UPLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT

Final Report

Project Number 06016 For period 1 July 2006 – 30 June 2009

FLORIDA’S STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS PROGRAM Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600

Project Director: William E. Palmer Project Coordinator: Greg Hagan

Tall Timbers Research Station 13093 Henry Beadel Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32312

September 29, 2009

ABSTRACT The Upland Ecosystem Restoration Project (UERP) is a strategic planning effort to integrate management actions needed to sustain upland ecosystems in Florida. This project bolsters existing conservation efforts among land management agencies by implementing new management actions and monitoring outcomes. UERP is a cooperative partnership between Tall Timbers Research Station, state and federal agencies, the University of Florida, and numerous conservation groups. The primary objective of UERP was to improve management of priority upland ecosystems outlined in Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy and specifically to encourage recovery of diverse grassland habitats over relatively large areas to increase densities of declining wildlife species. This is being accomplished by implementing 1 to 2 year fire frequencies, reducing extent of fire, and reducing overstory when necessary to recover ground story vegetation. Current public lands projects exceed 70,000 acres and 5 of the 7 UERP sites have achieved target fire frequencies and significant vegetation management (roller chopping, hardwood removal, and timber harvests) has occurred on over 6,000 acres. UERP is strengthened by steering committees composed of agency leaders and technical experts, and support from public and private sources. In addition to public land actions UERP had assessed a process to identify significant private parcels to target for conservation funding.

ACKOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’ State Wildlife Grants Program (06016), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the Florida Division of Forestry for funding this project. Additional funding and support was provided by Quail Unlimited, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and Monsanto Company. We are grateful to the members of the steering and technical committee’s for their assistance and support of the project. GIS modeling was completed by J. Martin. Special thanks to all the land mangers and staff that initiated increased land management, including – Diana Donaghy, Danielle Ivy, Stewart Jones, Bruce Hill, Heather Venter, Sam Negrano, Allan Hallman, Tina Hannon, Steve Glass, Matthew McKinney, Barbara Almario, Andrew Jernigan, David Smith, Steve Parrish, and Adam Warrick,

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1 METHODS

Project Administrative Structure……………………………………………………. 3

Public Land………………………………………………………………………….. 4

Developing a Monitoring Strategy on Public Lands………………………………... 8

Private Land………………………………………………………………………… 9

Identifying Parcels of Interest………………………………………………………. 10

Habitat Ranking…………………………………………………………………….. 10

Calculating Statistics for each Parcel………………………………………………. 11

Functionality of the Data…………………………………………………………… 12

RESULTS

Public Land………………………………………………………………………… 12

Private Land………………………………………………………………………... 18

DISCUSSION

Public Land…………………………………………………………………………19

Private Land……………………………………………………………………….. 20

CONCLUSION

Public Land…………………………………………………………………………22 Private Land……………………………………………………………………….. 23 LITERATURE CITED....................................................................................................... 24

1

INTRODUCTION

The state of Florida, through its Florida Forever Program, has the nation’s largest land

acquisition program. While the State of Florida has protected millions of acres of upland habitat

from development, management of these imperiled upland ecosystems has often lacked attention

to sustain ecosystem function and diversity. Over 100 species of upland plants and animals have

been identified in Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) {Florida

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) 2005} as species of greatest conservation

need. The majority of these species depend on very frequent fires, sometimes at 12 to 24 month

intervals, to restore plant communities and sustain their habitats.

Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (FWC 2005) recognizes one of

its highest priorities is to maximize conservation benefits of public conservation lands by

implementing new and enhanced cooperative conservation actions (e.g. increasing the capacity,

resources and coordination of prescribed fire and other land management techniques). A

successful example of such cooperative conservation actions is the Upland Ecosystem

Restoration Project.

The Upland Ecosystem Restoration Project (UERP) was an outcome or outgrowth of a

statewide forum of agency leaders, politicians, and stakeholders assembled to deal with the issue

of declining, but common wildlife species, whose habitats are dependent on frequent fire. The

concept proposed by agency leaders attending the forum was for a non-governmental

organization to develop a long-term planning project to develop stated goals for management,

advance inter-agency cooperation, and implement adaptive resource management to improve

habitat conditions for upland grassland ecosystems that target species of greatest conservation

need within them (e.g., as identified in Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy).

The purpose of this phase of UERP was to formalize the project, select upland grassland for

restoration, identify obstacles to management, and to initiate large-scale restoration projects on

selected public lands. Overall, these projects were intended to improve populations of declining

2

or threatened plants and animals. Unlike many planning projects, UERP’s focus was to affect

change on the ground to impact wildlife populations. From the beginning, agency leaders wanted

action rather than planning alone.

The primary action of UERP was to increase fire frequency to ≤ 2 years in order to

develop vegetation communities suitable for select declining species. Upland ecosystems and

species of greatest conservation need within them depend on frequent fires to sustain ecosystem

function and ecological diversity (FWC 2005). Changes in land use and incompatible fire

management (FWC 2005: 43) have greatly altered plant communities at the landscape scale,

resulting in habitat fragmentation and declines of numerous fire-dependent wildlife species

(Tanner and Marion 1990, Brennan et al. 2002, Palmer et al. 2004, FWC 2005, Gordon et al.

2005). Ecosystems such as dry prairies, mesic flatwoods, natural pineland, and sandhills (FWC

2005:272) have been significantly altered through reduced fire frequency. Historical burning

records show that on public and private lands, managers rarely meet frequently-applied

prescribed burning goals (Palmer et al. 2004); which essentially dooms restoration potentials.

Many states in the Southeastern U.S. have cooperative Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU’s) among their agencies (for example GA, SC, VA, TX, among others) for the purpose of

restoring degraded ecosystems. However, these MOU’s have rarely been successful due to lack

of communication and/or interest from agency leaders. What makes Florida and UERP unique in

the Southeast is that agency leaders, agency personnel, and stakeholders share a common vision

of specific habitat goals and they are actively engaged in changing management to increase

wildlife dependent on frequent fire and a diverse groundstory. Founders of the UERP project

were not as interested in planning for planning sake, but for impacting habitat in a positive and

efficient manner.

The objectives of this project were to 1) establish and coordinate upland ecosystem

restoration programs on select properties within the state; 2) develop an official upland ecosystem

restoration project that operates under the oversight of a steering committee of agency leaders

3

with assistance from a technical committee to meet on-the-ground challenges; 3) develop and

plan long-term landscape scale restoration projects with measurable conservation targets; 4)

cultivate grass roots and national support for local projects and acquire both local private and

national foundation support for restoration; and 5) integrate planning of private land conservation

programs with public land upland ecosystem restoration projects.

These objectives meet multiple goals outlined in Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife

Conservation Strategy for public conservation lands by implementing new and enhanced

cooperative management actions, as well as improve and refine management practices for priority

habitats. Specifically, the project will meet the goals of increasing fire applied to the landscape

(CWCS: 52), increase cooperation, coordination and communication among state and federal

agencies, NGO’s and private entities (CWCS: 45), improve and refine management practices for

priority habitats (CWCS: 49), and reduce habitat loss and fragmentation (CWCS: 52).

On private lands, as on public land, the reduction in fire frequency and changing land

use has resulted in reduced habitat suitability for fire-dependent wildlife species. While Florida

has many private land incentive opportunities, a significant ingredient always has been missing; a

person designated to serve as a liaison between private landowners and resource agencies. The

private land component of UERP was created to increase our visibility with landowners and

better coordinate private and public land initiatives in the state. Our vision is to, when possible,

target public-private restoration projects across landholdings

METHODS

Project Administrative Structure

To effect habitat planning on public and private lands, the UERP project was designed as

a cooperative project between Tall Timbers Research Station and Land Conservancy (TTRSLC)

and University of Florida (UFL). TTRSLC was the primary investigator and responsible for

undertaking restoration planning and land management actions on public lands and UFL

personnel were responsible for the private lands portion of the planning project. Each portion,

4

public lands and private lands, had its own coordinator, developed independent charters, and had

separate Steering and Technical committees composed of appropriate agency personnel to deal

with issues unique to public and/or private land management. Mr. Greg Hagan was hired at

TTRSLC as the public lands coordinator and supervised by Dr. Bill Palmer, and Ms. Christy

Candelora was hired as the private lands coordinator and supervised by Dr. Bill Giuliano at UFL.

Public Land

Project Administration.-

UERP was developed in 2006 to prioritize, design, fund and implement on-the-ground

management to maximize the conservation benefit of upland grassland ecosystems on public

lands in Florida. UERP has successfully engaged the State’s three primary land management

agencies (Division of Forestry, Department of Environmental Protection and the Fish and

Wildlife Conservation Commission), as well as other public land conservation lands to address

conservation threats (incompatible fire and/or silvicultural regimes) and changing management

philosophy towards restoration of priority habitats to benefit species of greatest conservation

need. UERP has become the catalyst for restoration activities statewide, assisting agencies with

evaluation of restoration sites, planning and implementing restoration actions, and creating

private-NGO-public partnerships to help fund increased land management.

An important concept of UERP is to maintain flexibility and independence such that

optimizing actual restoration on the ground is possible. The project seeks opportunities to effect

change and must be able to take advantage of opportunities and adapt as necessary. However, it

is important that management agencies are engaged, completely informed, and supportive of all

restoration projects. The steering committee is composed of leaders from land management

agencies and Tall Timbers, and assists the UERP Coordinator and Project Leader with

establishing projects, funding, prioritizing and approving projects within their agencies. The

technical committee, composed of biologist and land managers with expertise in upland grassland

5

ecosystems, assists in resolving management questions and guiding project personnel to ensure

the greatest conservation benefit is obtained.

Developing a targeted, statewide assessment of public lands that have significant

potential for upland grassland ecosystem restoration was presented to the steering committee as

means to select focal properties. Ultimately, the steering committee felt strongly that properties

selected should provide equal representation among agencies, have a high probability of success,

and have adequate staff in place to implement the goals outlined. Therefore, increased land

management activities were begun on 7 officially designated focal properties (Three Lakes

Wildlife Management Area, Jennings State Forest, Blackwater River State Forest, Myakka River

State Park, Apalachicola National Forest, Ocala National Forest and Volusia Counties—Lake

George Forest and Wildlife Management Area) representing approximately 72,000 acres (Figure

1). These focal properties represent multiple priority habitats (sandhills, dry prairies, natural

pineland and mesic flatwoods) as identified in CWCS (FWC 2005).

Figure 1. Designated UERP Focal Properties.

6

Management Prescriptions.-

The public lands UERP Coordinator traveled to all focal properties and meet with local

staff to provide an overview of UERP, review current management goals, select focal areas, and

target areas for assistance. Upon completion of site visits, it became clear that public land

managers rarely burned frequently enough to develop habitat for many grassland species because

of budget and logistical constraints or other agency priorities, although notable exceptions exist.

For instance, most acres are burned on a 3 - 5 year frequency as part of a fuel reduction paradigm.

These low frequency burning regimes are insufficient to sustain biodiversity and populations of

fire-dependent wildlife species (Figure 2).

Given the logistical and economic constraints faced by managers, it is not uncommon to

burn relatively large areas at one time. The combination of low frequency and large burn extent

is deleterious to many wildlife species because habitat is unsuitable in structure, composition and

function (Figure 3).

To encourage improve habitat, site specific management plans were established for each

focal property. The plans call for an increase in fire frequency to 1 -2 year intervals, increased

other land management activities (timber harvests, mechanical and chemical vegetation

treatments) and set population goals of fire-dependent wildlife species.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1-year 2-year 3-year

Figure 2. Relationship between occupancy of overwintering grasshopper sparrows to time-since-burn (south Florida – dry prairies).

7

In pursuit of greater species diversity, and often to facilitate prescribed burning,

mechanical treatments are sometimes necessary. Roller-chopping and mowing has proven to be

an effective land management tool to increase plant diversity on areas with excessive density and

coverage of hardwoods and shrubs from years of fire suppression However, while mechanical

treatments provide immediate results and are often needed to recover degraded areas, they not a

substitute for prescribed fire over the long-term.

Funding and Communication.-

A key component of UERP has been to build partnerships among agencies, NGO’s,

corporations, and foundations to help support on-the-ground management. Restored upland

habitats support the interests of a wide array of upland enthusiasts, from bird watchers to limited

hunting opportunities. Partnering to bolster upland restoration on public land is directly in-line

with the ideas expressed in Florida’s CWCS.

In an effort to promote the message of UERP and explain activities that are occurring on

focal properties, the Coordinator and Project Leader gave numerous talks and presentations to a

variety of groups, developed a quarterly newsletter to keep those involved up-to-date on our

progress, developed an informative sign that is located at the entrance to each focal property, and

was featured in several newspapers and magazines detailing UERP activities.

Figure 3. Extent of Fire and Bobwhite Response.

8

Developing a Monitoring Strategy on Public Lands

As public lands UERP restoration projects were developed and implemented it was

important to establish a valid monitoring protocol to document results. UERP’s habitat

prescriptions were developed to change a suite of habitat conditions at multiple scales. These

habitat prescriptions are known to improve the suitability of the areas for many species and the

goal of the UERP monitoring program is to gauge wildlife population densities relative to

population density targets set for each area. This is a relatively novel approach versus a more

traditional baseline-response time series approach.

Tall Timbers and FWC hosted a 2-day workshop to discuss monitoring approaches.

Information gathered at the workshop allowed us to develop a protocol to estimate the density of

common, but declining, “focal” species on UERP areas and to link changes in density to

vegetation response and management. The strategy was developed to fit within the adaptive

resource management framework (e.g., management experiments). We anticipate that focal

species will increase in response to the application of management and the long-term application

of frequent fire.

Our focal species list includes numerous species (such as: northern bobwhite, Bachman’s

sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, eastern. meadowlark, brown-headed nuthatch, loggerhead. shrike,

savannah sparrow, vesper sparrow, henslow sparrow, and sedge wren), as well as gopher

tortoise, fox squirrel and other species of greatest conservation need. The species list may vary

by site and were chosen by area management staff and the steering and technical committee. Our

goal is to assess the density or relative abundance of these species on each UERP site and to

establish population targets for these species to annually assess the success of management. In

addition, monitoring of breeding and wintering birds will be conducted. While many other

species could be considered focal species, the limitation of personnel dictates a relatively small

list. While the list is small, it includes a relatively broad suite of species that should provide a

9

clear picture of the wildlife response to management. Without this information, it is likely that

increased management efforts will fade because there is no “proof” that it is working.

Private Lands Program

The private lands component was funded cooperatively by UF - IFAS and this grant

(which only partially funded the private lands coordinator position). In 2007, the Private Lands

Coordinator created a charter and assembled a steering committee. The objectives for the private

lands section of UERP as outlined by the coordinator and the steering committee were 1)

coordinate upland ecosystem restoration activities on private lands within the state of Florida to

enhance populations of declining or imperiled upland species such as the northern bobwhite,

brown-headed nuthatch, gopher tortoise, and red-cockaded woodpecker; 2) work with the Public

Lands Coordinator to develop long-term landscape scale restoration projects with measurable

conservation targets across public and private lands; 3) identify obstacles to habitat restoration on

private lands and develop creative solutions to overcome these obstacles; 4) develop funding

through public-private partnerships both locally and nationally; and 5) provide sound,

biologically based information to landowners, policy makers, and administrators. While progress

was made on these objectives, the private lands coordinator was resigned from the position in

October 2008 because of health issues.

The Private Lands component aimed to enhance populations of declining or imperiled

upland species by prioritizing and encouraging upland ecosystem restoration and management

activities on private lands throughout the state. A critical need of the Private Lands component

was a process to identify private landowners that owned parcels of conservation interest at the

appropriate scale and condition. These landowners would then potentially be targeted by existing

or new conservation programs.

Public conservation lands with officially designated UERP restoration areas were chosen

as the core regions to identify key private landowners which could increase the conservation

benefits accrued within focal areas. Areas selected include the counties that surround three

10

public land focal areas (Blackwater River State Forest-DOF, Three Lakes Wildlife Management

Area-FWC, and Myakka River State Park-DEP). Blackwater River State Forest includes Santa

Rosa and Okaloosa counties, Three Lakes Wildlife Management Area (WMA) includes Osceola

County and the area of interest associated with Myakka River State Park includes Manatee and

Sarasota counties, as well as seven additional counties in the South Florida Ranchland Area:

Charlotte, Desoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands and Lee.

Identifying Parcels of Interest

To identify parcels of interest we utilized the 2007 Department of Revenue County Parcel

Layers for the 11 counties. These layers include every parcel found in the entire county. We

initially reduced the dataset to those parcels of 5 acres or greater. The remaining parcels in the

layer were dissolved by owner name to combine parcels

owned by the same person. The multipart-to-singlepart

function was then applied to the dissolved layer to convert

adjoining parcels owned by the same person into a single

polygon. This created a map of ownership that instead of

showing all individual parcels, showed all parcels that were

contiguously owned by the same owner (Figure 4).

However, this process did not combine all parcels as some

parcels owned by the same person are listed in the tax records under a slightly different name

(Benard Egan vs Benard A Egan). Although the resulting ownership layer was not perfect, it

gave a reasonable starting point with very few parcel combinations missed overall.

Habitat Ranking

We used expert knowledge to rank all 43 habitat types for the state of Florida (Table 1).

The habitats were ranked on a scale from 0-8 based their suitability to meet the habitat needs of

focal species in the UERP project Therefore, the rank is an implicit habitat suitability value and

ignores the spatial context of grid cells.

Figure 4. Individual Parcel Ownership

11

Table 1. Rankings of habitat types for the UERP HSI model

Class Class UERP Suitability Value name rank category

6 Dry prairie 8 High 9 Pinelands 8 High 5 Sandhill 7 High 7 Hardwood-pine forest 7 High 28 Shrub and brushland 7 High 12 Freshwater marsh

wet prairie 6 High 29 Grassland 6 High 30 Bare soil/clearcut 6 High 3 Xeric oak scrub 5 Medium 4 Sand pine scrub 5 Medium 32 Unimproved pasture 5 Medium 35 Row and field crops 5 Medium 34 Citrus 3 Medium 36 Other agriculture 3 Medium

Calculating Statistics for each Parcel

We were primarily interested in the composition of the HSI values and landcover values

for each parcel. The landcover values are important to know for management purposes. To

obtain the percentage of HSI values and landcover values we used Hawth’s tools thematic raster

summary function. These values were output to tables and rejoined with our spatial data. We

summarized the percentage of HIGH potential habitats for each parcel by summing HSI values 6-

8 and dividing by the total number of cells for each parcel. We calculated the amount of HIGH

potential habitat for each parcel by multiplying the % of HIGH by the total acreage of the parcel.

This value, AMTHI, we considered the most important variable to consider for each property and

serves as the foundation of identifying high priority parcels for each county.

12

Functionality of the Data

The point of this GIS modeling exercise is to highlight parcels, and therefore landowners,

that have relatively large patches of habitat types potentially valuable to UERP. By targeting

landowners with specific habitats, private lands programs can be tailored and more efficient.

Further, areas where habitats are clustered provide logistical, ecological and mutual benefits.

Perhaps the main criticism of HSI models and similar modeling exercises is their utility is

short-lived and their functionality is limited to the accuracy of the data used. While, the utility of

this data is short-lived, the model could be updated with minor amounts of effort. As new

landcover maps become available and new information about the habitat requirements of focal

species the data can be updated. We utilized this data set to select landowners with habitats

important to UERP and it is biased toward larger (>200 acre) habitat patches. Other uses of the

data for other habitat objectives would identify a different suite of landowners.

Essentially, the GIS data is stored in a geodatabase that can either be opened in a GIS, or

can be opened in Microsoft Access to view tabular data. We have provided the data in KML

format so that the data can be viewed in Google Earth. Depending on objectives and user skill

either one of these avenues is highly useful. GIS modeling was completed by Kristi Candelora

(UFL) and James Martin (TTRSLC).

RESULTS

Public Land

Six steering committee meetings were conducted during the reporting period. The

committee is composed of agency leaders from multiple land management agencies and Tall

Timbers Research Station. Several members of the original steering committee were replaced

due to retirement, agency obligations or administrative changes. Mr. Mark Glisson was replaced

by Ms. Paula Allen upon his retirement in February 2008 and Mr. William Howell replaced Ms.

Allen in January 2009 due to administrative changes. At the April 2009 steering committee

meeting, members elected to add the Department of Historical Resources to the committee. The

13

technical committee met only once in early 2007 with the goal of meeting once per year.

Nevertheless, the technical committee was kept apprised of UERP activities and the Coordinator

would meet with individual members when particular issues would arise. A Charter was

developed by the Coordinator and approved by the steering committee that outlines the structure

and composition of the project.

The steering committee, in cooperation with the technical committee officially designated

7 focal properties (Three Lakes WMA, Jennings State Forest, Blackwater River State Forest,

Myakka River State Park, Apalachicola National Forest, Ocala National Forest and Volusia

Counties—Lake George Forest and Wildlife Management Area) representing approximately

72,000 acres (Figure 5). Steering committee members or agency leaders developed letters of

support for each focal area, as well as the overall mission of UERP.

Figure 5. UERP Designated Properties and Focal Areas.

14

The UERP Coordinator made 93 site visits to focal properties during the reporting period

(Table 2). This does not include travel for additional activities (presentations, field-tours,

workshops, assessing potential focal properties, etc.). Coordinator met with local staff to review

activities, develop short and long-term goals, initiate monitoring, and gauge whether additional

assistance was needed. These site visits were critical in developing a coordinated approach to

effectively initiate increased on-the-ground land management activities.

Table 2. Number of yearly site visits by UERP Coordinator.

In spite of unpredictable weather conditions, substantial on-the-ground management was

conducted by local area staff and contractors on focal properties (Table 3). Approximately

67,552 acres were prescribed burned during the reporting period. To date, the majority of UERP

acreage is being managed within a 1 – 2 year fire frequency. In addition, approximately 3,523

acres of upland habitat was roller-chopped in an attempt to reduce excessive saw palmetto, oaks

and other less desirable plant species, while enhancing beneficial herbaceous cover and bunch

grasses that many species require (Figure 6).

Number of Visits

Property 2006 2007 2008 2009 Three Lakes 4 5 5 3 Myakka 3 4 4 3 Blackwater 3 4 5 2 Jennings 5 5 3 Volusia 4 5 2 Ocala 2 2 2 2 Apalachicola 3 5 5 3

A B

Figure 6. Three Lakes WMA. Picture A = pre-roller chopping and Picture B = 18 months post roller chopping and prescribed burn.

15

The majority of roller-chopping took place on Three Lakes Wildlife Management Area

and Myakka River State Park. In addition to chopping and burning, timber harvest was initiated

on 1,547 acres of previously unsuitable dense pine plantations. Herbicides or mechanical

treatments also were used on approximately 1313acres of hardwood midstory that were

extensively taking over several sandhill ridges.

Table 3. Total number of acres treated on UERP focal areas. Number of Acres Treated

Year Prescribed

Burn Mechanical Timber Harvest

Hardwood Control

2007 25,343 1591 2008 36,417 1303 1184 179 2009 5792 629 363 1134

We also developed a monitoring strategy that will be used to assess focal species and

habitat response to the more aggressive land management practices implemented within UERP

focal areas. It is an understatement that monitoring is needed to sustain management efforts, keep

management on track, and to inform decision makers about how to spend conservation dollars in

Florida. To that end, four major goals/outcomes are associated with the monitoring strategy: 1)

detect status and population trends for focal species; 2) detect changes in vegetation conditions;

3) meet minimum CC goals for focal species; and 4) link management actions to population

status and trends. Protocols utilized in our UERP monitoring are standard protocols that have

been tested widely such that sampling design, intensity, and power are well established. Field,

data collection and analysis methods have been tested and refined for Florida habitats.

We initiated species monitoring (covey call counts) on 6 or the 7 UERP focal areas in

2007 and 2008. Due to logistical constraints, covey call counts were not completed on Ocala

National Forest. Surveys were conducted October 15 – December 15 each year. One important

aspect has become apparent during covey call counts. Bobwhites are rarely, if at all detected in

areas that have a three year or greater burn return interval. While this may be expected, it was

clearly evident during many early morning call count. The two photos below (Figure 7) were

16

taken at a single survey point with each habitat equally represented within the grid. Photo A was

burned during the 2007 growing season and six (6) coveys were detected within the photo area.

Photo B was burned during the 2004 growing season and no (zero) coveys were detected within

the photo area. Covey call Counts continue to be a cooperative effort among UERP, local staff

and numerous volunteers.

UERP has successfully raised over $350,000 from state agencies, Florida’s State

Wildlife Grants Program, NGO’s, corporations and private dollars to fund the Coordinator

position and increased on-the-ground management (Table 4). A total of 4 grants were applied for

during the reporting period totaling $227,647; of which $168,247 was funded. In addition to

dollar contributions, UERP has been successful in helping agencies secure funding for land

management through cooperative dollars, as well as CARL funds and many in-kind donations

(personnel time, volunteers, and housing).

Table 4. Total number of contributions/grants secured during grant period. Contributions

Organization Year Amount Division of Forestry 2006 $13,930 Department of Environmental Protection 2006 $13,930 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2006 $13,930 Monsanto Company 2007 $15,000 Department of Environmental Protection 2007 $24,990 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2007 $24,990 Wildlife Conservation Society 2008 $42,900 QU - Jacksonville 2008 $30,000 QU – Lakeland 2008 $1,000

Figure 7. Photo A = 5 months post burn; Photo B = 3 ½ years post burn.

A B

17

State Wildlife Grants Program 2008 $125,347 Department of Environmental Protection 2008 $24,990 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2008 $24,990 Division of Forestry 2009 $24,990 *Tall Timbers Research Station All in-kind

* Tall Timbers Research Station provides in-kind support through office and administrative support for the UERP Coordinator. Additionally, Tall Timbers only collects overhead on the State Wildlife Grants. The Upland Ecosystem Restoration Project has met numerous goals and strategies

outlined in Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Specifically, the project

has increased cooperation, coordination and communication among federal and state land

management agencies, NGO’s, stakeholders, and private entities (CWCS: 45); increased

prescribed fire applied to the landscape (CWCS: 52); implemented new and enhanced cooperative

conservation actions (CWCS: 46); improved and refined management practices for priority

habitats (adaptive management) (CWCS: 49); developed species and habitat monitoring (CWCS:

49) and : reduced habitat loss and fragmentation (CWCS: 52).

To promote the message of UERP, the UERP Coordinator and the Project Director gave

numerous talks and presentations throughout the state to a variety of groups. These included

meetings with the Acquisition and Restoration Council, North Florida Prescribed Fire

Conference, FWC field meetings, Audubon Society, FWC Commissioners and Quail Unlimited.

The UERP Coordinator and Project Director held annual meetings with Legacy staff (Kate Haley

and Brian Branciforte) to provide an overview of UERP’s most

recent accomplishments and discuss ways UERP can assist and

better coordinate with the Legacy Initiative. A quarterly

newsletter (The UERP Report) and website also were created to

keep everyone up-to-date on our progress, challenges and future

planning. Developed an informative poster that details UERP

activities for individual focal properties (Figure 8). Figure 8. UERP Informative Poster.

18

The posters are displayed in a kiosk are located at the main entrance of each focal area.

Development has been a cooperative effort among agencies and private organizations/companies

(QU & Monsanto Company. Additionally, UERP was highlighted in 2 newspaper articles (The

News-Journal and Palm Beach Post), as well as a feature article in the September 2007 issue of

Florida Wildlife Magazine.

Private Lands

The GIS modeling identified parcels with significant acreage of habitats aligned with the

goals of UERP, including Dry Prairie, Pinelands, mixed Pine-Hardwood forest, Shrub and

Brushlands, Grasslands, and Clearcuts (Figure 9). The size of these habitats within parcels were

used to rank parcels into 3 categories, high (>500 acres of priority habitats within an ownership

parcel), medium (200-500 acres of priority habitats within an ownership parcel) and low (< 200

acres of priority habitats within an ownership parcel). Considering limitations of time and funds

to address conservation needs on private lands, the model targets ownership parcels > 200 acres

of priority habitats.

Figure 9. Statewide focal counties identified by the UERP private lands committee and their habitat suitability index.

19

Across all ownerships, 1.3 million acres of high priority habitats were identified in

parcels > 500 acres across the 11 focal counties, 161,000 acres of high priority habitats in

medium parcels (200-500) and 396,000 acres of high priority habitats in small parcels (<200

acres). By targeting parcel ownerships with high and medium ranking patches of priority habitats

results in addressing 2.4% of the total number of parcels > 5 acres in size. In most counties this

includes <100 landowners, both public and private. Pinelands and dry prairie habitats were the

most prevalent community types in the high and medium ranking parcel layer, encompassing

some 70% of potential for UERP focal species. Maps of the 3 UERP focal areas with associated

parcels help to identify key landowners juxtaposed with UERP public land focal areas (Figure

11).

DISCUSSION

Public Land

The state of Florida, through its Florida Forever Program, has protected millions of acres

of upland habitats from development. However, management of these imperiled upland grassland

communities has most often lacked attention to sustain ecosystem function and diversity. Over

100 species of upland plants and animals have been identified in Florida’s Comprehensive

Wildlife Conservation Strategy as species of greatest conservation need. These include imperiled

species such as red-cockaded woodpecker, grasshopper sparrow, loggerhead shrike, Bachman’s

Figure 11. Private landowner parcels with 200 – 500, and > 500 acres of high priority habitats surrounding UERP public land focal areas on Three Lakes Wildlife Management Area, Myakka River State Park, and Blackwater River State Forest.

20

sparrow, and gopher tortoise, as well as other declining and once common species such as

northern bobwhite and eastern meadowlark. The majority of these species are hypersensitive to

time since last burn and the lack of habitat management. Moreover, grassland birds have

witnessed population declines that surpass those exhibited by any other suite of avian species in

North America (Brennan and Kuvlesky 2005). Historic burn intervals for Florida’s grassland

habitats ranged from 1- 3 years (Butler et al. 2009), while current intervals used by land

management agencies are much longer, ranging from 3 – 5 years (Main and Richardson 2002,

Palmer et al. 2004). Within these highly sensitive grassland habitats, a 1-year difference in fire

intervals can have dramatic effects on vegetative characteristics over long time periods. In

addition, fire frequency at the upper end of the interval is too long to maintain suitable habitat for

fire-dependent species.

When faced with budget and logistical constraints, agencies need to prioritize between

investing in efforts to increase wildlife populations through increased land management or

completing other agency priorities. For instance, if the choice must be made between burning a

site with a 2-year interval or a 5-year interval, it is always better to burn the 2-year site. As

mentioned above, the difference between a 2 and 3-year interval can have a dramatic impact on

many species, but the difference between a 5 and 6-year interval is negligible since the habitat is

already unsuitable for the majority of species. Without prioritizing land management to benefit

wildlife populations many species could be lost due to a policy of benign neglect.

Private Lands

Encouraging private landowners to assist with the objectives of UERP and the CWCS is a

challenging task given available resources and the difficulties of changing landowner behavior.

We wanted to identify landowners that potentially had significant habitat resources at a scale that

could permit managing for populations of UERP focal species, such as fox squirrel and northern

bobwhite. Further, larger patches should be more robust to edge effects than smaller patches and

less likely to have lost significant species do to random chance. Therefore, as a first cut, we

21

identified landowners with > 200 acres of habitat within their ownership. The GIS modeling

provides a straightforward filter that identifies landowner with potentially significant habitats.

Private lands biologists for UERP or other agencies, can now target landowners with

significant resources and, armed with information gleaned from landowner workshops conducted

by UFL, determine the potential for habitat restoration. Ideally, biologists would begin with

landowners bordering UERP sites, or near other patches of high quality habitat. In counties

without public land projects targeting UERP focal species, biologists could conduct cluster

analyses to determine where “cooperatives” would be most likely to succeed.

The potential of private landowners to provide suitable habitat for focal wildlife species

varied by county. Several large landowners own much of the potential habitat surrounding Three

Lakes WMA UERP Focal Area and large landscapes of high quality habitat could be developed

there. This is opposite of Santa Rosa and Okaloosa counties, were very few landowners have

significant acres of habitat surrounding the Blackwater River State Forest UERP site. Therefore,

some counties could benefit from increased activity from private lands programs.

Of all the potential UERP habitat types ranked high, dry prairie and pinelands have a

huge potential for reversing declines of focal species. Well over 1 million acres were identified

in the 11 counties. While much of this acreage was on public lands, over a quarter of a million

acres of large patches (> 200 acres) were in private hands. Almost certainly, these lands have

suffered from fire suppression and excessive timber density. With programs focused on these

two important habitat types, Florida could make great strides in increasing declining species

identified in the CWCS. Conversely, sandhill makes up a very small percentage of habitats on

private lands in relatively large parcels. While sandhill is an important habitat type that requires

special conservation actions and is locally important, in general it does not exist on a scale on the

majority of private lands that will likely benefit wildlife populations to the level that dry prairie

and pinelands could. While the GIS modeling has been conducted under the UERP framework, it

22

should be useful to other private lands programs focused on issues, perhaps at different scales or

in different habitat types.

CONCLUSION

Public Land

Changes in land use and incompatible land management have resulted in steep declines

of numerous wildlife species. Our results demonstrate that a coordinated effort was needed to

prioritize, design and implement large-scale restoration strategies to restore upland grassland

ecosystems and the wildlife species dependent upon them. The Upland Ecosystem Restoration

Project has become the catalyst for restoration activities statewide, assisting agencies with

evaluation of restoration sites, planning and implementing restoration actions, and creating

private-NGO-public partnerships to help fund increased land management. Prior to UERP,

restoration of public land was driven by an agency center focus, rather then a state-wide view of

the issues. UERP provided more focused attention on land management to meet wildlife needs,

facilitated communication within and among agencies, demonstrated that all agencies are linked

together in land management and the importance of planning across multi-agency landholdings.

As the project evolved and gained momentum, UERP’s message of frequent fire and

active land management has taken root among agencies, NGO’s and the public throughout the

state. While this has been a huge bridge to cross, UERP’s message is getting through that

restoration of these imperiled upland ecosystems require increased fire frequency, as well as

active management to sustain ecosystem function and diversity.

In the short-term, UERP continues to undertake restoration projects on more than 70,000

acres of publicly-owned uplands where frequent fire and the appropriate land management are

needed to sustain diversity, function, and wildlife. In the long-term, UERP will serve as a

blueprint for enhancement of species dependent on upland grassland communities. This project

demonstrates an unprecedented coordinated effort to rejuvenate grassland communities for

23

multiple conservation objectives, reduce wildfires, produce clean air and water, and make outdoor

experiences more enjoyable.

Private Land The pilot approach developed to help identify private landowners of conservation interest

within a focal conservation region appears to be a successful approach and has benefits beyond

the scope of UERP. Utilizing this system, which could be tailored to different regions of the

state, it provides information on which lands have the greatest potential to recover focal species,

what habitats and management could ultimately serve as a template for additional conservation

planning.

The limited amount of time the private lands coordinator was able to put toward the grant

goals was a function of both structural and personal issues. The private land UERP position was

located at the UFL - IFAS county office level and was officially a county extension position. In

theory this was a good thing, however, demands on the coordinators time to conduct training and

extension for UFL - IFAS outside the goals of the UERP project fractured the coordinators time.

In the future, a private lands UERP position at UFL should be carefully administered and

designed to provide the time and independence to conduct state-wide planning.

24

Literature Cited Brennan, L.A., and W.P. Kuvlesky. 2005. North American grassland birds: an unfolding conservation crisis? Journal of Wildlife Management 43: 807 – 811.

Brennan, L. A., R. T. Engstrom, W. E. Palmer, S. M. Herman, G. A. Hurst, L. W. Burger, and C. L. Hardy. 1998. Whither wildlife without fire? North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference Proceedings 63:402-414.

Butler, A. B., J. A. Martin, W. E. Palmer, and J. P. Carroll. 2009. Winter use of south

Florida dry prairie by two declining grassland passerines. Condor (in press) Cox, J, R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the Gaps in Florida's

Wildlife Habitat Conservation System. Technical Report. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. 276 pp.

Engstrom, R. T. and W. E. Palmer. 2003. Two species in one ecosystem: Management of Northern Bobwhite and Red-cockaded woodpecker in the Red Hills. Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR 191.

FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2005. Florida’s Wildlife

Legacy Initiative. http://www.wildflorida.org/swg/. Gordon, D., D. Shaw, and E. Contreras. 2005. Problems adversely affecting Florida’s

wildlife habitats and species of greatest conservation need. The Nature Conservancy, Gainesville, FL.

Main, M.B., and L.W. Richardson. 2002. Response of wildlife to prescribed fire in southwest Florida pine Flatwoods. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 213 – 221.

Palmer, W. E. 2002. Penisular Florida – BCR 31 in Dimmick, R.W., M.J. Gudlin, and

D.F. McKenzie, eds. The northern bobwhite conservation initiative. Miscellaneous publication of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, South Carolina. 96 pp.

Palmer, W. E., K. M. Robertson, R. E. Masters. 2004. The culture of fire in the South.

North American Wildlife Resource Conference. 69. Palmer, W. E. 2004. Bobwhite Response to NBCI-Based Habitat Prescriptions on

Rangelands. Grant Funded. USDA-NRCS. Tanner, G.W., and W.R. Marion. 1990. Wildlife habitat considerations when burning and

chopping Florida range. Cooperative Florida Extension Service Fact Sheet WRS-6.