Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ST. JOHNS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Brevard County, Florida
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
June 2011
St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 7
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 7
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 8
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 9
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines,
and Other Special Considerations ...................................................................................... 9
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ....................................... 10
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................... 10
North American Bird Conservation Initiative ..................................................................... 11
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................ 12
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 15
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 15
Refuge Purposes and History ..................................................................................................... 15
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 16
landscape Context ...................................................................................................................... 17
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 21
Recovery Plans ................................................................................................................. 21
State Wildlife Action Plan .................................................................................................. 24
Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan ........................................................ 24
Florida Natural Areas Inventory ........................................................................................ 24
Florida Forever Program ................................................................................................... 25
Preservation 2000 ............................................................................................................. 25
Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP) and the
Cooperative Conservation Blueprint (CCB) ...................................................................... 25
Brevard County Environmentally Endangered lands Program .......................................... 26
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 26
Potential Effects of Climate Change ................................................................................. 28
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 29
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 29
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 30
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 31
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 32
Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 33
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 34
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 35
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 35
Native Wildlife ................................................................................................................... 46
Non-Native and Invasive Species ..................................................................................... 63
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 65
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 67
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 70
ii St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 70
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 71
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 71
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 75
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 75
Public Involvement in the Planning Process .............................................................................. 75
Scoping of Issues and Concerns ................................................................................................ 76
Issues ........................................................................................................................................ 77
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 77
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 79
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 79
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 80
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 81
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 81
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 81
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 82
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 82
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 97
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 102
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 111
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 113
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 113
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 113
Wildlife and Habitat Management ................................................................................... 114
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 117
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 119
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 121
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 122
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ...................................................................................... 125
Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 125
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 126
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 126
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 129
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 129
Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 129
Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 129
Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 130
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 130
Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 130
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 131
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 133
Table of Contents iii
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 135
Formulation of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 135
Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 135
Alternative A - (Current Management - No Action) ......................................................... 135
Alternative B - Management for Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species ............... 137
Alternative C - Enhanced Wildlife and habitat Diversity (Proposed Alternative) ............. 141
Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 144
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ............................................... 145
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 146
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................................................... 161
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 161
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 161
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 161
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 161
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 162
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 163
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 163
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 163
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 164
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 164
Alternative A - (Current Management - No Action) ......................................................... 164
Alternative B - Management for Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species ............... 167
Alternative C - Enhanced Wildlife and Habitat Diversity (Proposed Alternative) ............. 169
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 184
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 184
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 184
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 185
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 185
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 185
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 186
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 186
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 187
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 188
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................................... 189
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 189
Wildlife and Habitat Management Review and Visitor Services Review Team ........................ 189
Wilderness Review Team ......................................................................................................... 189
Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team ...................................................................... 190
Public Scoping Meetings .......................................................................................................... 191
CCP Core Team ....................................................................................................................... 191
iv St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 193
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS .................................................... 203
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 213
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 227
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 227
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 229
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 243
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 259
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 269
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 271
APPENDIX J. MINOR EXPANSION PROPOSAL - LAND PROTECTION PLAN .......................... 287
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 295
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Merritt Island NWR Complex Map - Management Boundaries ............................................ 2
Figure 2. Location of St. Johns NWR Management Units .................................................................. 3
Figure 3. Land Status – State Road 50 Management Unit ................................................................. 4
Figure 4. Land Status - Bee Line Management Unit ........................................................................... 5
Figure 5. Land Status - Bee Line Management Unit Checkerboard ................................................... 6
Figure 6. Continental U.S. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) ..................................... 20
Figure 7. Peninsular Florida Landscape Conservation Cooperative ................................................. 22
Figure 8. Conservation Lands in the Vicinity of St. Johns NWR ....................................................... 23
Figure 9. Land Cover - State Road 50 Unit ....................................................................................... 41
Figure 10. Land Cover - Bee Line Unit ............................................................................................... 42
Figure 11. Fire Management Units - State Road 50 Unit .................................................................... 43
Figure 12. Fire Management Units - Bee Line Unit ............................................................................. 44
Figure 13. Merritt Island NWR Complex Organizational Chart ........................................................... 74
Figure 14. Minor Expansion Proposal – St. Johns NWR .................................................................. 100
Figure 15. Proposed Trail System – Bee Line Unit ........................................................................... 105
Figure 16. Proposed Trail System – SR 50 Unit ............................................................................... 106
Figure 17. Proposed Organizational Chart for Merritt Island NWR Complex with
St. Johns NWR Additions ............................................................................................... 127
Figure 18. St. Johns NWR Minor Expansion Proposal – Proposed Priority Levels .......................... 292
vi St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. 2007 Air quality statistics by County ..................................................................................... 36
Table 2. Approximate acreage of major habitat types of the St. Johns NWR ..................................... 39
Table 3. Listed Species that may occur on the St. Johns NWR ......................................................... 48
Table 4. Non-native species (potentially) occurring on the St. Johns NWR ....................................... 65
Table 5. Population trends of cities and residential areas near the St. Johns NWR. ......................... 67
Table 6. Projected population growth of resident and area counties. ................................................. 68
Table 7. 2006-2008 Demographics of Brevard County in comparison to Florida
and the United States .......................................................................................................... 69
Table 8. Summary of projects ........................................................................................................... 123
Table 9. St. Johns NWR step-down management plans .................................................................. 126
Table 10. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for St. Johns NWR ........................... 146
Table 11. Summary of environmental effects by alternative for St. Johns NWR ............................... 173
Table 12. Protection priorities for the proposed expansion and recommended
methods of acquisition ....................................................................................................... 291
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
Located on the floodplain of the Upper St. Johns River Basin in Brevard County in east-central
Florida in Titusville, St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is managed as a satellite refuge of
the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Figure 1). St. Johns NWR is managed by the
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as part of the National Wildlife Refuge System, which includes
more than 550 national wildlife refuges and related units and over 150 million acres. The refuge is
unstaffed and is composed of two management units: the 2,016-acre Bee Line Unit (Figure 2), and
the 4,241-acre State Road (SR) 50 Unit, which includes the 31-acre Fox Lake Tract. At the SR 50
Unit (Figure 3), the Service manages most of the lands and waters within the acquisition boundary.
However, this is not the case at the Bee Line Unit (Figure 4), where a number of tracts are privately
held. Those properties of the Bee Line Unit that are not part of the larger contiguous portion (which
are generally located to the south of the main portion of this unit) are commonly referred to as the
Checkerboard and total roughly 1,116 acres (Figure 5), where the Service owns and manages
roughly 507 acres. St. Johns NWR’s management boundary represents 6,257 acres while the its
approved acquisition boundary represents 6,757 acres.
St. Johns NWR was established on August 16, 1971, to provide habitat for threatened and
endangered species, specifically for the conservation of the dusky seaside sparrow (Ammodramus
maritimus nigrescens). By 1979, surveys determined that the dusky seaside sparrow had declined to
less than 20 male birds. The last known sighting of this species in the wild was in 1980. Despite the
loss of the dusky seaside sparrow, at least 19 federal and state listed species, and species of
management concern, are known to occur at St. Johns NWR today, including four federally listed
wildlife species: wood stork (Mycteria americana) – endangered; Northern crested caracara
(Caracara cheriway) – threatened; eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) – threatened;
and American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) – threatened, by similarity of appearance.
Supporting these and other imperiled species as well as native wildlife diversity are St. Johns NWR’s
dominant habitat class – wetlands. Wetlands including cordgrass (Spartina bakerii) marsh and mixed
shrub wetlands, and forested wetlands including cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) hammocks
combined with other wetland and forested wetland habitat types cover over 90 percent of the refuge.
Only 3 percent of the refuge’s native habitat is upland.
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for St.
Johns NWR was prepared to guide management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and
wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will
be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of
the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
The Service developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the refuge and
that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA describe the
Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and their effects on the environment.
The Draft CCP/EA will be made available to local, state, and federal government agencies,
conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment. Comments from each entity will
be considered in the development of the final CCP.
2 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Merritt Island NWR Complex Map - management boundaries
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
Figure 2. Location of St. Johns NWR management units
4 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Land Status - State Road 50 management unit
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
Figure 4. Land Status - Bee Line management unit
6 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Land Status - Bee Line management unit checkerboard
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge’s
purposes; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife
Refuge System mission; addresses key problems, issues, and relevant mandates; and is consistent
with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and
 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally back to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and
enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people
through Federal programs relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and
marine mammals, and inland sport fisheries (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 550 national wildlife refuges and other units
covering over 150 million acres (60.7 million hectares [ha]). These areas comprise the National
Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set aside specifically for
fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million acres (31 million ha), is in Alaska, while 54
million acres (21.8 million ha) are part of three marine national monuments in the Pacific Ocean. The
remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United States territories. In
addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, 37 wetland management
districts, 70 national fish hatcheries, 65 fishery resource offices, and 81 ecological services field
stations. The Service enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act,
manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores
wildlife habitat, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the
8 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and
hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System
(Refuge System). Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation,
including an effort to complete comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which
are completed with full public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by
establishing natural resources and recreation/education programs. Consistent with this Improvement
Act, approved plans will serve as the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The
Improvement Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
 Allow refuge managers authority to determine compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret (Egretta thula) and the brown pelican (Pelecanus
occidentalis). Western refuges were established for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned
antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after over-hunting, competition with cattle, and
natural disasters decimated once-abundant herds. The drought conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl
severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great
Depression focused on waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s
heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes protection of wintering
habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service had begun to
focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
National wildlife refuges connect visitors to their natural resource heritage and provide them with an
understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology to help them understand their role in the
environment. Wildlife-dependent recreation on refuges also generates economic benefits to local
communities. According to the report, Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local
Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, approximately 34.8 million people visited national
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
wildlife refuges in Fiscal Year 2006, generating almost $1.7 billion in total economic activity and
creating almost 27,000 private sector jobs producing about $542.8 million in employment income
(Carver and Caudill 2007). Additionally, recreational spending on refuges generated nearly $185.3
million in tax revenue at the local, county, state, and federal levels (Carver and Caudill 2007). As the
number of visitors grows, significant economic benefits are realized by local communities. In 2006,
nearly 87 million people 16 years and older fished (30 million), hunted (12.5 million), or observed
wildlife (71 million), generating $120 billion (U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2007).
In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent in 7 years. At the same
time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 per refuge, up from 87
jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15 refuges in the study were
Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois); Eufaula (Alabama); Charles
M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas); Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper
Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna Atacosa (Texas); Horicon
(Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River (Louisiana) the same
refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief that communities near
refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million
per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each federal dollar spent on the Refuge
System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related
income (Caudill and Laughland, unpublished data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2005,
approximately 38,000 refuge volunteers donated more than 1.4 million hours. The value of their
service was more than $25 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System should serve as a model for
habitat management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a
process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every
15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
LEGAL MANDATES, ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY GUIDELINES, AND OTHER SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
10 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System
and management of the St. Johns NWR are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation between
St. Johns NWR and other partners, such as the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Florida Division of Forestry (FDOF),
St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and private landowners, etc.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is one that, in
the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates
are to:
 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management.
BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans (601 FW 3). The Biological Integrity Policy is an additional directive for
refuge managers to follow while achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It
provides for the consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat
resources found on refuges and associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate
management direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound professional judgment to
determine their refuges’ contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at
multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of
refuge resources, the conservation role of the refuge within a landscape, applicable laws, and best
available science, including consultation with others both inside and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP/EA.
This Draft CCP/EA supports several national and international conservation plans and initiatives,
including five plans under the North American Bird Conservation Initiative and the National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan.
NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
Started in 1999, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government
agencies, private organizations, academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United
States, Canada, and Mexico, working to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird
populations by fostering an integrated approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats.
The four international and national bird initiatives to which the refuge contributes include the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas,
and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an international action plan to conserve
migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is to return waterfowl populations to their
1970s’ levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the United States signed the
plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly
continental effort. The plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state and municipal governments,
non-governmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all working towards
achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species
and people. Plan projects are international in scope, but implemented at regional levels. These
projects contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the North American
landscape. In support of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Refuge provides
wintering habitat for eight species of waterfowl and year-round habitat for the resident mottled duck.
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan
Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan, the peninsular Florida
physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird conservation planning effort that
ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, primarily non-game land
birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in conservation efforts, and many
are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory, and focuses on
relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the
frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations. In support of the Partners-in-Flight Bird
Conservation Plan, the refuge’s hammocks and upland forests attract and sustain neotropical
migratory birds on their long journeys north and south every spring and fall.
Waterbird Conservation of the Americas – North American and Southeast Regional Waterbird
Conservation Plans
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan provides a framework for the conservation and
management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird populations include
destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive species, pollutants,
mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from abundant species.
Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas, marshes, forested
12 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are federally listed,
including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior
least terns, and gulf coast populations of brown pelicans, with wood storks occurring on the refuge. A
key objective of this plan is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend
effective conservation measures for waterbirds including wood storks.
The Southeast Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan provides regional guidance and perspectives
to partners, landowners, and land managers for accomplishing waterbird conservation objectives.
The plan provides a link between the national level North American Waterbird Conservation Plan and
local conservation initiatives. It outlines a framework through which partners can identify and develop
projects that build upon existing information to move waterbird conservation forward at both the
regional and continental scale. The St. Johns NWR is located in the Peninsular Florida Bird
Conservation Region (BCR) and supports this plan by providing important habitat for many species of
waterbirds, including wading birds, shorebirds, rails, and bitterns.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort throughout the United States to ensure that
stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird species are restored and protected. The plan was
developed by a wide range of agencies, organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the
country, and identifies conservation goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and
proposed education and outreach programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they
face. As noted just above, the St. Johns NWR lies within the Peninsular Florida BCR, a part of the
Southeastern Coastal Plain Region. The refuge’s wetland systems support transient migratory shorebirds
during both northbound (spring) and southbound (fall) movements.
National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan
The objective of the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan (NWPCP) is to assist agencies in
focusing their acquisition efforts on the more important, scarce and vulnerable wetlands in the Nation.
The NWPCP may also be used to establish priorities for wetlands protection that do not involve
acquisition. The NWPCP applies only to wetlands that would be acquired by federal agencies, and
states using Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) appropriations. In general, wetlands given
priority consideration for acquisition under the NWPCP will be those that provide a high degree of
public benefit, that are representative of rare or declining wetland types within an ecoregion, and that
are subject to identifiable threats of loss or degradation. Threshold criteria to be considered in
determining acquisition priorities include functions and values of wetlands, historic wetland losses,
and threat of future wetland losses. The NWPCP could play an important role in future St. Johns
NWR acquisition efforts as all federal funding used to acquire St. Johns NWR lands has come from
and would be anticipated to continue through federal LWCF appropriations. Further, the refuge
meets the threshold criteria for NWCPC consideration as remnant salt pan/cord grass marshes are
considered highly functional rare wetland habitat types that have been reduced over time indirectly
through alterations in hydrology and directly through conversion to agriculture and urban settings.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of Florida.
State agency partners of the St. Johns NWR include the FWC, FDEP, FDOF, and SJRWMD.
Management of state fish and wildlife resources is administered by FWC and FDEP for the long-term
well-being and benefit of people. FWC protects and manages more than 575 species of wildlife,
more than 200 native species of freshwater fish, and more than 500 native species of saltwater fish,
while balancing these species’ needs with the needs of more than 18 million residents (U.S. Census
Bureau 2007), and over 85 million annual visitors (Florida Department of Transportation 2008) who
share the land and water with Florida’s wildlife.
The FWC responsibilities include the listed items.
 Law Enforcement – to protect fish and wildlife, keep waterways safe for millions of boaters
and cooperate with other law enforcement agencies providing homeland security.
 Research – to provide information for the FWC and others to make management decisions
based on the best science available involving fish and wildlife populations, habitat issues, and
the human-dimension aspects of conservation.
 Management – to manage the state’s fish and wildlife resources based on the latest scientific
data to conserve some of the most complex and delicate ecosystems in the world along with a
wide diversity of species.
 Outreach – to communicate with a variety of audiences to encourage participation,
responsible citizenship and stewardship of the state’s natural resources.
FWC, FDEP, and FDOF manage state lands and waters. FWC manages 4.3 million acres (1.7
million ha) of public lands and 220,000 acres (89,030 ha) of private lands for recreation and
conservation purposes. FDEP manages 150 state parks covering nearly 600,000 acres (242,811 ha)
and 57 coastal and aquatic managed areas, totaling over five million acres (two million ha) of
submerged lands and coastal uplands. FDOF manages over one million acres of State Forests in
Florida for multiple public uses including timber, recreation, and wildlife habitat. Operating from 15
field units throughout the state, FDOF maintains a mission to protect and manage the forest
resources of Florida, ensuring that they are available for future generations. Wildfire prevention and
suppression are key components in FDOF’s efforts.
Florida is divided into five water management districts to preserve and manage the state’s critical
freshwater resources. As an agency of the State of Florida, the SJRWMD is a government entity that
is responsible for “balancing people’s needs for water with nature’s needs.” SJRWMD manages
groundwater and surface water supplies in all or part of 18 counties in northeast and east-central
Florida, and issues permits that regulate water withdrawals and limits how various activities, such as
construction, can impact water resources.
14 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
The SJRWMD is responsible for managing ground and surface water supplies in all or part of 18
counties in northeast and east-central Florida. It owns or manages nearly 700,000 acres (280,000
ha) of land, over 260,000 acres of which are in the Upper St. Johns River Basin, acquired for the
purposes of water management, water supply, and the conservation and protection of water
resources. These lands largely consist of wetlands or historically wet areas. Of less acreage, but not
of less importance, are uplands areas. The SJRWMD also conducts a wide range of inventorying,
monitoring, and researching on the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water resources
and conducts outreach and public education programs. As part of its efforts to protect water
resources, the SJRWMD buys and manages land. As a result, vegetation and wildlife that live on
these lands are also protected and the public can enjoy recreational and educational activities. Land
management plans are prepared for each district conservation area, and practices such as invasive
species control and prescribed fire are utilized (SJRWMD 2009).
Various state government agencies have participated in a mix of refuge projects, including the
planning process to develop a 15-year management plan for the refuge. The State of Florida’s
participation and contribution throughout this CCP process will provide for ongoing opportunities and
open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State of Florida. An
essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common mission objectives
where appropriate.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Established on August 16, 1971, to provide habitat for threatened and endangered species,
especially the now extinct dusky seaside sparrow, St. Johns NWR is in Brevard County in east-central
Florida. Lying in the Upper St. Johns River Basin, the 6,257-acre refuge is managed as a
satellite of the Merritt Island NWR Complex (Figure 1). While the St. Johns NWR itself is not staffed,
staff from Merritt Island NWR Complex conducts management activities on this refuge. It is divided
into two main management units: SR 50 Unit (4,210 acres plus 31 acres at the Fox Lake Tract) and
Bee Line Unit (2,016 acres) (Figure 2).
REFUGE PURPOSES AND HISTORY
The refuge was established in August, 1971, to provide protection for threatened and endangered
species and native diversity. The primary purpose of the refuge relates to threatened and
endangered species and applies to all lands and waters managed as part of St. Johns NWR: “…to
conserve (A) fish or wildlife, which are listed as endangered species or threatened species…or (B)
plants…” (16 U.S.C. 1534, Endangered Species Act). A secondary purpose focuses more on native
diversity and also applies to a few tracts: “…conservation, management, and restoration of the fish,
wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans…” 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2), National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act.
Establishment of the St. Johns NWR was in response to a serious decline of the dusky seaside
sparrow (Ammodramus maritimus nigrescens). Although this species was discovered on the St.
Johns River marshes in 1872 by Maynard (Trost 1968), this area was long neglected, since the birds
were plentiful on Merritt Island. In the spring of 1968, Brian Sharp conducted a census of the St.
Johns River’s marshes and estimated 894 males were present (Sharp 1970). The salt marshes of
Merritt Island once contained hundreds of dusky seaside sparrows, but the conversion of high marsh
to impoundments by Brevard County Mosquito Control District caused a drastic reduction in their
numbers. The species was formally listed as an Endangered Species in 1967.
A two-pronged approach of working with the Mosquito Control District to alter the management of key
impoundments and purchasing marsh lands along the St. Johns River were viewed as the best
approach to saving the species. On Merritt Island NWR, the key impoundments were T-10-J, T-10-K,
and T-24-C. The first acquisition for the refuge was on August 16, 1971, when 9.3 acres were
purchased for $2,174. Approximately $2.9 million have been expended to acquire the acreage of the
refuge. For all practical purposes, the land acquisition program ended in 1980, with the most recent
parcel acquired in calendar year 2000 through donation.
After establishment of the refuge, the Service began management activities. Field studies included
vegetation mapping and color banding of the individual sparrows. It was determined that the territory
of each nesting pair was approximately 1.3 acres and that only 400 acres of habitat within the
acquisition boundary were in optimum habitat. Management actions during the ensuing years
included: installing gates and barricades to keep wildfires and dumping under control, placing fill dirt
back in ditches, controlling woody vegetation with herbicide, using temporary workers to cut woody
vegetation, and implementing a formal fire management program. On Merritt Island NWR, the
Mosquito Control District agreed to remove the dike around T-10-K. The Service paid for the work,
which began in 1973 and concluded in 1979.
16 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
A formal recovery team was established in 1975, with Dr. Jim Baker as the team leader. The team
submitted a draft recovery plan in 1976 and the recovery plan was approved in 1979. It was also in
1979 that a captive breeding program was started.
Even as dusky seaside sparrow surveys continued on the lands within the acquisition boundary, their
population dropped precipitously. Their numbers decreased from 143 males in 1970 to 37 males in
1974. No reproduction has been documented since 1975. Many factors worked in concert to cause
habitat decline within the river’s high marshes. Ditching activities, road construction, and
development altered water levels and hydro-period. Drier conditions accelerated brush
encroachment and facilitated the extensive wildfires, which occurred during the nesting season.
These wildfires were the most important factor in habitat decline and the species’ final demise.
By 1983, it seemed to be too late for the dusky. Internal discussions within the Service began to
focus on what to do with the refuge. One popular option was to transfer it to the St. Johns River
Water Management District. This state agency had begun to acquire floodplain along the river.
Congress passed the Emergency Wetlands Resource Act in 1986, which included a reference to the
importance of conserving wetlands associated with the St. Johns River. This added emphasis
solidified the resolve to keep the refuge as part of the Refuge System.
In 1988 a series of priority actions were formulated for the refuge. They included: complete the
acquisition in the south part of the Bee Line Unit, since 60 percent of the lots were already
purchased; restore drainage to natural patterns where possible; phase out cattle grazing; and remove
non-essential roads and fences. These actions were in addition to a viable prescribed fire program.
Also in 1988, plans were finalized to perform mitigation on the refuge for the Florida Department of
Transportation. This mitigation was needed to obtain environmental permits for the widening of SR
50. The refuge agreed to fill certain ditches west of Hacienda Road, install larger and more culverts
in Hacienda Road, and replant the sites to native vegetation. This began in 1990. Sadly, all of this
was too late to save the dusky seaside sparrow, which was officially declared extinct in 1990.
Since that time, cattle have been determined to be incompatible (Holder et al. 1980; Hill 1994) and
have been removed from the refuge. Brevard County has identified the inholdings of the Bee Line
Unit as a part of its acquisition program under the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program. The
prescribed fire program continues to be the priority land management activity on the refuge.
In 1997 the refuge adopted the following mission statement:
 Restore and maintain remnant salt marsh habitat adjacent to the St. Johns River to maintain
biodiversity and benefit all native plant and wildlife species;
 Provide habitat and management for migratory birds; and
 Provide breeding habitat for species of special concern, including black rail (Laterallus
jamaicensis), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and eastern meadowlark (Sturnella
magna).
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
At this time, St. Johns NWR does not include any areas under special federal designation. This includes
congressionally designated or proposed wilderness areas, oil and gas activities, wild and scenic rivers,
research natural areas, or demonstration areas. The refuge does maintain special State of Florida
designation as an Outstanding Florida Water and is classified as a Globally Important Bird Area.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Outstanding Florida Waters
Pursuant to Section 403.061(27), Florida Statutes, FDEP is granted the authority to establish rules
which provide for a special category of water bodies within the state, to be referred to as “Outstanding
Florida Waters” (OFWs), which shall be worthy of special protection because of their natural
attributes. For their exceptional ecological value and water quality, Florida’s national wildlife refuges
are included in the list of waters designated as OFWs. As an OFW, St. Johns NWR is protected by
FDEP’s permitting process from direct pollutant discharges that would lower ambient (existing) water
quality or for indirect discharges which would significantly degrade the OFW (FDEP 2009).
Important Bird Area
The Important Bird Area (IBA) Program is part of a global effort to conserve bird populations by
identifying and properly managing their habitats. IBAs are sites that provide essential habitat for one
or more species of birds, including sites for breeding, wintering, and/or migrating birds. To qualify as
an IBA, sites must satisfy at least one of the listed criteria. The site must support:
 Species of conservation concern (e.g., threatened and endangered species);
 Restricted-ranges species (species vulnerable because they are not widely distributed);
 Species that are vulnerable because their populations are concentrated in one general habitat
type or biome; and/or
 Species, or groups of similar species (e.g., waterfowl or shorebirds), that are vulnerable
because they occur at high densities due to their congregatory behavior (National Audubon
Society 2010a).
St. Johns NWR is classified as a Globally Important Bird Area, especially for its support of black rails
(National Audubon Society 2010b).
LANDSCAPE CONTEXT
Ecosystem management is an integrated, flexible approach to management of biological and physical
environments – conducted through the use of tools such as planning, land acquisition, environmental
education, regulation, and pollution prevention – designed to maintain, protect, and improve the
ecosystem’s natural, managed, and human communities. Strategic habitat conservation (SHC) is a
science-based framework for making management decisions about where and how to deliver
conservation efficiently to achieve specific biological outcomes. This framework helps resource
managers to plan, implement, and evaluate conservation methods. A series of landscape
conservation cooperatives (Figure 6) or conservation partnerships among the Service, USGS, other
federal agencies, states, tribes, non-governmental agencies, universities, and stakeholders will
provide the geographic framework to deliver SHC. Together, cooperatives will provide information to
better resource management decisions and address national-scale stressors—including habitat
fragmentation, genetic isolation, spread of invasive species, and water scarcity—all of which are
accelerated by climate change.
18 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
Strategic Habitat Conservation
In the face of escalating challenges, such as land-use conversion, invasive species, water scarcity,
and a range of other complex issues, the effects of which may be amplified by accelerated climate
change, the Service embarked several years ago to develop a broader vision for conservation.
Through a cooperative effort culminating in the 2006 National Ecological Assessment Team Report, the
Service and USGS outlined a unifying adaptive resource management approach for conservation at
“landscape” scales—the entire range of a priority species or suite of species. Known as SHC, it is a
business philosophy that requires set biological goals for priority species populations, allows strategic
decision-making, and encourages constant reassessment and improvement—all critical steps in dealing
with large-scale conservation challenges and the uncertainty of accelerated climate change.
SHC is a national geographic framework for implementing landscape conservation envisioned to
provide an effective spatial frame of reference to build capacity and partnerships for conservation.
This geographic framework provides a continental platform upon which the Service can work with
partners to connect project and site-specific efforts to larger biological goals and outcomes.
The 22 geographic areas comprising the framework (Figure 6) were developed by aggregating Bird
Conservation Regions (BCRs), biologically based units representing long-standing partnerships that
facilitate conservation planning and design at landscape scales. BCRs can be partitioned into
smaller ecological units when finer-scale planning and design are necessary. The geographic areas
also incorporate Freshwater Ecoregions of the World as a standard unit for aquatic species
considerations—the same framework adopted by the National Fish Habitat Action Plan—as well as
existing ecological units (Omernik’s Level II) to account for a variety of terrestrial species’ needs. In
most geographic areas, the boundaries of key partnerships are left intact to conserve existing
conservation and science capacities.
The Service uses the framework as a base geography to locate the first generation of Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs). LCCs are conservation-science partnerships between the
Service, federal agencies, states, tribes, non-governmental organizations, universities, and other
entities. They are fundamental units of planning and science capacity to help carry out the functional
elements of SHC, such as biological planning, conservation design, conservation delivery,
monitoring, and research. In addition, they help to organize and direct our strategic response to
accelerated climate change.
The Service's landscape conservation efforts are designed to meet 21st Century conservation
challenges. These efforts parallel changes occurring across the conservation and science
communities as states, tribes, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders recognize
similar challenges and work together to conserve our nation’s fish and wildlife heritage.
National network of LCCs
LCCs provide scientific and technical support for conservation at “landscape” scales—the entire
range of an identified priority species or groups of species. They support biological planning,
conservation design, prioritizing and coordinating research, and designing species inventorying and
monitoring programs. LCCs also have a role in helping partners identify common goals and priorities
to target the right science in the right places for efficient and effective conservation. By functioning as
a network of interdependent units rather than independent entities, LCC partnerships can accomplish
a conservation mission no single agency or organization can accomplish alone.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Collectively, LCCs will compose a seamless national network supporting landscapes capable of
sustaining abundant, diverse, and healthy populations of fish, wildlife, and plants. They will provide a
strong link between science and conservation delivery without duplicating existing partnerships or creating
burdensome and unnecessary bureaucracy. Rather than create a new conservation infrastructure from
the ground up, LCCs build upon explicit biological management priorities and objectives, and science
available from existing partnerships, such as fish habitat partnerships, migratory bird joint ventures and
flyway councils, as well as species- and geographic-based partnerships.
LCCs support adaptive resource management by evaluating implementation of conservation
strategies, maintaining and sharing information and data, and improving products as new information
becomes available. Shared data platforms serve multiple purposes, including the collaborative
development of population/habitat models under alternative climate scenarios to inform spatially
explicit decision support for all partners. Decision-support systems and products developed by LCCs
not only help determine the most effective conservation actions to support shared priorities, but also
provide tools to compare and contrast the implications of management alternatives.
In the face of accelerated climate change and other 21st-Century conservation challenges, LCCs will
regularly evaluate the effectiveness of scientific information and conservation actions and support
necessary adjustments as new information becomes available. This iterative process of information
sharing will help scientists and resource managers deal with uncertainties on the landscape and
provide tools to compare and contrast the implications of management alternatives.
Peninsular Florida Landscape Conservation Cooperative
The refuge lies within the Peninsular Florida LCC (PFLCC), formerly called the North Florida or
Peninsular Florida Ecosystem (Figure 7). Comprising one of the 16 delineated LCCs in the
continental United States, the Service’s Peninsular Florida LCC includes several important areas with
protective designations, including Ocala National Forest, Everglades National Park, Welaka National
Fish Hatchery, and numerous national wildlife refuges. Various other local, state, and federal
conservation areas are also located within the Peninsular Florida LCC. The Peninsular Florida LCC
spans temperate and subtropical climates, numerous physiographic districts, and a wide variety of
habitats. Barrier islands, xeric scrub, pine flatwoods, freshwater marshes, lakes, streams, springs,
mixed hardwood/pine forests, cypress swamps and domes, dry prairies, maritime forests, hardwood
hammocks, estuarine marshes, pine rocklands, sandhill woodlands, coastal strands, sawgrass
prairies, sloughs, and tree islands of the Peninsular Florida LCC serve a variety of native wildlife,
including over 100 federally listed species, as well as interjurisdictional fishes, neotropical migratory
birds, nongame waterbirds, and waterfowl.
The biggest problem facing the Peninsular Florida LCC is the loss of habitat through direct
destruction and fragmentation, as well as through impacts from human activities. The predominant
stresses for the Peninsular Florida LCC are human population growth, tourism, agriculture,
silviculture, mining, water channelization, urbanization, aquifer depletion, fire suppression, exotic
species, nonpoint source pollution, and point source pollution. The actions of the Peninsular Florida
LCC are guided by two categories: trust resources and management issues. The trust resources
include: migratory birds, anadromous fish, endangered species, and marine mammals. The
management issues focus on habitat protection and management, habitat restoration, contaminants,
regulatory compliance, law enforcement, and biodiversity.
20 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 6. Continental U.S. landscape conservation cooperatives
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
St. Johns NWR plays an important role in the Peninsular Florida LCC, especially with regard to the
conservation of secretive marsh birds, rare, inland saltmarsh/cordgrass system, and the St. Johns
River ecosystem. The refuge has long been managed primarily for the restoration and maintenance
of habitat to serve secretive marsh birds including rails and bitterns. The refuge supports one of the
last remnants of inland saltmarsh/cordgrass habitat – a non-tidal, hypersaline, poorly drained
saltmarsh wetland system dominated by cordgrass. The Peninsular Florida LCC geography includes
roughly 80 percent of the St. Johns River from its headwaters in southern Brevard County to northern
St. Johns County. Local, state, and federal land management agencies have acquired thousands of
acres of natural areas in the headwaters region where the refuge is located and throughout the St.
Johns River ecosystem.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
A variety of regional conservation plans and initiatives were reviewed in the preparation of this Draft
CCP/EA, including recovery plans for federally listed species, as well as state and local plans. Other
applicable plans, initiatives, and programs include the Florida State Wildlife Action Plan, the St. Johns
River Water Management District’s Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan, Florida
Natural Areas Inventory, Preservation 2000, Florida Forever Program, and Brevard County’s
Environmentally Endangered Lands Program. Several of these plans address management of
conservation lands. Figure 8 shows conservation lands in the vicinity of the refuge.
RECOVERY PLANS
Under the Endangered Species Act, the Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
develop a recovery plan for each federally listed threatened or endangered species. The Service has
prepared recovery plans for four listed species that are known to occur at St. Johns NWR: wood
stork, northern crested caracara, American alligator, and eastern indigo snake. Gopher tortoise
(Gopherus polyphemus) is under review for federal listing throughout its range, including Florida. In
addition, seven nongame birds are listed by the refuge as species of management concern (SMC),
including barn owl, black rail, eastern meadowlark, least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), loggerhead shrike,
northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), and sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis). Without additional
conservation action, these species are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered
Species Act. The SMC designation promotes management actions for the species and is not a
regulatory designation.
Each recovery plan delineates, justifies, and schedules the research and management actions
necessary to support recovery of a species. If successfully undertaken, recovery actions are likely to
permit reclassification or delisting of the species. As strategy documents, recovery plans do not
commit manpower or funds for recovery actions, nor do they have the legal force of laws and
regulations. Instead, they are used in setting regional and national federal conservation priorities for
funding and implementation. The recovery plans provided a wealth of information that was used in
developing this Draft CCP/EA. The refuge promotes management actions, including prescribed fire
and exotics’ control, to provide suitable habitat for state and federal listed species and species of
management concern, providing early successional habitats for a wide array of avifauna.
22 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 7. Peninsular Florida landscape conservation cooperative
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Figure 8. Conservation lands in the vicinity of St. Johns NWR
24 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN
As a requirement for participating in the Federal Government’s State Wildlife Grants Program, each
state and territory has created a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for conservation of a
broad array of fish and wildlife. Throughout the development process, the objectives were to identify
species of greatest conservation need and their habitats and to develop high-priority conservation
actions to abate problems for those species and habitats. These objectives have been developed in
a prudent effort to prevent declines before species become imperiled, thereby saving millions of tax
dollars. In addition, the matching requirement has encouraged partnerships and cooperation among
conservation partners.
To meet the intent of the Service’s State Wildlife Grants Program, the FWC created Florida’s Wildlife
Legacy Initiative (Initiative). The goal of the Initiative was to develop a strategic vision for conserving
all of Florida’s wildlife. Florida’s State Wildlife Action Plan (previously the Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy) was completed and approved in 2005. It outlines what native wildlife and
habitats are in need, why they are in need and, most importantly, how the state plans to provide for
these species and habitats. It also emphasizes the building of partnerships with other agencies and
the private sector, uses a habitat-based conservation approach, incorporates a broad definition of
wildlife (to include invertebrates, aquatic species, and other species), and favors non-regulatory
methods in its effort to reach conservation goals and objectives, many of which provided useful
guidance in developing comprehensive conservation planning benchmarks. A variety of species
found on the refuge are listed in the Initiative as needing special management protection, including
wood stork, northern crested caracara, round-tailed muskrat (Neofiber alleni) and habitats such as
salt marsh (FWC 2005).
SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
In the late 1980s, it was determined that Florida had to do more to protect and restore its surface
waters. While point sources such as sewage and industrial waste discharges were being controlled,
nonpoint sources – pollutants that enter water bodies in less direct ways and from multiple, dispersed
sources) such as agricultural and urban runoff – were still a major concern. In 1987, the Florida
Legislature created the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program to address
nonpoint pollutant sources.
The SWIM program is the only program that addresses a waterbody’s needs as a system of
connected resources, rather than isolated wetlands or waterbodies. To accomplish this, SWIM
meshes across governmental responsibilities, forging important partnerships in water resource
management. While the state’s five water management districts and the FDEP are directly
responsible for the SWIM program, they work in concert with federal, state, and local governments,
as well as with the private sector. The St. Johns River Water Management District administers the
SWIM Program within the basin. The undeveloped lands and natural habitats of the refuge contribute
to the long-term water quality of the St. Johns River and are considered as part of the Upper St.
Johns River Basin SWIM priority waterbody.
FLORIDA NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to gathering, interpreting,
and disseminating information critical to the conservation of Florida's biological diversity. FNAI was
founded in 1981 as a member of The Nature Conservancy's international network of natural heritage
programs. The databases and expertise of FNAI facilitate environmentally sound planning and
natural resource management to protect the plants, animals, and communities that represent
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Florida's natural heritage. FNAI is the primary source of information on Florida's conservation lands.
The inventory’s databases include boundaries and statistics for more than 1,600 federal, state, local,
and privately managed areas, all provided directly by the managing agencies. FNAI’s databases and
project evaluations provided the basis for establishing priorities and boundaries for the Florida
Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) Program (Preservation 2000).
FLORIDA FOREVER PROGRAM
The Florida Forever Program, created by the State Legislature in 1999, follows in the footsteps of
earlier successful land acquisitions programs in the State of Florida by continuing to focus land
acquisition efforts in several resource categories: Natural Communities, Forest Resources, Plants,
Fish and Wildlife, Fresh Water Supplies, Coastal Resources, Geologic Features, Historical
Resources, and Outdoor Recreational Resources. According to 2010 Florida Forever Project
boundaries (FNAI 2010), Bee Line Unit inholdings are not proposed for acquisition through the
Florida Forever Program. However, the Fox Lake Unit is as are inholdings south of Fox Lake,
connecting this Unit with the SR 50 Unit to the south. This acquisition polygon, the Brevard Coastal
Scrub Ecosystem, also incorporates inholdings and public lands to the west of Fox Lake and forms a
contiguous unit with the northwest portion of the SR 50 Unit at full acquisition.
PRESERVATION 2000
In 1990, the State of Florida took measures designed to conserve significant natural resources
that might otherwise be subject to development. The State Legislature enacted Preservation
2000, a 10-year, $3 billion statewide program of public land acquisition for natural area
conservation and compatible public recreation purposes. Land acquisition and management
activities are funded primarily by the Conservation and Recreation Lands Trust Fund. While no
lands in St. Johns NWR were acquired and conserved using this funding source, other nearby
conservation lands under Service management were. The Archie Carr NWR Sea Turtle Refuge
CARL project, for example, was designed principally to protect sea turtle nesting habitat. Lands
acquired under this project were leased to the refuge. The Maritime Hammock Initiative CARL
project was designed to protect several of the best maritime hammocks left, adding to existing
conservation areas whenever possible. This project was added to the Archie Carr NWR Sea
Turtle CARL project. Lands were also protected at Merritt Island NWR.
CRITICAL LANDS AND WATERS IDENTIFICATION PROJECT (CLIP) AND THE COOPERATIVE
CONSERVATION BLUEPRINT (CCB)
The Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP) is the Florida Century Commission’s
flagship project led by Thomas Hoctor, Ph.D., of the GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida and
Jonathan Oetting of FNAI at Florida State University. Clip uses science and the best available
statewide spatial data to depict Florida’s critical environmental resources in a database that can be
used as a decision-support tool for collaborative statewide and regional conservation and land use
planning. The purpose is to envision and ensure the sustainability of Florida’s green infrastructure
and vital ecosystem services (Century Commission 2010).
CLIP science recommendations will be vetted with rural landowners, state agencies, regional
planning councils, and other stakeholders through the Cooperative Conservation Blueprint (CCB) led
by FWC in partnership with the Century Commission and the CCB steering committee. The CCB is a
major multi-partner strategic planning step that Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative is undertaking. The
CCB process creates an alternate vision of what stakeholders want the state to look like by
incorporating wildlife habitat needs as well as social and economic priorities. The goal is to develop a
26 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
strategic plan for land and water conservation in Florida, using a new and broader range of
conservation incentives with a shared view of the priorities (FWC 2010e).
CLIP priorities, depicting areas of opportunity for protecting biodiversity, landscapes, and water
resources across the state, identified the St. Johns NWR as primarily a Priority 1 (P1) resource. A P1
designation depicts the highest level of conservation significance attributed to a landscape through
CLIP (Hoctor et.al. 2008).
BREVARD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTALLY ENDANGERED LANDS PROGRAM
The Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) Program was established in 1990, to protect the
natural habitats of Brevard County by acquiring environmentally sensitive lands for conservation,
passive recreation, and environmental education. This was made possible by citizens who voted to
tax themselves up to $55 million dollars for the acquisition and maintenance of Brevard County’s
natural areas. Residents reaffirmed the EEL Program in 2004 under a second referendum to use the
same tax that is currently being collected for the Beach and Riverfront Program to protect the natural
habitats within Brevard County. This would be accomplished by the acquisition of environmentally
sensitive lands through a willing-seller program for the purposes of conservation, passive recreation,
and environmental education.
EEL sanctuaries are managed to conserve native habitats and the plants and animals that utilize
them. Each sanctuary or management area has a site-specific comprehensive management plan
developed by EEL staff and the selection and management committee. The EEL program strives to
maintain a regional approach to managing the EEL Sanctuary Network through the guidance
provided in the Sanctuary Management Manual and through management partnerships with local,
state, regional, and federal conservation agencies and private-sector conservation programs. The
EEL Program adopts and implements an ecosystem approach to environmental management.
Ecosystem management is defined as an integrative, flexible approach to the management of natural
resources. Key themes of ecosystem management include: adaptive management, partnerships,
human influences, values, and holistic approach.
The nearest EEL unit to St. Johns NWR is the Enchanted Forest Sanctuary, located in the southern
limits of the city of Titusville. The EEL Program’s “flagship” sanctuary, the Enchanted Forest, is the
first property purchased by the Brevard County EEL Program. This 470-acre forest conserves a
diversity of natural habitats, including oak scrub, mesic and hydric hammock, wet prairie, and pine
flatwood. Several miles of hiking trails allow visitors to enjoy the natural beauty of the region. Wildlife
observation, nature photography, and hiking are popular recreational activities. The Management
and Education Center interprets the sanctuary's unique natural features for visitors of all ages and
abilities. Wildlife species include the eastern indigo snake, Florida scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi),
gopher tortoise, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and bobcat (Lynx rufus) (EEL 2008).
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
St. Johns NWR faces a variety of issues, including altered hydrological flows, inability to manage
water resources, lack of understanding of basic hydrology, adjacent development, trespass and
poaching activities, spread of invasive exotic species, highway impacts, and climate change.
The St. Johns NWR is part of the Upper St. Johns River Basin. Between the early 1950s and the 1970s,
the Upper St. Johns River Basin was subjected to many modifications. Canals were dug to divert water
for flood control and development. East-west highways were constructed, impeding sheet flow across the
floodplain. Various communities were built in and around the floodplain, which increased runoff. All of
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
this activity greatly altered the hydrology of the St. Johns River system. These past actions in the
watershed continue to affect the refuge’s ecological functions today. The refuge itself has been subjected
to ditching and road construction, which further modifies its hydrology.
For years much of the landscape was kept in an open grassy condition through burning and cattle
grazing. As cattle ranching declined, these disturbances faded and much of the area around the Bee
Line Unit and to the north of the SR 50 Unit became overgrown with wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and
salt bush (Baccharis sp.). The surrounding landscape has suffered from increasing habitat
fragmentation as the area has developed. The Bee Line Unit is now bounded by two major roads
(SR 528 and SR 407) and a large residential community (Port St. John). The SR 50 Unit has
Interstate 95 on the east and SR 50 on the south. Developers have expressed interest in creating
large residential developments to the north of the SR 50 Unit. The Bee Line Unit abuts the growing
area of Port St. John. The refuge may soon become an isolated patch of marsh surrounded by
infrastructure and development. Adjacent urbanization and suburbanization are likely to lead to an
increased threat from feral animals, free-roaming pets, elevated nutrient loading, noise pollution,
trespass, and recreational demands.
Fire management activities on the refuge are crucial to maintaining desired habitat conditions for wildlife,
but the proximity of the refuge to sensitive developed areas sharply restricts management options.
Because of this urbanization/suburbanization, all unplanned ignitions at St. Johns NWR are suppressed.
The refuge exists today within a rapidly developing landscape. Florida has more than 18 million
residents and nearly 77 million annual visitors (U.S. Census Bureau 2009, Florida Department of
Transportation 2005a). Brevard County had an estimated 519,000 residents in 2005 (Lenze 2002),
as well as a growth rate from 1990-2000 of 19.4 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000) and a projected
growth rate from 2000 to 2015 of 25.3 percent (Lenze 2002). In 2004, near the SR 50 Unit, average
daily traffic on SR 50 near Interstate 95 was 28,000 vehicles, while average daily traffic on Interstate
95 near SR 50 was 37,000 vehicles. In 2004, near the Bee Line Unit, average daily traffic on SR 528
2.3 miles east of the St. Johns River (just west of the Refuge) was 29,500 (Florida Department of
Transportation 2005b).
Many of the issues of today at St. Johns NWR are the result of not taking specific actions during the
acquisition phase (1971-1979). Much of the refuge’s lands were platted, and easements were
established under the Titusville Fruit and Farm Lands Company Plat of 1914. Brevard County was
asked to vacate the easements in 1976, but refused to do so. Internal documents indicated that the
Service had received approval to proceed with a condemnation of approximately 108 acres of land
involved in the easements. Historical records do not disclose why the action was never taken.
This issue remained dormant until 1994, when an adjacent property owner and developer raised the
issue of access and drainage rights. The property owner (petitioner) contended that mitigation work
in the form of ditch filing to restore natural flow of surface water conducted in the late 1980s by the
refuge for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) impacted lands east of the SR 50 Unit.
In 1996, the property owner had a drainage ditch excavated, which resulted in drainage of
approximately 200 acres of refuge wetlands. The work was conducted without a permit from the
SJRWMD, which issued an emergency order to the refuge to construct two weirs within easements
on the refuge to stop the damage. Litigation was ongoing with suits and counter suits, especially
between the SJRWMD and the owner, including a suit filed by the petitioner alleging the SJRWMD
violated the terms of its drainage easement when the ditches were filled.
28 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
In January 2009, the judgment of the Appellate Court of the 11th District (Southeastern U.S.) was entered
which ruled in favor of the refuge concerning the FDOT mitigation project—that the petitioner failed to
show that the refuge had interfered with the natural flow of water and therefore had not interfered with the
petitioner’s common law flowage easement. Indeed the court explained, “the activities of which
(petitioner) complains – principally the filing-in of drainage ditches – would restore the natural flow of
surface water, not impede it” (U.S. Supreme Court 2009). The 11th Court of Appeals further noted that
Florida law permits “reasonable use” of surrounding surface waters and that petitioner “has made no
showing that the filing in of ditches or other activities that have allegedly led to flooding on (petitioner’s)
land was an unreasonable use” of the waters of the refuge (U.S. Supreme Court 2009). The case is in
the final stages of the appeals process. A petition by the property owner to the U.S. Supreme Court for a
writ of certiorari was filed in June 2009, and the petition is presently under review. Agencies involved
include the SJRWMD, FDOT, the Service, and Brevard County.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3226 states that there is a consensus in the international
community that global climate change is occurring and that it should be addressed in governmental
decision-making. This order ensures that climate change impacts are taken into account in
connection with Departmental planning and decision-making. Additionally, it calls for the
incorporation of climate change considerations into long-term planning documents, such as the CCP.
Projecting the impacts of climate change is hugely complex. The effects of climate change on
populations and range distributions of wildlife are expected to be species-specific and highly variable,
with some effects considered negative and others considered positive.
Meteorological and climatological events such as hurricanes and sea level rise pose challenges for refuge
management. Further, climate change related stressors will likely enhance the negative impacts of other
stressors. Climate change may exacerbate shoreline erosion due to rising seas (Doyle 1998, Natural
Resources Defense Council 2001, Zhang et al. 2004, Bindoff et al. 2007, Holland and Webster 2007,
Nicholls et al. 2007) and may result in an increase in the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones
(Emanuel 1987, Emanuel 2005, Webster et al. 2005, Mann and Emanuel 2006). Low-lying islands will
face impacts from global climate change, particularly rising sea level and coastal storms. Such effects
have already been experienced in the past; however, these events may become more frequent and
severe within the 15-year time period covered by the final CCP, based on recent projections by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007).
Saline intrusion into the subsurface freshwater lens from sea level rise and saltwater inundation of surface
freshwaters from storm surges can alter coastal ecosystems and freshwater marshes, resulting in more
salt-tolerant aquatic plant communities. The most immediate actions that the Service can take are to
gather the best scientific data possible for understanding natural processes in their current state, model
possible impacts and subsequent changes from sea level rise, and develop adaptive management
strategies for future conservation needs.
Although direct impacts to refuge resources are currently unknown, likely changes and stressors include
alterations in wildlife populations and ranges, increased storm intensity, increased drought severity and
persistence, and increased density and diversity of exotic and invasive species. And, these are likely to
exacerbate other stressors, resulting in decreased water quality, altered water quantity and timing of
flows, and increased pollution.
While specific impacts on the refuge’s habitats and wildlife from climate change cannot be
predicted with any certainty, it is certain they will occur, adding to the stresses this heavily
modified landscape already faces.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
It should be noted that no consistent climatological data are available specifically for the St. Johns
NWR. However, data are available for nearby Merritt Island NWR, which overlays the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Kennedy Space Center. Weather data have been
recorded since the early 1960s for NASA’s Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) at Kennedy Space Center.
Much of the discussion below is based on SLF data.
General Climatic Conditions
The main factors influencing climate at St. Johns NWR are latitude and the proximity of large bodies
of water. Generally, the climate at the refuge can be described as subtropical, with short, mild winters
and hot, humid summers, with no appreciable spring or fall seasons. Summer weather patterns
usually begin in April and prevail for nine months.
Temperature
Summer temperatures (measured in Fahrenheit) generally range from the low 70s at dawn to the
upper 80s and low 90s during the afternoon. November may have some cool days, but winter
weather typically starts in December and lasts through March. Average temperatures during the
winter range from lows in the 50s to highs near 75°. Temperature extremes range from a low of 19°
to a high of 100° (Patrick Air Force Base 2004).
Winds
Wind fields on the refuge can be highly variable. The refuge experiences changes throughout the
day, such as sea breezes and erratic winds around thunderstorms. High winds, above 20 miles per
hour at the 20-foot level, are common in the winter and spring months, with occasional days with 35
to 40 mph winds. High winds are also associated with tropical systems in the summer and fall.
Periods of light and variable winds lasting several days can occur in summer months when subsiding
air is entrenched over the central Florida area.
Atmospheric Moisture
As one would expect with large bodies of water in and around the refuge, the relative humidity (RH) is
typically high. Mean dawn RH is between 88 and 95 percent throughout the year, while readings in
the mid-afternoon are between 55 and 67 percent. Very low RH can occur with the passage of cold
fronts in the winter. Readings in the 30 to 40 percent range are common and a RH as low as 26
percent has been recorded. On the other end of the spectrum, an RH of 100 percent is not
uncommon with fog occurring on many mornings.
Precipitation
The average annual precipitation as recorded at the SLF is 49.0 inches (Patrick Air Force Base
2004). The average precipitation for the National Weather Service station in Melbourne, Florida, is
close to that with 48.29 inches (National Weather Service 2006). Rainfall typically occurs during two
time periods separated by dry seasons. Between late May and early October, weather patterns are
dominated by the effects of the Bermuda High. This system causes southeast winds, which bring
moist warm air onto shore, leading to the formation of thunderstorms. These rainfall events are short
30 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
duration, high intensity localized storms. The refuge averages 83 thunderstorm days per year. Sixty
percent of the annual precipitation days occur during these months. From November to February, the
weather patterns are influenced by cold continental air masses. Rainfall during this period comes
from the effects of frontal passage. Rain events are more widespread and less intense than those in
the summer. The transitional periods between these two wet seasons tend to be dry. Although
uncommon, snow could occur on the refuge. The SLF has reported snow in both December and
January; however, accumulations were less than 0.05 inches.
Annual precipitation amounts can vary widely. In 1998, the annual rainfall was only 34.1 inches. The
total accumulation of rainfall for the months of April, May, and June 1998 was only 1.03 inches as
compared to the expected amount of 10.42 inches. Conversely, in the year 2001 the refuge received
a total of 61.8 inches of rain or 12.8 inches above the SLF average. These fluctuations in
precipitation can significantly impact refuge management operations. In 1998, for example, the dry
conditions contributed to numerous wildfires. On the other hand, the wet conditions in 2001 made
travel on the refuge difficult. The frequent rains and generally wet conditions during that year resulted
in decreased opportunities for prescribed burning.
Lightning
Because of its importance in fire management, a key refuge management activity, lightning deserves
a special mention. Florida has the highest number of thunderstorm days in the United States (U.S.
Department of Agriculture 1941). Research on Kennedy Space Center shows that within-cloud and
cloud-to-ground discharges average 2.4 per minute per storm, with a rate of 30.6 discharges per
minute recorded during a storm on July 14, 1980 (NASA 1984).
Tropical Cyclones
Tropical depressions, storms, and hurricanes can impact refuge activities and infrastructure. Large
amounts of rainfall can accompany tropical cyclones. In addition, wind and wave action can result in
major damage to important refuge habitats. In 2004, three hurricanes impacted the central Florida
area. The only permanent building on the refuge suffered major damage during these storms.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Geology
The surface materials in the region of the refuge are typically undifferentiated deposits of the
Pleistocene and Recent ages. These sediments are underlain by consolidated beds of Late Miocene
or Pliocene which, in turn, are underlain by the Hawthorne Formation of the Early and Mid Miocene
Age. The deposits of Late Miocene and Pliocene materials, along with the Hawthorne Formation,
form layers of material which have low permeability. This serves to confine water in an artesian
aquifer in layers of Eocene Age limestone.
Topography
The topography on most of the refuge is generally flat. The average elevation is 15 feet above mean
sea level, with a very gradual slope from the east, near Interstate 95 to the St. Johns River to the
west. The highest point on the refuge is found on the Bee Line Unit, where an old dune or Indian
mound reaches a height of nearly 30 feet.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
SOILS
Relatively minor differences in elevation and internal drainage of the land have resulted in major
differences in soil types. Over twenty soil series, representing four soil orders, are found on the
refuge. Detailed maps and descriptions of these can be found in the Soil Survey of Brevard County
(Soil Survey Staff 1974). Based on soils characteristics, six general associations of soils have been
identified on the refuge, as listed below.
Pompano Association
This association is made up of broad grassy flats interspersed with low flatwood knolls. Soils are
poorly drained and nearly level. They are sandy to a depth of 80 inches. The dominant natural
vegetation is mostly marsh cordgrass and scattered cabbage palms. Pines and palmetto are found
on the low flatwoods.
Myakka-Eau Gallie-Immokalee Association
These associations are nearly level, poorly drained, acid soils. They are sandy to a depth of 40
inches and loamy below that. Water tables are usually within 30 inches of the surface and standing
water may exist on these sites for short periods of time after heavy rainfall. The dominant natural
vegetation is palmetto and pines.
Pineda-Wabasso Association
This association is found on the St. Johns River floodplain. It is made up of nearly level flatwoods,
cabbage palm hammocks, sloughs, depressions, and intermittent small ponds. The soils are sandy
to a depth of 20 to 40 inches and loamy below that level.
Copleland-Wabasso Association
This association is made up of nearly level, very poorly drained and poorly drained soils that are
sandy to a depth of 40 inches and loamy below that. The dominant natural vegetation on the refuge
associated with this association is cabbage palm.
Fleda-Floridana-Winder Association
These are nearly level, poorly drained, and very poorly drained soils that are sandy to a depth of 40
inches and loamy below that. The dominant natural vegetation is cordgrass and cabbage palms on
the broad flats, with flags (Iris spp.) and lilies (Nymphae spp.) in the depressions.
Montverde-Micco-Tomoka Association
These nearly level, very poorly drained organic soils, are found in the St. Johns River floodplain. The
dominant natural vegetation is sawgrass (Cladium jamaicensis), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon),
flags, and sedges.
32 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
HYDROLOGY
The refuge’s water resources include surface waters and groundwaters.
Surface Water
Some discussion of the changes in surface water over the years is important to the understanding of
this resource. The St. Johns NWR is located within the Upper St. Johns River Basin. The St. Johns
River, at 310 miles in length, is the longest river in Florida. It is designated as one of only 14
American Heritage Rivers due to its natural, economic, agricultural, scenic, historic, cultural, and
recreational resources that make it unique. Before the coming of European settlement to this area,
the St. Johns River drained an area of land from the ridge along what are now the I-95 corridor and
where State Highway 441 runs today, as well as adjacent uplands to the west. This area drained is
1,331 square miles at SR 520, 1,539 square miles at SR 50, and 2,043 square miles at SR 46.
At this point in time, it is not possible to tell if the water table was higher or lower during the prehistoric
era. There are indications that the water table was actually lower in the Upper St. Johns River, for
example, from archaeology. There are Indian mounds in the Upper St. Johns River that are located
in what are now sub-optimal conditions for habitation, that is, they are too wet. The area as a whole
was probably drier greater than 500 years ago (with sea level more than 4-5 feet lower than it is
today), perhaps more akin to a wet-dry prairie. There are indications in the Indian Farms area that
wells were dug to reach the water table (Stewart 2010).
Drainage districts were formed in the Upper St. Johns River Basin during the early part of the 20th
Century, and the construction of dikes and canals began. This continued until the 1970s. In addition,
ranchers in the floodplain started a program of drainage on their lands to improve pastures. In the
1950s and 1960s, much of the area that is now the refuge was platted for development and canals
were dug with the hopes of improving the area for the construction of homes. The end result of these
efforts was the significant alteration of the hydrological regime of the St. Johns River Basin in general,
and of the refuge in particular. In general, the present marsh has less water retention time, higher
water flows, and reduced water quality as a result of agricultural and urban runoff than it did in its
natural state (Cox and Auth 1971).
As development continues in the Titusville area, additional impacts on the surface waters of the refuge
can be expected. On the other hand, the refuge has conducted some work to restore the natural flow of
water. Ditches in the western part of the SR 50 Unit have been filled and native vegetation replanted.
The long-term effects of this project and the feasibility of continuing it remain to be seen.
Surface waters on the refuge include numerous shallow natural ponds, borrow pits, and water in
canals and ditches. In total, surface water accounts for about 5 percent of the refuge’s area.
The SJRWMD is the state entity charged with management of the river basin’s water resources,
including development of nonstructural flood control, protection of water quality, enhancement of fish
and wildfire habitat, and provision for public use. The SR 50 unit is located within SJRWMD’s
Tosahatchee planning unit, while the Bee Line Unit of the refuge falls within the Puzzle lakes planning
unit. A specific task of the SJRWMD is to establish minimum flows and levels (MFLs) for important
surface and ground waters. MFLs have been established by the SJRWMD for the St. Johns River at
SR 50, adjacent to the SR 50 Unit near Christmas, Florida (SJRWMD 2010), and are due in 2011 for
the St. Johns River at SR 520 (Lake Poinsett), which is approximately 5 miles upstream of the Bee
Line Unit (SJRWMD 2010b).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
The refuge receives approximately 50 inches of precipitation a year with about half of this falling in the wet
season between June and September. Thirty-four percent of this total appears as runoff in lakes and
streams. The peaks in surface flow off the refuge and in the St. Johns River occur during the same
period. While wet season represents peak flows, the following discussion centers on the possibility that
the potentiometric surface may be near, at, or above the ground surface throughout the year.
The refuge may also have value as fishery spawning and/or nursery grounds. Interjurisdictional
species, including American shad (Alosa sapidissima), hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), mullet (Mugil
spp.), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis) use the St. Johns River during spawning and early life
stages. Apparently some individuals remain in the river year-round.
Groundwater
Three aquifer systems underlie the refuge. These are the surficial aquifer, the intermediate aquifer,
and the Floridan aquifer system. Total dissolved solids within some of the aquifers are high. Chloride
contents, for example, often exceed 1,000 parts per million (ppm). The quality of the groundwater,
especially the surficial aquifer, varies widely with water table fluctuations (Brown et al. 1962).
At least three lines of evidence suggest that both the SR 50 and Bee Line units are areas of frequent
inundation caused by the combination of groundwater discharge and precipitation. One line of evidence
is hydrologic modeling efforts which show that the refuge is an area of groundwater discharge (Boniol et
al. 1993). While not quantifying the volume, timing, or spatial distribution of discharge, the finding that this
is a region of discharge means that any precipitation would quickly saturate the soil above the water table.
Any excess precipitation would then pond and run off from the area.
The second line of evidence that the refuge is an area of groundwater discharge is water chemistry.
Available nearby data show high total dissolved solids (TDS), salt-forming metals (i.e., sodium,
potassium, magnesium), chloride, and fluoride, all of which are consistent with water that has passed
through the mineral-rich Hawthorn Group (Osburn et al. 2002) and which are inconsistent with
constituents usually found in precipitation or runoff, such as nitrates and coliform bacteria.
Orthophosphates are found in the Hawthorn Group, making this a less than valuable indicator of the
water’s origin, but this is not the case for chlorides. Adamski et al. (2003) showed that the 250 and
5,000 mg/l isochlor (line of equal chloride concentration) becomes shallower moving westward
through Orange County, with the 250 mg/l line reaching the surface of the Econlockhatchee River
and remaining there at least as far east as the St. Johns River. Surface water in the Puzzle Lakes
area has salinities as high as 10-11 ppt (DeMort 1991). If the 250 mg/l isochlor remains at or near
ground surfaces throughout the refuge, there are likely to be two responses: runoff from the refuge
should have relatively high concentrations of chlorides and other chemical constituents and these
should in turn have an effect on the vegetation community.
The dominant plant species found on the refuge – Spartina bakerii (clumped cordgrass), Juncus
roemerianus (black needlerush), Muhlenbergia capillaris (gulf muhly grass), and Cladium jamaicense
(sawgrass) are a mix of salt marsh and wet prairies plants, all of which tend to have hydroperiods of
50 days or longer per year (Kushlan 1990). This is the third line of evidence that the water table
remains near the surface throughout the year.
WATER QUALITY
The refuge does not collect water quality data on the many small water bodies within the refuge on a
regular basis. However, the SJRWMD does maintain monitoring 192 stations within the St. Johns
River Basin outside the refuge. These data show long-term progress in protecting and restoring
34 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
water bodies in spite of area population growth and other changes that put increasing pressure on the
Water District water resources. In general, decreasing trends in the concentrations of the limiting
nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus and other related constituents (turbidity and total suspended
solids) have been observed (SJRWMD no date). High nutrient levels are linked with reduced levels
of dissolved oxygen (important for healthy aquatic ecosystems) and ecologically adverse,
aesthetically displeasing algal blooms.
There are six water quality monitoring stations in the Upper St. Johns River Basin. Here the water
quality trends from 1990-2004 were more negative than in the basin as a whole. Total nitrogen
increased at three stations and was stable at three. Total phosphorus decreased at one station,
increased at three, and was stable at one. Turbidity (a measure of reduced water clarity) increased at
two stations and was stable at four. Total Suspended Solids increased at three stations and was
stable at three. Total Organic Carbon (which indicates the overall productivity in the area of the
sample) increased at four stations and was stable at two (SJRWMD no date).
Waters discharged from the SR 50 Unit to the St. Johns River, designated as an Outstanding Florida
Water, as well as the area immediately to the west that includes the St. Johns River is listed on the
Environmental Protection Agency’s Section 303(d) list for non-attainment of standards for dissolved
oxygen and fish habitat quality. For the same area, the 1998 Section 303(d) list also includes that
following parameters of concern: coliform bacteria, nutrients, BOD, and lead. Parameters potentially
discharged from the Bee Line Unit (also designated as an Outstanding Florida Water) are not listed
under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The Outstanding Florida waters designation means
that the water bodies are afforded “special protection due to their natural attributes,” but does not
necessarily mean that the water body is unimpaired. It is likely that most, if not all, of the
aforementioned pollutants are a result of nonpoint source pollution originating in nearby
developments and urban areas rather than on the refuge.
AIR QUALITY
The Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended in 1990 and 1997), required the EPA to implement air quality
standards to protect public health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
were established based on protecting health (primary standards) and preventing environmental and
property damage (secondary) for six pollutants commonly found throughout the United States: lead,
ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter
less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5).
Criteria air pollutants in Florida include carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone O3,
particulate pollution (2.5 and 10 ug/m3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) (FDEP 2009). These pollutants are
monitored by a network of monitoring stations throughout Florida and analyzed in order to better
understand general air quality trends and to locate exceedances. Primary sources of pollutants in
Florida are vehicle emissions, power plants, and industrial activities. In 2009, there were 220 ambient
monitors in the statewide air monitoring network and the EPA designated Florida an attainment area
for all criteria pollutants, based on data collected in the previous 3 years (FDEP 2009).
The Florida Division of Air Resource Management operates National Ambient Monitoring Stations
(NAMS) and State and Local Ambient Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) to measure ambient
concentrations of these pollutants. In 2005, ambient air quality data were collected by 220 monitors
(in 34 counties) strategically placed throughout the state (FDEP 2009). Areas that meet the NAAQS
standards are designated “attainment areas,” while areas not meeting the standards are termed “non-attainment”
areas. While no pollutant monitoring data are being collected on St. Johns NWR, air
quality is monitored on a regular basis by three monitors in Brevard County including Fay Park,
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Freedom 7 Elementary School on Merritt Island, and Melbourne. Table 1 provides air quality data
collected for Brevard County, nearby counties, and national level standards. Florida's 2009
monitoring results indicate that Brevard County qualifies as an attainment area for all monitored
pollutants (FDEP 2009) - or an area with relatively clean air, under the Clean Air Act. The ambient air
quality is influenced by land management practices, such as prescribed burning, vehicle traffic along
the several major arteries that border both sections of the refuge, and off-site emission sources. The
daily air quality conditions are most influenced by the considerable vehicle traffic and utilities’ fuels
combustion (two regional power plants are within 10 miles of the refuge). Smoke from wildland fires
has the potential to impact traffic on nearby roads and the Titusville urban area.
The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a summary index developed by EPA for reporting daily air quality. It
indicates how clean or polluted the air is, and what associated health effects might be of concern.
The AQI focuses on health effects that may be experienced within a few hours or days after breathing
polluted air. EPA calculates the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act:
ground-level ozone, particle pollution (also known as particulate matter), carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Lead is also considered a major air pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
However, because all areas of the United States are currently attaining the NAAQS for lead, the AQI
does not specifically address lead. For each of these pollutants, EPA has established national air
quality standards to protect public health (AIRNow 2009).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Habitat types (landcover) on St. Johns NWR can be divided into four broad categories: emergent
wetland (palustrine), forested wetland, upland, and other (Figures 9 and 10). Table 2 identifies
approximate acreages of each habitat type found on the refuge.
Emergent Wetland (Palustrine) Landcover Types
Palustrine habitat refers to inland, nontidal wetlands typified by the presence of trees, shrubs, and
emergent vegetation (plants rooted below surface water but growing above the water surface). Palustrine
wetlands include permanently saturated or flooded land, such as marshes, swamps, and lake shores, and
land that is wet only seasonally. Palustrine areas make up about 83 percent of the refuge. Typically,
these lands have natural fluctuations of wet and dry conditions. Because of this variation, the biota found
in these areas is unique. Of all of the species listed by the Service as threatened or endangered, 70
percent depend heavily on wetlands (Fernald and Patton 1984). The wetlands on the refuge are primarily
cordgrass and cattail marshes. Small areas of salt pans also exist.
Cordgrass Marsh (M): These marshes are predominately marshy or sand cordgrass (Spartina bakerii).
Associated with the cordgrass is sawgrass (Cladium jamaicensis), fringe rush (Fimbristylis castanea), and
black needle rush (Juncus roemerianus). The altered water regime has allowed brush and other
vegetation to invade the cordgrass marshes. Succession to groundsel (Baccharis angustifolia and B.
halimifolia) and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) overstory occurs in the absence of fire.
Cattail Marsh (CT): These areas are dominated by cattail (Typha latifolia). Some stands of cattail are
found around the edges of the natural ponds associated with the cordgrass marshes. They are also
found in abundance in the borrow pits, along canals, and in other disturbed wetland areas.
36 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1. 2007 Air quality statistics by county
County
CO
8-hr
(ppm)
Pb
Qmax
(μg/m3)
NO2
(ppb)
(avg)
O3
1-hr
(ppb)
O3
8-hr
(ppb)
PM10
24-hr
(μg/m3)
(high)
PM10
24-hr
(μg/m3
(avg)
PM2.5
24-hr
(μg/m3)
(high)
PM2.5
24-hr
(μg/m3)
(avg)
SO2
24-hr
(ppb)
(high)
SO2
24-hr
(ppb)
(avg)
Refuge Home County
Brevard
County ND ND ND 76 70 35 14 22 6.5 6 1
Nearby Counties
Osceola
County ND ND ND 75 68 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Volusia ND ND ND 69 62 92 15 22 7.1 ND ND
Seminole ND ND ND 79 65 38 16 22 7.3 ND ND
Orange 2 ND 0.06 83 75 30 16 22 7.0 2 1
United States
National
Ambient Air
Quality
Standards
9 0.15 0.05 120 75 150 50 35 15 100 2
CO - Highest second maximum non-overlapping 8-hour concentration (applicable NAAQS is 9 ppm)
Pb - Highest three month maximum concentration (applicable NAAQS is 0.15 μg/m3)
NO2 - Annual Average concentration (applicable NAAQS is 0.05 ppb)
O3 (1-hour) - Highest One-Hour Ozone Concentrations (ppb), SLAMS Network, AQS# 009-0007 - Melbourne Beach
(applicable NAAQS is 120 ppb)
O3 (8-hour) - Highest Eight-Hour Ozone Concentrations (ppb), SLAMS Network, AQS# 009-0007 Melbourne Beach
(applicable NAAQS is 0.075 ppm)
PM10 - Highest 24-hour concentration – taken at Port St. John monitoring site (SLAMS Network AQS# 009-0011) (applicable
NAAQS is150 μg/m3) - Average annual concentration (applicable NAAQS is 50 μg/m3)
PM2.5 - Highest 24-hour concentration – taken at Port St. John monitoring site (SLAMS Network AQS# 009-0011) (applicable
NAAQS is 35 μg/m3) - Average annual concentration (applicable NAAQS is 15 μg/m3)
SO2 - Highest 24-hour concentration taken at Port St. John monitoring site (SLAMS Network AQS# 009-0011) (applicable
NAAQS is 100ppb - Average annual concentration (applicable NAAQS is 2.0 ppb)
ND - Indicates data not available IN – indicates insufficient data to calculate summary statistic
AM - Annual mean
μg/m3 - units are micrograms per cubic meter
Qmax - Quarterly maximum
Ppm - units are parts per million
Notes: Data from exceptional events are not included. The monitoring data represent the quality of air in the vicinity of the
monitoring site and, for some pollutants, may not necessarily represent urban-wide or parish/county-wide air quality.
Source: FDEP 2009
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Salt Pans: These are areas of extremely high salinity. They are populated by such species as
glasswort (Salicornia virginica) and salt grass (Distichlis spicata). There are roughly 100 acres of salt
pan habitat present on the refuge. Salt pan units are part of the emergent wetland system mostly
occurring as elements of the cordgrass marsh setting. They are small in area, individually limited to
less than an acre, and therefore unmapped as an exclusive habitat type.
Mixed Shrub Wetlands (MS): These wetlands are dominated by an overstory of woody species like
wax myrtle, groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia), and false willow (Baccharis angustifolia). The
understory is typically dominated by marsh grass species including cordgrass, sawgrass, and black
needle rush. Mixed shrub wetlands currently comprise nearly 2,000 acres of habitat on the refuge.
Forested Wetland Landcover Types
Forested areas make up about eight percent of the refuge’s area. Into this broad category fall the
cabbage palm hammocks, and hydric and mesic hardwood hammocks.
Hardwood (mesic and hydric) Hammock (MH): The mixed hammocks have not only cabbage palms
(Sabal palmetto) and live and laurel oaks (Quercus virginiana and Q. laurifolia), but also elms (Ulmus
spp.), ashes (Fraxinus spp.), red mulberry (Morus rubra), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), and other species.
Cabbage Palm Hammock (CP): This forest vegetation type is found in small stands scattered
throughout the cordgrass marsh areas. These hammocks are almost pure stands of cabbage palms
(Sabal palmetto). Cabbage palms also occur on disturbed sites such as ditch banks and old cleared
areas. The understories are usually open with a scattering of palmetto and other vegetation.
Upland Landcover Types
Upland vegetation types include scrub areas and pine/palmetto flatwoods and are located on spodic
and xeric sites, that is, sites with mostly dry soils with overstories of woody oak, pine or combinations
of these. These vegetation types occupy on about 3 percent of the refuge area.
Oak Scrub (OS): Can be described as having an overstory of 15- to 25-foot tall scrub oaks (Quercus
sp.), with a scattered understory of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) and a few other shrub species on
well-drained sandy soils.
Flatwoods Pine and Palmetto (FW): These are found on flatwoods soils. The flatwoods soils are in
the Myakka-Eau Gallie-Immokalee Association and are poorly drained spodosols. Pine stands vary
by age and density. In addition, small flatwoods areas exist that are devoid of pines. Although the
acreage of the pine communities is limited, they do provide diversity. The pine lands are of special
interest because they provide nesting habitat for the southern bald eagle. Two pine species are
found naturally on the refuge. Slash pine (Pinus elliottii) makes up about 85 percent of the pine
population. The remainder consists of pond pine (P. serotina). The most common understory
species are saw palmetto, gallberry (Ilex glabra), and Lyonia spp.
Other Landcover Types
Bare Soil (BS): These are areas devoid of vegetation including earthen roads, dikes, and rights-of-way.
These areas are not graveled or paved.
Borrow Pond (BP): These are man-made ponds resulting from removal of fill dirt for road/levee construction.
38 St. Johns National Wildlife Refuge
Pasture (P): These are mowed lands with herbaceous communities primarily controlled by cattle-grazing
practices.
Palm Strand (PS): Areas within marsh habitat that are dominated by cabbage palms.
Pond (W): Land covered by freshwater from runoff and precipitation.
Disturbed Land/Spoil (SP): This is land covered with spoil dirt from canal dredge.
Woody Exotics (EX): Areas dominated by exotic/nuisance species.
Fire Ecology
Few of the vegetation communities found on the refuge are not in some way related to fire (Adrian
2001). Most are fire-maintained, while others are fire-influenced. The natural communities found on
the refuge that are not fire types include the obvious ones, such as the open waters of the borrow
ponds. In order to use fire wisely to manage the habitats of the refuge, it is important to first
understand how fire functions in the natural system. Figures 11 and 12 identify locations of fire
management units for both the SR 50 and Bee Line units.
Fire-Influenced Communities
Many of the wetland and mesic communities are influenced by fire on occasion. For instance, mixed
mesic hammocks do not burn during normal times. However, during periods of extreme drought, fires
do move through these areas as evidenced by fire scars found on some of the older trees. Fire also
plays a role in determining the edges of these hammocks. Fires that occur in the normal dry season
will burn the edges of hammocks, keeping them in check. Conversely, during very wet cycles, the
hammock species will gradually move out into other communities. This oscillation has most likely
occurred for thousands of years. The wetter mixed hardwood and willow swamps are more resistant
to fire's incursion, but can still be affected.
Fire-Maintained Communities
The vast majority of habitat types found on the refuge are fire-maintained. These can be grouped
into three categories: grassy marshes, flatwoods, and scrub. This grouping is based on both the role
fire plays in these ecosystems and the fire management practices used to manipulate them. The