater levels are declining. Likely culprits include increased temperatures and drought acceleration of canopy evapotranspiration, drainage ditches in the island interior, and perhaps increases in wind. How does fire or the absence thereof cause wetland loss? p 44 Par 1, 2nd to last sentence: “..atypical..” should be corrected to “..a typical..” p 44 Par 1: The population density of deer on Jekyll Island has, for at least the past 60 years, been high; certainly much higher that the DNR recommended 20-30 deer per square mile. The herd, though dense, does not appear to be starving or showing other signs of overpopulation. Nor does their supporting habitat exhibit any obvious signs of deer overpopulation. Your data will support a theory that the deer population has been stable for a long time at this high level. The question that needs to be addressed is, “What is the limiting factor (or factors) that regulates the Jekyll deer population?” p 46: Reptiles- Watchlist Species: Several years ago (July 2013 I believe) I captured and released an Island Glass Lizard behind the Cottages just above the beach. p 48, Climate Change general comment: In addition to the concerns raised here, several should be added that are of direct concern for Jekyll: First, warmer temperatures in late summer will likely increase drought

Submission Date & Time 11/20/20… 4 35pm

268

#

Name

Message events which will in turn dry up freshwater wetlands, alter all vegetation communities and increase the potential for fire events. Second, high tides resulting from sea level change could increase salt marsh exposure to higher salinity levels and alter productivity; possibly causing a spartina die-off. Productivity loss in the salt marsh would be devastating to crabs, shrimp, fish, and the entire seafood industry. p 58,Item 4: Include walking trail designation for fire breaks and add to the trail map on page 58. p 59: Item 5.3 Please see my comments (p 14) on Appendix K, of the original 2011 Plan. p 67: Objective 3C: The dredge spoil shrub thickets (at least the one SW of the old abandon marina Iʼm familiar with) are actually seral communities that developed very slowly from pioneer plants establishing on the bare dredge piles and continue to progress through a slow successional pattern. Recommend periodic study of this community species mix (both plants and animals) as succession proceeds. p 73: Golf Courses, Objective 5C: The golf courses present a great, seldom used, educational opportunity for multiuse activities. Nature tours through the golf course trails to the bird rookeries at the back ponds during periods when the golfers are not playing can provide great opportunities for wildlife viewing.

Crepuscular and night time tours provide great opportunities to see deer, gators, and the big wading birds as they leave just before sunrise and return at dusk. Also, daytime tours could be added during the slow golfing season once a week or so. p 91: 8.0 Nature-Based Education and Outdoor Recreation These two items hold the key to long term success for Jekyll Island, both financially and for sustainability.

Creating new/unique ways for the public to experience showcase species and natural communities on Jekyll is very supportive of Jekyllʼs mission statement. It will make citizens more aware of our natural heritage that still remains, and alert us to the loss of biodiversity problem facing our (and particularly our childrenʼs) future. Some new projects I recommend include: Building a new low level fishing pier just south of the boat dock designed for children and parents to have fun and educate them.

Put a tree canopy walk (perhaps with a zip line) in the live oak orchard behind and south of the Millionaire Village Shops Building an easy access enclosed all-weather birdwatching structure with heat/AC and large one-way viewing glass for aging birdwatchers at one of the wading bird rookeries. (This would require very careful construction and timing and be difficult to accomplish, but would be a singular asset for Jekyll Island) Place remote wildlife cameras at a number of special wildlife sites around the island to include the eagleʼs nest, an osprey nest, Horton Pond alligator platform, the wading bird rookery on the causeway. Run the feed from these cameras to the Convention Center and offer to provide a feed to the Jekyll Island Hotel, the Weston, and other motels on the island.

I have developed more detail to flesh out these and other ideas and will be glad to provide to JIA if requested.

Submission Date & Time

____________ Appendices Title Page: The Table of contents should include the title of the each Appendix in the Contents page.

Appendix A: Glad to see the update includes Georgia Code updating the change to acreage.

Appendix B: Priority Species List. Needs an explanatory paragraph/notes. Some explanation is found the the plan but the appendix should be self explanatory. Also, the columns “Status” and “ Jekyll Effort “ do not provide any information about the status of each species on Jekyll Island or specific information about distribution (if any) on JI. And it would be helpful to the public if there was a mechanism/encouragement for observations of priority species to be reported to and recorded by the Conservation Department.

Annual updates to the JIA Board could include these added sitings.

Appendix C: Species Referenced. This Appendix is just a laundry list of animals and plants mentioned in the Plan with their scientific names. There is no referral to the location in the Plan, when/where observed on JI, or other useful information. The original plan Appendices had a more useful and content rich Appendix of species that occurred or could occur on Jekyll. (It was Appendix D that was badly numbered).

The objective here would be to provide a place where nature lovers, when finding a new/curious plant or animal, could see if it was known to occur on Jekyll. I recommend that this Appendix be rewritten to include the list of species that occur or could occur from the 2011 Conservation Plan, add an asterisk to identify those referenced in the plan and/or page location. A JIA contact person/number for the public to 269

#

Name

Message report new sitings should be added.

Also: List organization categories are jumbled: Plants and Invertebrates are sandwiched between Vertebrates, as are Fungi. This is confusing as the plant list covers 3+ pages and Reptiles comes at the end. p C-14: Itʼs a Gulf Fritillary, not “Gritillary” Appendix E: Priority Invasive Species: Appendix E is way too long (89 Pages) to be of much use. It contains good information and the pictures are valuable for identification; but it needs heavy editing.

Recommend it be paired down so that the photos and species information pages be included only for those “Priority” Invasive Species that are becoming a problem on Jekyll Island and all the rest of them be added as a list for watchful concern at the end.

Appendix F: p F-120: Strategy A-3- …And monitor changes in those communities to include changes in soil salinity and plant productivity. p F120: Strategy A-10- …And conduct an annual meeting to keep stakeholders and the general public abreast of the changes occurring on Jekyll Island. p F120: Strategy C-11- Add: Identify wildlife travel corridors and potential corridors throughout the island and salt marsh habitats. As opportunity presents, develop or enhance these corridors and protect them as SPAʼs.

Strategy E-11 Add: Consider adding water meters to water wells on JI that are not part of JIAʼs public water system and charging for their water usage, at least during drought periods. (I donʼt think that is currently being done) p F123 Strategy G-4: Add: Consider adding “Walking Trail” designation to fire break trails. p F124: Strategy CM-1: Consider adding 0.1 mile markers along Jekyll Causeway for accurate reference to Conservation Management projects/events along the causeway. Also, refer to my ideas about Appendix K of the 2011 Conservation Plan posted on p 14 of my previous comments. p F126: Strategy 3A-4: “…historical salinity levels” are unknowable. The estuary is a giant mixing zone of sea water and fresh water. It has highly variable salinity throughout the tidal creeks and salt marsh. This naturally occurring variability, while frequently measured, is episodal, vertically as well as spatially variable, and no local point historical levels are established. It is certainly desirable to reduce the freshwater discharge to tidal creeks as much as possible to help restore surface groundwater levels.

Appendix G: This is a great reference list for those of us interested in Jekyll Island ecology and natural resources. However there are many, many more references specific to Jekyll Island that pertain to other topics and are not listed. Title Page should read “…Specific to Jekyll Island Ecology and Natural Resources” Appendix I: Watershed Protection Plan This Appendix appears to be just a fraction of the plan and is very difficult to follow.

The Table of Contents lists 20 pages, 2 Tables are then listed, followed by 5 Figures (missing 5 and 6), then a list of 6 Plates. Only the continuous Appendix numbers are found on the pages, so Contents list is useless. Tables 1 and 2 can be found at the end of the Appendix (p 163, 164) but tables found on p 151, 158, 159, are unlisted. No Figures or Plates are found in the report. Starting with the Introduction Page (149) the document ends on page 164, so the whole plan as presented is only 15 pages long. Where are the missing 5 pages?

Appendix K: Appendix K is titled “Duke Wildlife Corridor Study” That title page is followed by a second title page (K-168), which reads, “Management for an imperiled reptile on a barrier island: Eastern diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus)”. It is a masters thesis project, from Duke University students. The thesis does include some corridor information (Corridor Analysis p K184) focused on the pattern of rattlesnake movements through the golf courses, and also includes a Restoration Plan (p K193) for the Golf Courses.

While this thesis is an interesting and well done research paper, the misleading title page makes it confusing and unclear as to why it is included in the Conservation Plan Appendices. A study of wildlife corridors on Jekyll Island would be most welcome, but a thesis on our rattlesnakes, their movements, and plans for modifying the golf courses to accommodate their activities does not satisfy that need. This thesis is 70 pages long and the title is misleading, with content peripheral to Wildlife Corridors.

Recommend that this Appendix either be removed or at least correctly titled. It has very little useful information about wildlife corridors.

Appendix L: This is an interesting and informative appendix. The Geodesign approach looks very promising for our future. This and several other appendices would provide much better information if their figures, tables, and illustrations were all clear enough to see/read. In this appendix the tiny postage stamp figures of Jekyll are hopless, legends on some of the larger ones are too small or blurry; some of the tables (ex. Fig. 33 p L-253) are unreadable.

#

Name

Message Before the Draft Plan is finalized, recommend that the whole plan be edited to make certain the figures, tables, illustrations are clearly readable.

Al Tate, 404-384-0658

Submission Date & Time

Submission Date & Time

270

Initiative to Protect Jekyll Island State Park Comments on the Jekyll Island 2020 Conservation Plan Update Submitted by David and Mindy Egan IPJI Co-directors November 16, 2020 OVERVIEW: The CPU has enhanced the 2011 CP in a number of ways, including sections dealing with sea level rise, institutional sustainability, park-wide management, and the assessment of the environmental impact of proposed development projects. Also noteworthy is that the Special Protected Areas listed in the 2011 CP have been expanded to include “any naturally vegetated land lying between the beach and leased parcels, roads, public structures, or so-designated public beach parks, not otherwise included as SPAs.” Additionally, the JIA and its consultant – Jay Exum – should be commended for engaging the public in the CPU process, including multiple sessions with technical advisors and stakeholder groups, presentations to the general public, and various opportunities for the public to submit CPU comments online.

The JIA should consider imposing an impact fee on development/redevelopment projects, the funds from which should be designated for use by the Conservation staff to help realize the goals described in the CPU. Table of Contents: The sub-headings within the CPU’s various sections should be included in the Table of Contents. Doing so would make the CPU easier for the public to navigate the document while, at the same time, indicate the Plan’s range and depth. Similarly, subject headings are needed for each of the 12 sections in the Appendix.

Introduction - Section 2.5: The role played by the public in the Conservation Plan Update (CPU) is noted but should be expanded by citing the sections of the CPU particularly affected by public input along with a few specific examples wherever appropriate. Doing so would validate the importance of involving the public in the CPU; show that the JIA actually used public input to enhance the CPU; and promote public confidence in the CPU process as well as its results.

Park-wide Management – Section 5.2 The recommendation to revise the Jekyll Island Design Guidelines to require, prior to concept approval, a sea level rise and coastal flooding resiliency analysis for evaluation by the EAP Review Team should either be relocated to or repeated in the EAP section. This important recommendation should include a corollary stating that, resiliency aside, areas having exceptional exposure to storm events and sea level rise should be off limits for development or redevelopment.

Section 7 - EAP: To help preserve the unique character of Jekyll Island State Park in the face of development pressures, the EAP Review Team should take into account the extent to which redevelopment projects affect that character. While the concern for preserving Jekyll’s character is, in part, rooted in aesthetics and may not be readily quantifiable, it is an important one often mentioned by many of Jekyll’s visitors. As such, it should be at least be recognized by the EAP Team when evaluating

271

the impact of development and redevelopment proposals. Preserving Jekyll’s character while ensuring the state park’s economic vitality is, in fact, a key point made in the CPU’s Executive Summary (p.4), which states: “By reaffirming its commitment to this Plan, the JIA demonstrates its abiding faith in a simple but profound idea that is foundational to the existence of this place that is loved by so many – Jekyll Island’s ecological vitality and its economic vitality are inextricably linked, and the preservation of its character depends upon actively holding these two otherwise opposing values in a careful balance that must be mutually empowering.”

Section 7.1 “Special Protected Areas” should include a high-resolution map indicating areas of the island that are not subject to development, particularly land this is at extraordinary risk of flooding due to storm events and sea level rise.

Among the land designated as a Special Protected Area in Section 7.1 is “Any naturally vegetated land lying between the beach and leased parcels, roads, public structures, or so-designated public beach parks, not otherwise included as SPAs.” The area between the beach and Beachview Road running from Shell Road to the North Beach Park would appear to be included in this designation, but that area is defined as “developed” in the 2014 Jekyll Island Master Plan, which implies that it may not qualify as “naturally vegetated.” If this area is to be designated as “specially protected,” then it should either be reclassified as “undeveloped” or specifically cited as an area that is, in fact, a SPA. To ensure impartiality, the majority of the members of the EAP team should not be affiliated with the JIA. More details are needed regarding the EAP process, including how project recommendations are formulated and agreed upon by the EAP team. For example, are specific points voted upon by the team; is the final draft subject to a vote; if there is a tie vote by the team’s 8 members, how is it resolved; are dissenting opinions recorded in a minority report?

The preliminary recommendations of the EAP team regarding projects under evaluation should be made available for public review on the JIA’s website. Comments submitted by the public regarding EAP team’s findings should also be posted. All EAP final reports, along with public comments, should be archived on the JIA’s website.

Section 8.2 Outdoor Recreation: On page 94, the CPU identifies a promising recreational opportunity that would provide public access to over 400 acres of Maritime Live Oak Hammock and Southeastern Florida Maritime Hammock on Jekyll Island. This unique natural asset is interlaced with approximately 8 miles of dirt service roads that “are not currently maintained for public use, but with careful design, retractions of use and monitoring, they could facilitate a unique pedestrian experience through a unique habitat.” If this concept becomes an actual proposal, it should be subjected to an EAP review.

Page 95 states, “As changes are made that impact the development footprint on the Island, such as the 2020 Jekyll Island Golf Master Plan project, opportunities should be identified to diversify both passive and active outdoor recreation offerings while protecting Jekyll Island’s unique character as a limiteddevelopment public land holding.” A question that arises here is will golf course land repurposed as natural green space continue to be part of the 1,609 acres defined as “developed” in the 2014 JI Master Plan? Will this “green space” be added to the Special Protected Areas on Jekyll Island or be eligible for development in the future?

272

November 19, 2020 Mr. Ben Carswell Conservation Director Jekyll Island State Park Authority 100 James Road Jekyll Island, GA 31527

403 G Street Brunswick, GA 31520 www.OneHundredMiles.org 912.264.6111

Dear Mr. Carswell, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Jekyll Island Authority’s (JIA) updated Conservation Plan. One Hundred Miles (OHM) is an advocacy organization dedicated to protecting and preserving the 100-miles of the Georgia coast through education, advocacy and community engagement. We appreciate the invitation to serve on the stakeholder advisory committee and appreciate your efforts to clarify our questions since the draft document was posted. These comments and recommendations are submitted on behalf of our members and Board of Directors.

Overall the document is extremely educational. First, the outline of the environmental setting, wildlife and habitats and species of concern is thorough. Secondly, we applaud JIA for raising up climate change and changing conditions and needs due to sea level rise as a priority. Coastal Georgians have for years, either ignored the real changes we are experiencing or considered this area immune to the force and impact of our changing climate. The chart and the narrative describing “king tides” in Section 5.2 (page 51) are powerful evidence of the reality that Jekyll Island and all of us face. Thirdly, the inclusion of institutional sustainability practices is critical to “walking the walk” of conservation on an island like Jekyll. We appreciate JIA’s commitment defined in Chapter 6.

The updated language in the Conservation Plan is positive, but we feel the document can be strengthened to convey the importance of preserving the natural environment while commercial and residential growth continues on the island. Please consider incorporating the following in the final draft of the Conservation Plan: 1)

Offer the maps in the final plan as interactive or, at the least, zoomable files online. The maps included in the Conservation Plan are informative but would be more useful if readers were able to zoom in to particular areas and have the ability to navigate through the maps as files separate from the plan itself.

2) Specify the JIA Sea Level Rise planning parameters (page 20). This reference is very vague, but is quite important to convey the long-term strategies for addressing impacts of sea level rise on Jekyll.

3) Incorporate more environmentally-friendly methods of managing mosquitoes (pages 47 and page 56, Strategy #7). The Conservation Plan states that JIA will work with Glynn County officials but will continue to defer mosquito control to Glynn County officials. Unfortunately,

1

273

the county predominantly uses permethrin, which is known to be toxic to salt and freshwater species and can be harmful to birds in aerosol form. We recommend JIA advocate for the County to use to alternative methods of mosquito control, or to use chemicals that do not harm other species. JIA can further its commitment to sustainable practices and can influence management practices throughout the region.

4) Add a strategy to Park-wide Management that limits developments and redevelopments to those lands that are not at high risk for flooding, storm surge, or sea level rise (page 52). Sea level rise is not felt evenly throughout the island. Some areas will be hit harder by rising seas than others. Additionally, there are areas within or near “high velocity zones” during storm events, where increased risk to human health and safety should development occur in these areas. Consider the heavy damage to several homes in the The Cottages development on the north end of the island and the regular flooding in the Moorings Condominium development at the Jekyll Marina, currently under construction.

Page 51 of the Conservation Plan refers to the JIA “Carrying Capacity and Infrastructure Assessment” that includes an evaluation of risks associated with up to 3 feet of sea level rise.

The maps in this study on pages 250 and 251 contain critical information JIA administration should use to ensure re-developments and new developments are not putting the lives and health of future residents at risk. As the “landlord” of Jekyll Island state park, the JIA Board and the JIA Administration have the authority to deny proposals in areas where the map indicates a high risk from sea level rise. This is important to protect human safety and minimize liability concerns. Specifically, we recommend that JIA add a 12th strategy to “Parkwide Management” section that commits JIA to only approving re-development and new development proposals that are outside the areas of risk identified in the carrying capacity and infrastructure map. (https://www.jekyllisland.com/jekyll-island-authority/jekyll-islandcarrying-capacity-infrastructure-assessment/).

5) Add a strategy for JIA to consider “dog free beaches” during certain times of the year and to consider a predator control program to increase nesting shorebird success in order achieve the Protect Wildlife Priority Species objective (page 57). Many of the priority species JIA has identified are dependent on healthy and safe beach environments. Disturbance from humans, mammals, and predators on beaches during critical times of year, like nesting season, can negatively impact the survival of endangered individuals. Even on beaches with leash-laws, many dogs escape and can disturb nesting birds and hatchlings. Dog-free beaches help ensure human-caused disturbances are limited.

6) Add a Management Priority to maintain foraging and resting areas for birds in the causeway management plan (pages 59 - 60). All the strategies in Section 5.3 that relate to managing shrubs, trees and bushes on the causeway defer to the Department of Transportation (DOT) transmission line guidelines. It is easy to recognize that the causeway shrubs and bushes are a rich source of food and refuge for swallows and migrating swifts. JIA must maintain these food sources and places of rest for these valuable species. There are many opportunities to fulfill the need for marsh views and, in select locations along the causeway, to meet the needs of the migrating avian species.

7) Add a strategy that golf courses on Jekyll will adopt the Georgia Chapter of the Golf Course Superintendents Association Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water conservation (page 72). Water used for irrigation on golf courses can draw down aquifer sources necessary for multiple uses. The guidance offered by the GGCSA is a good start to increasing water efficiency and reducing the withdrawals from surficial and deep-water

2

274

aquifers for irrigation. (The GGCSA water conservation BMP guide is found online: https://www.ggcsa.com/water-info-and-bmps).

8) Incorporate compliance with the Conservation Plan, including the institutional operations strategies, into new leases for commercial properties (page 75). As manager of the state park, JIA has the authority to offer leases for commercial developments that specify each development comply with the all the terms of the Conservation Plan. Objective 6A – “Minimize footprint of development uses on conservation lands” can be best accomplished if the expectation of compliance with conservation commitments is incorporated into the new or renewed leases for any new development or re-development on the island.

9) Incorporate free and low-cost educational opportunities for underserved communities, lowincome communities, and communities of color. We appreciate the inclusion of the strategy to, “Pursue partnerships that increase and enhance opportunities for lower-income and minority individuals to be aware-of and included-in nature-based education in Jekyll Island State Park” in Chapter 8, Nature-Based education section (page 92). This strategy should be enhanced by specifying that such partnerships will result in free and/or low-cost educational opportunities for the target communities listed. The strategy should also include a commitment to offer scholarships for paid programs, reduction of fee-based programs to Title 1 schools, and specific programs offered for free to the public. Jekyll’s long-standing reputation as being “the people’s island” is still relevant, so all visitors should be offered opportunities to deepen their appreciation and understanding of the natural resources this plan proposes to conserve, regardless of their income.

10) Establish a standing council or group of advisors to offer professional input to JIA on conservation-related projects, plans, and management strategies. Many of the ecological strategies in the updated Conservation Plan could be strengthened with input from experts convened to consider island-wide and regional impact of the projects. Such a group of standing technical advisors can offer landscape-scale expertise, make recommendations for prioritizing projects and implementing management plans, and help review proposals received from outside the authority. These technical advisors could also be helpful in screening development proposals to recommend which projects merit a public input through the environmental assessment procedures described in Chapter 7.

Little St. Simons Island convenes an Ecological Advisory Council to help evaluate proposed projects’ potential impact to state, regional, and global priorities. This group offers guidance on how to accomplish goals set forth in the island’s conservation plan. Cannon’s Point Preserve on St. Simons Island, managed by the St. Simons Land Trust, also convenes a Conservation Task Force with a similar charge. The equivalent on Jekyll Island, would be a consistent team of advisors that JIA staff convene for projects, planning initiatives, and ordinance updates offering input on the statewide and regional implications of the project proposal.

Members of such a JIA advisory council could also be incorporated into the “Research Committee” convened to evaluate external proposals, described in Section 4.4.5. The advisory council could also assist in implementing the strategy #2 described in Section 5.2 (page 52) that prioritizes the revision of the Jekyll Island Design Guidelines to require a sea level rise and flood resiliency analysis be conducted prior to concept approval.

3 275

11) Strengthen the Environmental Assessment Procedure (EAP), Chapter 7, through the following recommendations: a. We are pleased to see more non-JIA participants included in the process. This will only strengthen the assessment by diversifying the expertise and perspective. b. Clarify how the EAP is implemented. Chapter 7 regarding the EAP should clearly identify how projects are evaluated and what steps of are taken to fulfill the EAP. Through our involvement in the stakeholder advisory group, we have learned that the “Special protection areas” described in section 7.1 (page 85) and “Landscape scale impacts” described in section 7.2 (page 87) are specific areas that will be considered through the EAP. This, in particular, should be clarified in the section describing how the EAP works. c. Post EAP recommendations online before any evaluated projects begin or before the development concept is presented to the JIA Board of Directors. In an effort to be more transparent in what is recommended to developers or project managers, it would be helpful to share EAP recommendations with the public. This will help educate members of the public and will inform any public comments offered to the JIA Board of Directors during monthly meetings. d. Offer an opportunity for the public to engage in the EAP. Many projects that are evaluated through the EAP 1) are large-scale, 2) are highly visible to the public, 3) have the potential to impact residents and visitors’ experiences, and 4) could have a major impact on the public-owned state park. As such, we recommend incorporating public review and comment into the EAP process.

A good example of how public involvement can be incorporated into the EAP is the process used by Glynn County related to new construction and site development.

Glynn County describes a process online (https://www.glynncounty.org/842/Development-Review) for how the county staff reviews proposed site developments to evaluate environmental impacts and compliance with the comprehensive plan for the county. Specifically, the components of development review include: - Staff technical review for applications for rezoning.

- Review of applications for planned development.

- Staff technical review of applications for subdivision approval.

- Staff technical review of applications for site plan approval.

- Staff technical review for applications for zoning variances approval - Participation in the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process.

Glynn County site plans and subdivisions are not required to have a public hearing, yet the technical review comments made by staff on site plans and subdivisions can be viewed by the public. Site/development plans and official staff comments are posted on the county website at least one week prior to the meeting at which the appropriate planning commission will discuss the plans. All members of the public have an opportunity to review the plans and the technical review comments made by staff. The planning commission meetings are open to the public and public comments are allowed prior to the vote of the commission.

Such expectations for and anticipation of public review are not perfect. However, we recommend JIA incorporate a similar process for project review by the EAP to

4

276

provide a transparent process and invitation for citizens to discuss and engage in decision-making regarding the growth, developments and subdivisions that will affect the publicly-owned island.

12) Include OHM and the other established organizations as partners. (page 98). OHM and several other organizations have contributed to this plan, have participated in the EAP review, and are consistently represented in public processes for Jekyll Island. The Partnership section should be updated to include OHM and other groups that regularly engage with JIA in projects and development proposals because of shared regional objectives and conservation interests. We acknowledge that we do not always agree with JIA on management decisions or strategies, and that our approaches to community engagement often diverge. That is to be expected, and even encouraged, in robust working groups and community dialogue. However, our commitment to Jekyll Island and the conservation of the coast is firm, and our intent is to help strengthen the natural resources, traditional character of the island, and the quality of life for all residents and visitors. As such, we respectfully request to be included as a partner organization contributing to the natural resource protection on the island.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the updated Conservation Plan for Jekyll Island. Contact me at any time if you have questions or would like to discuss these ideas and recommendations. I can be reached at 912.230.6494 or alice@onehundredmiles.org.

Sincerely,

Alice M. Keyes Alice M. Keyes VP of Coastal Conservation One Hundred Miles

5

277

278

MEMORANDUM To: Ben Carswell From: Jay Exum Date: November 11, 2020 Re: Notes from the Jekyll Island Technical Stakeholder Group Video Meeting 11/9/2020 ______________________________________________________________________________ Attending: Ben Carswell, Jekyll Island Authority Conservation Director Jay Exum, Exum Associates, Inc., project facilitator Technical Stakeholder Group members: • • • • • • •

Bill Wikoff Clay Montague Doug Samson Katy Smith Mark McClellan Jacob Thompson and Scott Coleman

Summary I presented a PowerPoint slide deck that summarized the information presented to the JIA Board and the public on October 20. This overview highlighted those chapters of the Conservation Plan Update that had a substantial rewrite and provided a synopsis of comments from Technical Stakeholders after their review of the first draft of the Conservation Plan Update. Technical Stakeholder Group members then provided specific comments on the new draft of the Conservation Plan Update.

Comments from Technical Stakeholder Group members included: • Doug had 4 specific initial comments: o We should add climate change as a Threat/Stressor to natural resources on the Island.

Sea level rise and storm surge are referenced, but there is no direct reference to climate change. o Add a discussion of how Jekyll Island developed after 1947, and how that relates to future development patterns. o For the Institutional Sustainability chapter, Doug continues to recommend that it should not be in the Conservation Plan Update and suggested that we evaluate putting it in the Master Plan. The section on water use could be included in the Conservation Plan Update but not energy and waste reduction. o Capacity needs should be added to the human resources chapter to specify budget and staffing that is needed to accomplish the goals of the Plan.

1180 Spring Centre South Blvd. | Suite 330 | Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 www.exumassoc.com | 321.229.5653

1 279

• • • • •

Jacob suggested that there be a description of the contents of each Appendix, and they should be referenced in the Table of Contents.

Clay reiterated that a complete greenhouse gas emissions analysis should include all components of carbon emissions and reminded us that “it’s not easy being green.

Doug asked that we send comments from the Advisory Stakeholder Group to the Technical Stakeholder Group.

Bill Wikoff provided an email after the meeting updating the status of two priority species of birds in the Appendix: the eastern black rail and the red knot are now listed as Threatened.

Doug and others indicated that they would send additional, specific comments on the Plan.

1180 Spring Centre South Blvd. | Suite 330 | Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 www.exumassoc.com | 321.229.5653

2 280

MEMORANDUM To: Ben Carswell From: Jay Exum Date: November 11, 2020 Re: Notes from the Jekyll Island Advisory Stakeholder Group Video Meeting 11/10/2020 ______________________________________________________________________________ Attending: Ben Carswell, Jekyll Island Authority Conservation Director Jay Exum, Exum Associates, Inc., project facilitator Advisory Stakeholder Group members: • David and Mindy Egan • Alice Keyes • Ame Ivanov • Steve Newell • Laura Early • Charles McMillan Summary I presented a PowerPoint slide deck that summarized the information presented to the JIA Board and the public on October 20. This overview highlighted those chapters of the Conservation Plan Update that are substantially different from what it was in the 2011 Plan. I then asked for any comments on the Updated Plan from the Group and we used the rest of the meeting to go over them.

Comments from Advisory Stakeholder Group members included: • • • • •

Mindy stated that the appendices need titles and corrected page numbers in the Table of Contents and asked that the definition of time frames be given at the beginning of the management actions appendix.

Alice requested that there be the ability to zoom into the Special Protection Areas map either on an interactive basis, or with a higher resolution map. Ben responded that the Plan will at least have a higher resolution map that will allow zooming into this graphic.

David suggested that there might need to be an EAP review of any proposed recreation in the interior of the Island.

Alice asked how to determine which projects justify an EAP review. She asked that it be clarified, maybe in an introduction to the chapter.

David Egan understands that that the “beach prairie” is an SPA but stated that it is also shown as being developed in the Master Plan and asked how the inconsistency could be resolved. Ben suggested that perhaps this could be accomplished by protecting green 1180 Spring Centre South Blvd. | Suite 330 | Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 www.exumassoc.com | 321.229.5653

1 281

• • •

•

• •

•

•

•

space in developed areas, but also agreed that this issue might need to be changed in the Master Plan. Charles asked that we consider focusing recreation inside developed areas and cited an example from Atlanta.

Mindy agreed with the ideas in the Plan to project the recreation needs of younger people but suggested that we be careful not to embrace activities that could turn out to be fads.

She wondered if zip lining might be an example of this.

Mindy also suggested that the intent of the EAP review be made clearer. She also suggested that the EAP include a specific list of projects that would require a review.

Alice suggested that perhaps there should be a map like the SPA map that would show what is unsuitable for development. Ben stated that there was a map that was included in the Capacity Study, which is an appendix to the Conservation Plan Update. He clarified that it is not a binary developable/undevelopable map. Instead it shows a gradient of “suitability”. Mindy suggested that this might be a part of the EAP review, perhaps through a cross reference to the Capacity Study map.

Alice suggested that there be an Ordinance to codify the EAP process. Ben asked if a Zoning designation would work, and there was some dialogue about the benefits of each.

Charles stated that either an Ordinance or Zoning Map would help civil engineers, designers, and developers understand the review and approval process before investments in site design are made.

Ame stated that the Plan seems to include varying definitions as to when an EAP is required and suggested that we make edits to make sure the language is consistent.

Mindy and David Egan pointed out that the management section, strategies, 5.2 was great and appreciated the new ideas that have been included since the first draft of the Plan Update. In that section, there is a reference to a requirement that development plans address coastal zone resiliency during the Design Guidelines process. David stated that this concept needed to be included in the EAP chapter.

Alice asked how adaptive management is treated. Jay stated that there were short-term modifications to management taken on a regular basis as a result on field experience and longer-term approaches to adaptive management, including changing strategies in future updates to the Plan. Ben suggested that this concept was more ideological than formally defined, but it was inherent to their management approach.

David indicated that he would like to see any green space that was taken out of active golf course management to be considered as an SPA. Ben indicated that once these areas are restored to the community types that are included in the SPA, they could be converted to SPA status.

Alice and others suggested that they had numerous other questions or comments on the Plan. Ben requested that these be provided via email to him and me. Ben stated that comments received during the public review phase of the update process would be included in the summary of comments on the JIA website. It is preferred that these be submitted through the online submission form provided by JIA or in the form of a formal letter.

1180 Spring Centre South Blvd. | Suite 330 | Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 www.exumassoc.com | 321.229.5653

2 282

Comments on Final Draft of Update to the Jekyll Island Conservation Plan (the Draft I reviewed had the file name “Conservation_Plan_2020_Draft_2020-10-29.pdf” and was posted on the Jekyll Island Authority website Oct. 29, 2020) Doug Samson, Sapelo Island NERR Reserve Manager Technical Stakeholder Group member Nov. 16, 2020 ………………………………………………………..

First, I want to reiterate my comments during the Technical Stakeholder Group virtual meeting on November 9, 2020. I provided (or attempted to provide) the following feedback (not verbatim, of course): 1) I think the Plan overall is extremely well thought-out, well-reasoned, and well-articulated, as it’s based on a clear, consistent and deep commitment to the conservation of natural habitats and native species on Jekyll Island, and the important physical, biological and ecological processes that sustain those natural resources. Further, the Plan is always mindful of the context of the past, present and future human impacts to species and natural habitats on the island. And it reflects considerable scientific understanding, as well as professional experience and expertise, and considerable time spent in the field by JI Conservation Team staff.

2) As I argued in comments I provided on the earlier draft, I think a concise but thorough summary of the history of human development on Jekyll Island in Section 3.6 would help set the context for both the timeline of alterations to natural systems on the island and the spatial patterns of development impacts. The latter would also provide some context or expectations as to where new development impacts are most likely to occur in the future (BTW, too, not mentioning the several books that have been written on the history of Jekyll Island seems a major omission).

3) Climate change should be explicitly included as a major Threat in the Threats list presented in Section 3.7 (pages 19-20). Over and above that fact that it’s a major threat to all species and ecosystems everywhere now, you explicitly refer to climate change in a number of the management objectives, priorities and strategies later in the Plan; so it needs to be acknowledged as a priority Threat at the beginning of the Plan.

4) I provided the opinion that the Institutional Sustainability chapter belongs more appropriately in the Jekyll Island Master Plan, as many of the objectives don’t involve native species, natural habitats or ecological processes, and responsibility for implementing many of the actions rests with the JI Authority rather than the Conservation Program. Your justification for why it’s included in this Plan is strategically sound and I won’t argue this point further.

5) I suggested that including an explicit listing and discussion of anticipated capacity needs – new staff, new major equipment (vehicles, boats, buildings, etc.), new resources ($) – over the next 5-10 years in order to be able to implement and accomplish the management priorities, objectives, and strategies might be worthwhile, as it would put you on record for those needs.

6) I pointed out that elements of the style, format and organization of the draft Plan make it the most “beautiful” conservation plan I’ve ever seen; I didn’t necessarily mean that as a complement, a point I’ll address in much more detail below (“Point 6 Details, Part A”). In my

283

comments during the virtual meeting, I decided not to publicly “scold” the planning team about a major related need, which is to have the Plan professionally proof-read. The current draft has way too many errors, omissions, and deficiencies in the text, formatting, style, grammar, punctuation, etc., to be considered a “Final” draft. The fact that almost no one out there “cares” about such structural details anymore isn’t a justification for accepting a product that doesn’t meet professional standards. I offer a number of details on this in my “Point 6 Details, Part B” section below.

Point 6 Details, Part A: Several of the stylistic choices you’ve made in the Plan make it very visually interesting/stimulating and engaging (i.e., it’s “beautiful” to look at on many pages). This in spite of the use of a font size that seems smaller than normal, which makes the text a little harder to read and visually dense (maybe the two are interrelated?). Examples of the attractive stylistic features include really nice fade-into photos at the bottom of many pages, “floating” photos or graphic illustrations of plants and animals, animal tracks in the margins, and maps with associated text variably indented to “gently” frame the map (i.e., without a bordering box). These are really nicely done, and I assume the goal was to have a Plan that people – especially perhaps non-professionals and the public? - will find enjoyable to read and look at. I generally commend you for these choices and notable accomplishment.

The downside of this style, though, is a Plan that is not professionally – i.e., technically - formatted, and that doesn’t use many of the standard “rules” that professionals – especially scientists - expect in this kind of Plan. That can/may significantly affect the efficiency and effectiveness of communication of the content to such readers, and can also be frustrating. Examples of this include: 1) Figures (photos) that have no title, number or legend, so there’s no information as to what the photo illustrates, where on Jekyll the picture was taken, and so on. Some of these aren’t explicitly referenced in the text anyway, and there’s nothing wrong with scattering “pretty pictures” throughout a Plan to break up text sections and make it more visually engaging (i.e., above). But where photos do illustrate an important point being made in the adjacent text, it’s frustrating not to know exactly what it is that’s being shown in the photo, where, and so on.

2) Figures (maps, graphs) that have no legend or even a title (e.g., maps 1, 4 and 7), so finding them when they’re referenced in the text is harder than it should be. Not having a border, a scale bar and a compass on a technical map is highly unusual, and maps that entirely lack internal labels are also not very common (they’re especially rare in technical plans). I assume the maps were done accurately in GIS, based on rigorously created and objective datalayers, etc., but they don’t project the rigor that comes with a standard technical map.

3) Tables that have no title, number or legend and also no border (e.g., Plant Priority Species on p.

37, Wildlife Priority Species on p. 46); just centering a list on the page doesn’t make it a Table, referring to that Table later in the Plan is much harder, and the reader has to work a lot harder to find it again later if they’re wanting to go back to it from a subsequent section of the document.

284

4) Page-centered bullet lists - numerous examples of which are scattered throughout the Plan look odd, as page centering is traditionally used to highlight something, not list it. In some cases, the bullets run onto multiple lines because the column width is constrained by the centering. That not only looks odd, but also disrupts the flow of reading.

5) No Latin binomials were used for species names; I understand why you probably made this decision (audience readability, above), but there are really good reasons, of course, why scientists/professionals use Latin names (usually together with common names).

6) No references cited. I hammered you for this one in my last Comments, so I won’t lash you again here - " %. I hope/assume you’ve at least created some kind of bibliography to put at the end of $ # the Plan – if not, I’ll be significantly disappointed (in part because such a reference list would benefit my work!).

You’ve obviously talked about all this and made deliberate choices, and are comfortable with the tradeoffs. Hopefully, most professionals reading the Plan will understand your overarching objective, and will tolerate the “soft” nature of the document without discounting the rigor of your analyses, priority-setting, and selection of management objectives and strategies (a major caveat here is that I haven’t looked at the Appendices, so I don’t know whether or not those provide some of the scientific/ professional rigor “lacking” in the main Plan itself).

Point 6 Details, Part B: The Plan badly needs professional proof-reading, and it might best be done by someone external to the project team, as they’d bring the most objective, least review-weary eyes and brain to the exercise.

I first list below some major/ubiquitous needs and then provide a few specific instances of problems.

Ubiquitous: 1) missing words – at least a dozen but maybe more (I didn’t record them) 2) punctuation errors – scattered throughout 3) bullet lists: a. punctuation at the end of each bullet in a list depends on context and usage (see rules available online) b. punctuation use needs to be consistent within lists on the same page c. line spacing needs to be consistent within the same list, and/or same page d. as noted above, page-centered bullet lists are odd/awkward, for several reasons 4) text/paragraph justification is different in different sections of the Plan, and…

5) hyphenation of words at the end of text lines (in full-justification paragraphs) is inconsistent and several times just plain wrong (e.g., at least one place where a word was hyphenated after the first letter!!!)

6) text formatting choices are very unusual or just wrong (see #4 below) Specifics: 1) Executive Summary, p. 8, Section 2.3, #1: there’s some kind of typo in the last line 2) Section 3.5, p. 16: the last sentence on the page above the photo is cut off

285

3) Sections 3.5 and 3.6, p. 18: the last two paragraphs of Section 3.5 are identical to the first two paragraphs of Section 3.6 4) Section 4.4.6, p. 46: using lowercase for species names is unusual, but using “s.e.” and “e.” as abbreviations is just wrong 5) Objective 5A, Discussion, p. 71: revise third sentence for clarity 6) Section 6.0, p. 79: reformat the Focus Area list at bottom of page with sub-categories so as to match the three main headers subsequently used in Sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 (p. 80-82) Finally, I have a few random other comments and/or questions: 1) Section 3.5, p. 15: Text in the last part of the second paragraph and beginning of the third paragraph is confusing, as it talks about du Bignon raising cattle starting in 1884 and the island being largely unmanaged for the following 20 years, but then goes on to talk about the Jekyll Island Club buying it in 1886 and using prescribed fire to manage for hunting.

2) Section 4.4.4, p. 44: The amount of detail provided on deer density methods seems out of place, and the graph shown has too few years to draw any statistical conclusions, except that densities vary. What is the point of this section, with respect to deer management priorities and actions?

3) Section 4.4.6, p. 46: It’s very unusual in a conservation plan not to identify which species are protected by law (i.e., federal ESA, state regs) and which are not.

4) Section 5.1, p. 49: the land cover/land use map (Figure 4? it’s not labeled) raises several questions: a. acreage of Golf Courses is much larger than shown in the Figure 3 map b. combining Urban and Park categories is not explained c. adding Golf Courses and Urban/Park acreages totals 2116.23 acres, which appears to exceed the 1675 acre development limit on Jekyll.

5) Section 5.1, p. 49: the Management Units are shown on the map (Figure 4?) more than 10 pages before they are defined and discussed (on p. 61), which is unusual and a little frustrating.

6) Unit 2: Holocene Maritime Forest, p. 64: the text (multiple sub-sections) makes no mention of the considerable area of this Unit at the north end of the island shown on the map/Figure.

7) Section 7.0, p. 83: additional information/discussion on how the EAP Review Team operates, votes, gains consensus, and so on, would be helpful and appreciated, as this is really important in the context of impacts to native species and natural habitats targeted by the Plan.

8) Section 7.0, p.83: it would be very helpful to clarify who on the JIA staff can serve on the Design Review Group and how that group is constituted (beyond being assigned by the JIA Executive Director).

9) Section 9.1, p. 96: an org chart of JIA staff would be helpful and informative here.

10) Absolutely, Appendices (Bibliography, etc.) should be listed in the Table of Contents, and a little more detail under Chapter headings (major sub-sections?) would be helpful, too.

286