St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              M
W R
CCoompprreehheennssiivvee CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn PPllaann
St. Marks
National Wildlife Refuge
M N W R
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
USFWS Photto
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
P.O. Box 68
St. Marks, FL 32355
Telephone(850) 925-6121
E-mail: saintmarks@fws.gov
Website: http://www.fws.gov/saintmarks
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
October 2006
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans
do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
October 2006
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
ST. MARKS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Wakulla, Taylor, and Jefferson Counties, Florida
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
October 2006
ii St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Need for the Plan....................................................................................................1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service......................................................................................................1
National Wildlife Refuge System..................................................................................................2
II. THE REFUGE...................................................................................................................................5
Introduction .................................................................................................................................5
History of Refuge Establishment and Acquisition.........................................................................5
Purposes of The Refuge ..............................................................................................................7
Regional Habitat Management Perspective.................................................................................7
North American and Ecosystem Context .....................................................................................7
Role of the Refuge In Bird Conservation ..........................................................................13
Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans..................................................................................15
Black Bear Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas......................................................................16
Gulf of Mexico Program..............................................................................................................16
Coastal Barrier Resources Act...................................................................................................16
Northeast Gulf Coast Ecosystem Team.....................................................................................16
Surface Water Improvement and Management Plans For The Aucilla and St. Marks Rivers....17
Outstanding Florida Waters Designations..................................................................................17
Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve ....................................................................................18
National Fire initiative.................................................................................................................18
Longleaf Pine/Wiregrass Habitat Restoration ............................................................................23
Physical Environment ...................................................................................................................25
Climate..............................................................................................................................25
Hydrology - Historical Changes and Impacts....................................................................27
Surface and Ground Water Quality...................................................................................27
Contaminants...................................................................................................................32
Air Quality .........................................................................................................................32
Biological Environment...............................................................................................................33
Native Vegetation/Plant Communities/Flora .....................................................................33
Exotic Plant Species .........................................................................................................42
Fish and Wildlife/Fauna ....................................................................................................43
Research Natural Areas ...................................................................................................51
Federal Wilderness Designation and Stewardship ...........................................................51
Wilderness Management – Current activities ...................................................................54
Forest Management - History ...........................................................................................54
Forest Management - Current Activities ...........................................................................56
Ecological Role of Fire......................................................................................................56
Impoundments - History and Construction........................................................................57
Impoundments - Management Techniques ......................................................................58
Impoundments - Current Activities....................................................................................58
Socioeconomic Environment......................................................................................................61
Regional Demographics and Economy.............................................................................61
Land Use ..........................................................................................................................62
Recreation Use .................................................................................................................62
Table of Contents iii
Recreation Economics ......................................................................................................67
Fire Risk and Suppression ................................................................................................68
Cultural Environment ..................................................................................................................69
Prehistoric Background .....................................................................................................69
Historical Period ................................................................................................................71
III. PLANNING ISSUES ......................................................................................................................75
Introduction................................................................................................................................75
Priority Resource Issues.............................................................................................................75
Overarching Refuge Issues...............................................................................................75
Habitat Management.........................................................................................................76
Wildlife Management.........................................................................................................77
Visitor Services .................................................................................................................77
Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................77
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................79
Introduction................................................................................................................................79
Refuge Vision .............................................................................................................................79
Refuge Goals.............................................................................................................................79
comprehensive conservation Plan summary..............................................................................80
Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies..................................................................................80
Goal 1. Wildlife Habitat and Population Management......................................................81
Goal 2. Threatened, Endangered, Rare, and Imperiled Species .....................................87
Goal 3. Migratory Birds ....................................................................................................91
Goal 4. Visitor Services....................................................................................................95
Goal 5. Cultural Resources Management and Protection..............................................101
Goal 6. Wilderness.........................................................................................................104
Goal 7. Refuge Administration .......................................................................................105
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ...........................................................................................................109
Introduction..............................................................................................................................109
Project Summaries ...................................................................................................................109
Wildlife Habitat Population Management ........................................................................109
Refuge Administration, Safety, and Resource Protection ...............................................113
Visitor Services, Wildlife-Dependent Recreation, and Environmental Education............114
Staffing and Funding ................................................................................................................116
Partnership Opportunities.........................................................................................................116
Step-Down Management Plans................................................................................................120
Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................................123
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................123
SECTION B. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................125
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED...............................................................135
APPENDIX III. LEGAL MANDATES .................................................................................................145
iv St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
APPENDIX IV. FLORA AND FAUNA ...............................................................................................153
APPENDIX V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, CONSULTATION, AND COORDINATION......................255
APPENDIX VI. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS.....................................................................269
APPENDIX VII. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND FEE SIMPLE PROPERTIES MANAGED BY
THE REFUGE .........................................................................................................291
APPENDIX VIII. EXOTIC SPECIES LOCATIONS AND TREATMENT ............................................293
APPENDIX IX. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL PARTNERS ..............................................................305
APPENDIX X. INVENTORY AND MONITORING EFFORTS BY STAFF.........................................309
APPENDIX XI. WILDERNESS REVIEW SUMMARY.......................................................................314
APPENDIX XII. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ..................................320
APPENDIX XIII. SERVICE’S RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BY OTHER AGENCIES AND THE
PUBLIC ON THE DRAFT CCP/EA........................................................................328
APPENDIX XIV. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .............................................................344
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. National wildlife refuges of Florida.........................................................................................3
Figure 2. Existing refuge and approved acquisition boundary ..............................................................6
Figure 3. St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge jointly managed lands ....................................................8
Figure 4. Wetland conservation easements administered by St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge........9
Figure 5. St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge regional conservation context ......................................10
Figure 6. Florida Forever Black Bear Work Group land acquisition priorities .....................................19
Figure 7. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ecoregions, Southeast Region ............................................20
Figure 8. St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge seagrass coverage, 1999.............................................21
Figure 9. Geology of north central Florida and St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge............................28
Figure 10. East River Watershed........................................................................................................29
Figure 11. Watershed coincidence of St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge..........................................30
Figure 12. St. Marks Unit natural community types ............................................................................35
Figure 13. Wakulla Unit natural community types...............................................................................37
Figure 14. Panacea Unit natural community types .............................................................................39
Figure 15. St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge Research Natural Areas.............................................52
Figure 16. St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge designated Wilderness Area ......................................55
Figure 17. St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge water impoundments and structures ..........................59
Figure 18. St. Marks Unit visitor services facilities..............................................................................65
Figure 19. Wakulla Unit visitor services facilities. ...............................................................................66
Figure 20. Panacea Unit visitor services facilities...............................................................................67
Figure 21. St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge approved acquisition area and proposed conservation
areas ................................................................................................................................83
Figure 22. St. Marks Unit visitor services facilities - Alternative 2.......................................................96
Figure 23. Wakulla Unit visitor services facilities ................................................................................97
Figure 24. Panacea Unit visitor services facilities...............................................................................98
Figure 25. Organizational structure for the management of St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge......119
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Public and conservation lands near St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge ..............................11
Table 2. Regional extent of intensive silviculture activity ....................................................................12
Table 3. Climatological data for St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge...................................................26
Table 4. Geologic time chart - Cenozoic Era ......................................................................................26
Table 5. Land use summary - natural community types in ascending order of area represented ......41
Table 6. Invasive exotic plant species found in Florida and known to occur on the refuge ................44
Table 7. Peak observed waterfowl use of refuge impoundments, 1994-95 through 2002-03.............46
Table 8. St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge Research Natural Area designations.............................51
Table 9. Acreage of managed refuge impoundments.........................................................................59
Table 10. Acreage of managed refuge wetland areas ........................................................................59
Table 11. Socioeconomic profile - U.S. Census 2000 ........................................................................61
Table 12. 1995 land use: percent of total land in county ....................................................................62
Table 13. Direct economic benefit of St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge to the local economy.........68
Table 14. Summary of project costs (in Fiscal Year 2004dollars).....................................................117
Table 15. Approximate annual costs of proposed staff positions in Fiscal Year 2004 dollars ..........118
Table 16. St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans and completion dates ........121
ST. MARKS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
VISION STATEMENT
The St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge will be a model for conserving the natural diversity of plants
and animals, preserving cultural resources, and providing opportunities for research, environmental
education, and quality outdoor recreation. The refuge will link other north Florida wild lands with vital
habitat for threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and resident wildlife, and it will
protect the rich resources of Apalachee Bay. Conservation of the natural health and beauty of the
refuge is our promise to the community and future generations.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan for St. Marks
National Wildlife Refuge, located in the Big Bend region of Florida, to guide refuge management and
resource conservation over the next 15 years. This plan contains background information on the
refuge, a description of the planning process, the desired future conditions, and the refuge’s vision,
goals, and management actions necessary to achieve these goals and conditions.
Guiding the development of the plan is Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the
Fish and Wildlife Service Manual and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
An overriding consideration reflected in this plan is that fish and wildlife conservation has first priority
in refuge management. All public use of refuges must be compatible with the purposes for which the
refuge was established. The Act specifies six priority wildlife-dependent uses: hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
The major issues addressed in the plan include wildlife habitat protection, monitoring, and restoration;
management of forests, fire, and impoundments; exotic species control; water quality and quantity;
land conservation; wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities and impacts; environmental education;
resource protection/law enforcement; and partnerships. Based on these issues, three alternatives
were identified for managing the refuge. From these alternatives, the Service selected a preferred
alternative, which is described in Chapter IV, Management Direction.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the plan is to identify the role the refuge will play in support of the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System and to provide guidance in refuge management and public use
activities. The plan describes the Service=s management direction (goals, objectives, and strategies)
for the next 15 years.
The plan is needed to:
• Provide a clear statement regarding management of the refuge;
• Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the
Service=s management actions on and around the refuge;
• Ensure that refuge management actions are consistent with the purposes of the refuge and
the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
• Provide long-term guidance and continuity for refuge management; and
• Provide a basis for the development of budget requests relative to the refuge=s operational,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing the Nation=s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although the
2 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Service shares this responsibility with other federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities, it has
specific trustee responsibilities for migratory birds, federally listed threatened and endangered
species, anadromous fish, certain marine mammals, and the lands and waters administered by the
Service for the management and protection of these resources.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
As part of its mission, the Service operates 544 national wildlife refuges covering over 100 million
acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world=s largest collection of
lands specifically managed for fish and wildlife. Most of these lands are in Alaska, with only about 20
percent spread across the other 49 states and several island territories. The Service manages 28
national wildlife refuges in Florida (Figure 1) that comprise approximately 964,992 land and water
acres (Florida Natural Areas Inventory 2005).
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, is Ato 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 Act establishes wildlife conservation as the primary mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
National wildlife refuges provide important habitat for native plants and many species of mammals,
birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, insects, and other invertebrates. They also play a vital role in
conserving threatened and endangered species. Refuges offer a wide variety of wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities, and many have visitor centers, wildlife trails, and environmental education
programs. In 1995, 25 million people visited national wildlife refuges to hunt, fish, observe and
photograph wildlife, and participate in educational and interpretive activities, and contributed more
than $400 million to the local economies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
Figure 1. National wildlife refuges of Florida
National Wildli f e Refuges
of Florida
􀀀  75
􀀀  95
􀀀  295
􀀀  10
􀀀  4
􀀀  395
􀀀  595
􀀀  110
􀀀  195
􀀀  75
􀀀  10 􀀀  75
􀀀  275
POLK
DADE
COLLIER
LAKE
LEVY
MARION
LEE
PALMBEACH
BAY
OSCEOLA
HENDRY
VOLUSIA
DIXIE
TAYLOR
LEON DUVAL
WALTON
CLAY
GLADES
BROWARD
ORANGE
PASCO
GULF
ALACHUA
LIBERTY
JACKSON
MONROE
PUTNAM
HIGHLANDS
BAKER
MARTIN
BREVARD
OKALOOSA
SANTAROSA
NASSAU
CITRUS
MANATEE
MADISON
COLUMBIA
HARDEE
DESOTO
SUMTER
HILLSBOROUGH
ST.JOHNS
WAKULLA
OKEECHOBEE
ESCAMBIA
ST.LUCIE
SUWANNEE
CHARLOTTE
CALHOUN
HOLMES
FLAGLER
GADSDEN
FRANKLIN
SARASOTA
JEFFERSON
HAMILTON
LAFAYETTE
WASHINGTON
HERNANDO
UNION
INDIANRIVER
SEMINOLE
GILCHRIST
PINELLAS
BRADFORD
G U L F
O F
ME X I C O
􀀀
0 25 50 100 150 200 Miles
ST. MARKS
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
ST. VINCENT NWR
LOWER SUWANNEE NWR
CHASSAHOWITZKA NWR
EGMONT KEY NWR
J.N. "DING" DARLING NWR
FLORIDA PANTHER NWR
TEN THOUSAND ISLANDS NWR
CROCODILE LAKE NWR
GREAT WHITE HERON NWR
KEY WEST NWR
A.R.M. LOXAHATCHEE NWR
HOBE SOUND NWR
PELICAN ISLAND NWR
MERRITT ISLAND NWR
LAKE WOODRUFF NWR
WELAKA NFH
CEDAR KEYS NWR
CRYSTAL RIVER NWR
NATIONAL KEY DEER REFUGE
ARCHIE CARR NWR
Pensacola
Tallahassee
Jacksonville
Gainesville
Tampa
Orlando
Fort myers
Miami
PASSAGE KEY NWR
PINELLAS NWR
ISLAND BAY NWR
MATLACHA PASS NWR
PINE ISLAND NWR
CALOOSAHATCHEE NWR
ST. JOHNS NWR
Other National Wildlife Refuges
Roads
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Water
LAKE WALES
RIDGE NWR
A T L A N T I C
OC E A N
4 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
II. The Refuge
INTRODUCTION
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge is located in Wakulla, Jefferson, and Taylor Counties along the
Gulf Coast of northwest Florida, about 25 miles south of Tallahassee (Figure 2). It currently covers
about 69,155 acres with an approved acquisition boundary of 74,469 acres. The refuge staff also
manages 947 acres of state land and 334 acres of USDA Forest Service land within the approved
acquisition boundary.
HISTORY OF REFUGE ESTABLISHMENT AND ACQUISITION
On October 31, 1931, during the time of the Great Depression, Executive Order 5740 established the
St. Marks Migratory Bird Refuge under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological
Survey. The first land set aside under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Six Million Dollar
Fund was the 53-acre Lighthouse Reservation. This is an area of salt marshes and grass flats at the
mouth of the St. Marks River, adjacent to Apalachee Bay. At the time, it was important for migrating
Canada geese. On December 24, 1931, President Herbert C. Hoover signed Presidential
Proclamation 1982, which established an Executive Closure Area under the authorities of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929. This prohibited
hunting of migratory waterfowl in Apalachee Bay between the St. Marks Lighthouse and the Aucilla
River, as well as on private lands bordering the coastal marshes. These inland timber lands were
primarily purchased from Phillips Turpentine Company in subsequent years and became the nucleus
of what is now the St. Marks Unit of the refuge.
It was under President Franklin D. Roosevelt that the boundaries of today=s refuge substantially took
shape. Executive Order 7222, dated November 1, 1935, added approximately 10,108 acres which
formed most of the current Wakulla Unit of the refuge. Executive Order 7749, dated November 22,
1937, further defined the boundaries of the St. Marks and Wakulla units, including approximately
31,445 acres. Executive Orders 7977 and 9119, dated September 19, 1938, and April 1, 1942,
respectively, added approximately 22,040 acres to form what is now the Panacea Unit out of lands
transferred from the Soil Conservation Service=s Resettlement Administration. The original Executive
Closure Order, which prohibited the taking of migratory waterfowl, was expanded by Roosevelt=s
Presidential Proclamation 2264 on December 13, 1937. With Presidential Proclamation 2416 on July
25, 1940, the St. Marks Migratory Bird Refuge became St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge. By 1960,
the Executive Closure Order boundaries had a total of 67,563 acres.
In recent years the refuge has acquired some land through timber-for-land exchanges. The timber
traded under this program was slated for removal in forest prescriptions to improve wildlife habitat.
Rather than sell timber directly, the refuge traded timber for land that was either within the refuge
acquisition boundary, as inholdings, or adjacent to the refuge.
Purchased by the Suwannee River Water Management District, 642 acres of land located along the
Aucilla River are managed by the refuge under a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2000.
The refuge also manages the 305-acre Porter Tract according to a Memorandum of Understanding
signed in 1999. It is owned by the State of Florida and administered by the Department of
Environmental Protection, Office of Greenways and Trails. Similarly, a 334-acre portion of the Florida
National
6 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Existing refuge and approved acquisition boundary
Oyster
Bay
Otter
Lake
Dickerson
Bay
Ochlockonee
Bay
Goose Creek
Bay
East River
Pool
Sopchoppy River
Hosford Branch
Otter Creek
Pinhook River
Buckhorn Creek
Spring Creek
Old Creek
Poplar Creek
Monkey Creek
Wacissa River
Aucilla River
Aucilla River
Cedar Creek
Mensler Creek
Boggy Bayou
Middle Creek
East Goose Creek
Shepherd
Spring
US Hwy 98
State Hwy 61
US Hwy 319
Lower Bridge
State Hwy 368
State Hwy 59
Lawhon Mill
State Hwy 363
Surf
State Hwy 375
State Hwy 370
State Hwy 59
US Hwy 319
US Hwy 319
US Hwy 98
US Hwy 319
WAKULLA
COUNTY
JEFFERSON
COUNTY
FRANKLIN
COUNTY
TAYLOR
COUNTY
Panacea
Ashmore
Buckhorn
Sopchoppy
Port
Leon
St.
Marks
Hyde
Park
Work
Center
Green
Point
Cabel
Point
Wills
Point
Shell
Point
Gull
Island
Gamble
Point
Jacks
Island
Smith
Island
Spring
Creek
Piney
Island
Pelican
Point
Wakulla
Beach
Mashes
Island
Simmons
Point
Cabbage
Island
Sprague
Island
Hopkins
Island
Live
Oak
Island
Big
Redfish
Point
St.
Marks
Lighthouse
Buckhorn
Creek
Woods
TAYLOR
LEON
LIBERTY
MADISON
DIXIE
WAKULLA
SUWANNEE
GADSDEN
FRANKLIN
JEFFERSON
HAMILTON
LAFAYETTE
GULF
CALHOUN
COLUMBIA
GILCHRIST
JACKSON
0 1 2 3 4Miles
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Existing Refuge & Approved Acquisition Boundary
GULF OF MEXICO
St. Marks
National Wildlife Refuge
A p a l a c h e e B a y
G u l f o f Me x i c o
Approved Acquisition Boundary
Existing Refuge
Executive Closure Area
Wakulla River
St. Marks River
Apalachicola
National
Forest
Aucilla Wildlife
Management
Area
Snipe
Island
Unit
Big
Bend
WMA
Bald
Point
State
Park
Ochlockonee
River
State
Park
􀀀
Georgia
Managed Conservation Land 􀀀
East River
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Scenic Trail, located west of the Wakulla River, is managed by the refuge under a 2002
Memorandum of Understanding. This land was acquired by the USDA Forest Service. These jointly
managed land areas are shown in Figure 3. The refuge also administers 16 conservation easements
and one government-owned property totaling 1,517 acres in northern Florida and southern Georgia.
The locations of these lands in relation to the refuge are shown in Figure 4. See Section B, Appendix
VII, for the counties and fee or conservation acreages associated with these easements and
properties.
PURPOSES OF THE REFUGE
Under Executive Order 5740, dated October 31, 1931, which established the refuge, the purpose of
the acquisition was A...as a refuge and breeding ground for wild animals and birds.@ For lands
acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C., Section 715d), the purpose
of the acquisition was A...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds.@ For lands acquired under the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C., Section
460k-1), the purpose of the acquisition was A...for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational
development; (2) the protection of natural resources; and (3) the conservation of endangered species
or threatened species.@ Under the National Wildlife System Administration Act, refuges were
established for “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). The Wilderness Act of 1964, Public Law 92-363, dated January 3, 1975, also
designated “…certain lands in the St. Marks Wildlife Refuge, Florida which comprise approximately
seventeen thousand seven hundred and forty-six acres…as the St. Marks Wilderness.” These
purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System are fundamental to determining the
compatibility of proposed uses of the refuge. The compatibility of these uses is discussed in Section
B, Appendix VI.
REGIONAL HABITAT MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE
The primary purpose of the refuge is wildlife habitat conservation. Unlike many present-day islands
of conservation in the Southeast, the refuge is embedded within a matrix of over 1.46 million acres of
nearly contiguous public lands on 55 properties (Figure 5 and Table 1). This does not include
106,046 acres of submerged lands within the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve and
945,412 acres of submerged lands in the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve. As shown in Table
2, much of the remaining privately owned land in the region is intensively managed industrial forest
land, possessing both major conservation potential and the threat of future development.
North of the refuge lies the cultural and environmental resource of Wakulla Springs State Park.
Wakulla Springs forms the headwaters of the Wakulla River and are protected within 10,320 acres of
Wakulla Springs State Park and Wakulla State Forest. The Big Bend coastline extends east and
south of the refuge, including 945,412 acres of submerged lands and navigable tributaries, which are
administered as the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve by the State of Florida’s Department of
Environmental Protection. Approximately 453,097 acres of adjacent land to the east and southeast of
the refuge (from the Aucilla to the Withlacoochee Rivers) are managed by the Department of
Environmental Protection, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Suwannee River
Water Management District, and others.
NORTH AMERICAN AND ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
The refuge has formed partnerships with other wildlife and habitat management programs and works
cooperatively to advance many local, state, regional, national, and international plans and initiatives.
8 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge jointly managed lands
US Hwy 98
US Hwy 319
State Hwy 365
State Hwy 363
Lower Bridge
State Hwy 368
State Hwy 59
Lawhon Mill
State Hwy 267
Surf
State Hwy 375
State Hwy 61
State Hwy 22
Purify Bay
State Hwy 370
Goose Pasture
US Hwy 319
State Hwy 375
US Hwy 98
US Hwy 319
State Hwy 59
US Hwy 319
Lost Creek
Sopchoppy River
Otter Creek
Monkey Creek
Pinhook River
Sulfur Creek
Buckhorn Creek
Spring Creek
Poplar Creek
Cow Creek
0 2 4 Miles
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Jointly Managed Lands
􀀀 A p a l a c h e e B a y
G u l f o f M e x i c o
Sopchoppy River
Ochlockonee
Bay
Otter
Lake
Oyster
Bay
Goose
Creek
Bay
Approved Acquisition Boundary
SNIPE
ISLAND
UNIT
BIG
BEND
WMA
05.06.2003
TAYLOR
DIXIE
LEON
GULF
LIBERTY
MADISON
WAKULLA
CALHOUN
FRANKLIN
LAFAYETTE
JEFFERSON
SUWANNEE
GADSDEN HAMILTON
JACKSON
GULF OF MEXICO
St. Marks
National Wildlife Refuge
JE F F E R SON
COUNT Y
TAYLOR
COUNTY
WAKU L L A
COUNT Y
F RANK L I N
COUNT Y Bald Point
State Park
Apalachicola
National
Forest
Wakulla Springs
State Park
Aucilla
Wildlife
Management
Area
St. Marks River
Aucilla River
Panacea
Sopchoppy
Shell
Point
Live
Oak
Island
Spring
Creek
Piney
Island
Medart
Wakulla
Beach
St. Marks
Work
Center
Visitor
Center
Port
Leon
St. Marks
Lighthouse
Stoney Bayou Creek
Aucilla
Boat
Ramp
Sprague
Island
Existing Refuge Land
Lands Managed in Parnership
With Other Conservation Agencies
Managed Conservation Land
Ochlockonee River
Ochlockonee
River
State Park
Suwannee River
Water Management District
Suwannee River
Water Management District
USDA Forest Service USDA Forest Service
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Office of Greenways and Trails
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Figure 4. Wetland conservation easements administered by St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
􀀀 
􀀀  􀀀 
􀀀 􀀀 
􀀀  􀀀  􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
􀀀 
  
Bainbridge
Thomasville
Valdosta
Tallahassee
Perry
GD2 GB1
GT1
GT2
GG1 GT3
GB2
GB3
GD1
FM1
FM4
FG2
FM2
FEE1
FM3
FS1
FG1
Taylor
Leon
Madison
Decatur
Wakulla
Liberty
Suwannee
Colquitt
Jefferson
Thomas
Brooks
Grady
Clinch
Gadsden
Lowndes
Hamilton
Mitchell
Echols
Miller
Franklin
Berrien
Cook
Lanier
Seminole
   10
   75
  98
  129
  19
  27
  90   41
  221
  319
  319
  27
  221
  129
  129
  84
  41
  441
  319
  19
  82
  27
  221
  129
  41
  84
  221
  221   41
GEORGIA
FLORIDA
  Fee Simple Property
Easements Administered
By St. Marks NWR 􀀀
0 10 20 Miles
Wetland Conservation Easements
Administered By
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Gulf of Mexico
St. Marks
National Wildlife Refuge
􀀀 
10 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge regional conservation context
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Regional Conservation Context
LEVY
MARION
BAY
LAKE
DIXIE
TAYLOR
LEON
CLAY
ALACHUA
LIBERTY
BAKER
WALTON
CITRUS
GULF
MADISON
COLUMBIA
SUMTER
NASSAU
DUVAL
PUTNAM
WAKULLA
SUWANNEE
CALHOUN
JACKSON
GADSDEN
JEFFERSON
HAMILTON
LAFAYETTE
FRANKLIN
WASHINGTON
HERNANDO
UNION
PASCO
GILCHRIST
BRADFORD
HOLMES
POLK
ST JOHNS
OKALOOSA
VOLUSIA
GU L F O F M E X I C O
􀀀 0 20 40 60 80 100 Miles
ECONFINA CREEK
WATER MANAGEMENT
AREA
TORREYA
STATE
PARK
APALACHICOLA BAY
AQUATIC PRESERVE
APALACHICOLA
NATIONAL FOREST
TATE’S HELL
STATE FOREST
& WILDLIFE MGT. AREA
APALACHICOLA
NATIONAL FOREST
WAKULLA SPRINGS
STATE PARK
LAKE TALQUIN
STATE PARK +
FOREST
ALLIGATOR HARBOR
AQUATIC PRESERVE
BALD POINT
STATE PARK
AUCILLA
WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT
AREA
MIDDLE AUCILLA
CONSERVATION AREA
ECONFINA
CONSERVATION
AREA
BIG BEND
SEAGRASSES
AQUATIC
PRESERVE
BIG BEND
WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT
AREA
STEINHATCHEE
CONSERVATION
AREA
FOREST SYSTEMS
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
MALLORY
SWAMP
RESTORATION
EASEMENT
BAILEY BROTHERS
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
STRICKLAND
FIELD CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
LOWER SUWANNEE
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
NATC SUWANNEE SWAMP
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
WACCASASSA BAY PRESERVE
STATE PARK
NATC GULF HAMMOCK
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
NATC OAK HAMMOCK
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
MANATEE SPRINGS
STATE PARK
ANDREWS WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT AREA
GOETHE
STATE
FOREST
CRYSTAL RIVER
STATE BUFFER
PRESERVE
ST. MARTINS MARSH
AQUATIC PRESERVE
CHASSAHOWIZKA NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
WITHLACOOCHEE
STATE FOREST
CHASSAHOWIZKA WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT AREA
WEEKIWACHEE
PRESERVE
ST. GEORGE ISLAND
STATE PARK
ST. VINCENT NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
ST. JOSEPH PENNINSULA
STATE PARK
ST. JOSEPH BAY
AQUATIC PRESERVE
APALACHICOLA RIVER
WILDLIFE &
ENVIRONMENTAL
AREA
APALACHICOLA
RIVER
WATER
MANAGEMENT
AREA
ST. ANDREW BAY
STATE PARK AND
AQUATIC PRESERVE
TYNDALL AIR
FORCE BASE
EGLIN
AFB
POINT
WASHINGTON
STATE FOREST
CHOCTAWHATCHEE
RIVER
WMA
OSCEOLA
NATIONAL
FOREST
TWIN
RIVERS
STATE
FOREST
SUWANNEE RIVER
STATE PARK
BIG SHOALS
STATE PARK
BENTON
CONSERVATION
AREA
JOHN M. BETHEA
STATE FOREST
JENNINGS
STATE FOREST
CAMP
BLANDING
MILITARY
RESERVATION
OCALA
NATIONAL
FOREST
PAYNES PRAIRIE
PRESERVE
STATE PARK
ST. MARKS NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
GEORGIA
􀀀 
Tallahassee
Approved Acquisition Boundary
Existing Refuge Land
Federal Conservation Land
Private Conservation Land
State Aquatic Preserve
State Conservation Land
Local Conservation Land
Non−Conservation Land
MASHES SANDS
COUNTY PARK
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Table 1. Public and conservation lands near St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
The properties listed below form a contiguous network with not more than 3 miles of nondeveloped lands
separating the nearest points (with the exception of a 4.5-mile break in Taylor County between portions of the
Big Bend Wildlife Management Area).
Property County(ies) Acreage
Apalachicola National Forest Franklin, Leon, Liberty, Wakulla 576,673
Apalachicola River Water Management Area Gulf, Liberty 36,035
Apalachicola River Wildlife and Environmental Area Franklin, Gulf 64,395
Aucilla Wildlife Management Area Jefferson, Taylor 42,505
Bald Point State Park Franklin 4,878
Big Bend Wildlife Management Area Dixie, Taylor 81,557
Cape Saint George State Reserve Franklin 2,385
Carlton Farms Conservation Easement Wakulla 63
Carpenter and Westmark Conservation Easement Wakulla 363
Carroll Conservation Easement Wakulla 374
Cedar Key Museum State Park Levy 19
Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve Levy 5,033
Cedar Key National Wildlife Refuge Levy 843
Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge Citrus, Hernando 29,960
Chassahowitzka River and Coastal Swamps Citrus, Hernando 5,675
Chassahowitzka Wildlife Management Area Hernando 27,588
Constitution Convention Museum State Park Gulf 13
Crystal River Archaeological State Park Citrus 60
Crystal River State Buffer Preserve Citrus 30,847
Cummer Sanctuary Levy 817
Dead Lakes Park Gulf 83
Dr. Julian G. Bruce St. George Island State Park Franklin 2,024
Econfina Conservation Area Taylor 8,488
Econfina River State Park Taylor 4,529
Edward Ball Wakulla Springs State Park Wakulla 6,036
Eglin Air Force Base Test Site Gulf 779
Felburn Park Citrus 137
Forest Systems Conservation Easement Dixie 32,137
Joe Budd Wildlife Management Area Gadsden 3,023
Lake Talquin State Forest Gadsden, Leon, Liberty 18,992
Lake Talquin State Park Leon 556
Lower Steinhatchee Conservation Area Taylor 91
Lower Suwannee National Wildlife Refuge Dixie, Levy 51,192
12 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Property County(ies) Acreage
Middle Aucilla Conservation Area Jefferson, Madison, Taylor 9,143
NATC Gulf Hammock Conservation Easement Levy 21,406
NATC Suwannee Swamp Conservation Easement Levy 12,798
Ochlockonee River State Park Wakulla 541
Purify Creek Park, Trust for Public Lands Wakulla 454
Salinas Park Gulf 39
San Marcos de Apalache Historic State Park Wakulla 17
Snipe Island Unit Taylor 11,913
St. Joseph Bay State Buffer Preserve Gulf 5,590
St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge Franklin, Gulf 12,242
Steinhatchee Conservation Area Dixie, Lafayette, Taylor 26,234
Strickland Field Conservation Easement Dixie 3,843
T. H. Stone Memorial St. Joseph Peninsula State
Park Gulf 2,716
Tallahassee - St. Marks Historic Railroad State
Park Leon, Wakulla 170
Tate’s Hell State Forest and Wildlife Management
Area Franklin, Liberty 203,600
Thompson Gray Conservation Easement Gadsden 322
Waccasassa Bay Reserve State Park Levy 33,992
Wacissa Conservation Area Jefferson 1,060
Wakulla State Forest Wakulla 4,284
Weekiwatchee Preserve Hernando, Pasco 10,839
Yellow Jacket Conservation Area Dixie 506
Source: Florida Natural Areas Inventory, March 2005 Florida Managed Areas.
Table 2. Regional extent of intensive silviculture activity
County Total Acres In County Percent, per county, Intensive
Silviculture on Private Lands
Franklin 354,180 07.7
Jefferson 391,734 21.8
Taylor 672,336 43.8
Wakulla 395,352 12.1
Source: Florida Land Use Classification and Cover System digital data, Suwannee River and Northwest Florida Water
Management Districts, 1995, revised 2003.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Southwest and west of the refuge are the largest tracts of public conservation land in north Florida:
Apalachicola National Forest at 576,673 acres and the adjacent Tate’s Hell Wildlife Management
Area/State Forest/Apalachicola River Wildlife and Environmental Area at 304,030 acres. The
Apalachicola National Forest contains shared and close boundaries with the refuge in portions of the
Panacea Unit, as does Ochlockonee River State Park. Tate’s Hell State Forest’s northeast boundary
is approximately one mile west of the western boundary of the Panacea Unit. These important
conservation lands, along with others listed in Table 1, form a contiguous landscape-scale network of
wildlife habitat with exceptional ecological value. The refuge provides a critical east-west linkage of
these lands, spanning more than 43 miles of coastal and near-coastal habitats.
This comprehensive conservation plan supports bird conservation efforts, several Endangered
Species Act recovery plans, the Surface Water Improvement and Management Plans for the St.
Marks and Aucilla Rivers, the National Fire Initiative, and other plans and initiatives as described
below.
ROLE OF THE REFUGE IN BIRD CONSERVATION
The refuge supports five bird conservation plans: (1) the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan; (2) the Partners in Flight Initiative; (3) the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Plan;
(4) the Southeastern Coastal Plain and Caribbean Region Shorebird Conservation Plan; and (5) the
Southeastern Coastal Plain Colonial Waterbird Conservation Regional Plan.
Globally Important Bird Area
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge is designated as a Globally Important Bird Area of the United
States. Worldwide, there are 3,500 sites. The American Bird Conservancy identified the top 500
sites within the United States. The refuge meets the criteria of containing habitat necessary to
support a major population of an endangered species, the red-cockaded woodpecker, and of
containing large aggregations of breeding, migrating, or wintering birds, including waterfowl, seabirds,
wading birds, raptors, or landbirds. The goal of the Globally Important Bird Area program is to create
public awareness of these sites and to obtain resources to protect them.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Since the first European settlers arrived, more than 53 percent of the contiguous United States=
original 221 million acres of wetlands have been destroyed, causing dramatic declines in waterfowl
populations. Even so, waterfowl remain an economically important group of migratory birds in North
America. According to the 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated
Recreation, approximately 3 million people spent $1.4 billion to hunt ducks that year (U.S.
Department of the Interior 2003).
Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North Americans and the need for international
cooperation to help in the recovery of this shared resource, the United States and Canadian governments
developed a strategy to restore waterfowl populations to levels of the 1970s through habitat protection,
restoration, and enhancement. The strategy was documented in the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, signed in 1986 by the Secretary of the Interior and the Canadian Minister of the
Environment. With an update in 1994, Mexico became a signatory to the plan.
The plan identified important waterfowl habitat areas and established habitat and population goals. It
developed interstate/international partnerships called Joint Ventures to implement plan goals. In
1997, the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture added Florida as its 17th state partner. Midwinter data
indicate that 17 to 26 percent of the Atlantic Flyway=s January censussed duck population spends the
winter in north and central Florida, an incidence greater than in any other state in the flyway. St.
14 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Marks National Wildlife Refuge currently meets several goals and objectives of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan by: (1) conserving seagrass beds and sanctuary areas for redhead and
other diving ducks in Apalachee Bay; (2) managing impoundments for a complex of shallow and deep
water habitats; (3) providing nesting and brooding habitats for wood ducks on the refuge; and (4)
providing sanctuary sites and non-disturbance periods for migratory and pairing waterfowl.
Partners in Flight Initiative
The Partners in Flight Initiative was launched in 1990, in response to growing concerns about
declines in the populations of many landbird species, particularly migratory passerines for which no
coordinated management was in place. It addresses the conservation of birds not covered by other
conservation programs, such as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Western
Shorebird Reserve Network Plan. The central premise of Partners in Flight is that the resources of
public and private organizations in North and South America must be combined, coordinated, and
increased in order to achieve success in conserving bird populations in this hemisphere. The Service
is a member of the cooperative effort to promote research, land protection, and education about
migratory birds. Other participants include federal, state, and local government agencies,
philanthropic foundations, professional organizations, conservation groups, industry, the academic
community, and private individuals.
Partners in Flight focuses on species that breed in the Nearctic (North America) and spend the winter
in the Neotropics (Central and South America). These species are commonly known as neotropical
migratory birds. Partners in Flight coordinates international conservation efforts for all neotropical
migratory landbirds in the United States and the Western Hemisphere. The goal of the initiative is to
keep common birds common. The annual Welcome Back Songbirds festival, which occurs each
spring at Wakulla Springs State Park and the refuge, began in order to promote the Partners in Flight
Initiative.
The refuge contains important habitats for 106 priority bird species identified in the Partners in Flight
plans for the South Atlantic Coastal Plain and East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic provinces. The
refuge provides habitat for 315 avian species (Section B, Appendix IV). Thirty-six species are
considered incidental. Of the 278 regularly occurring species, 110 are confirmed to breed on the
refuge. Neotropical migratory birds are denoted on the bird list.
As noted in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Bird Conservation Plan, the refuge is an important spring
and fall migration stopover site along the Gulf coast. It provides important breeding and wintering
sites. The refuge contains longleaf pine, bottomland hardwood, and hydric hardwood hammock
habitats, which support numerous priority species.
Shorebird and Waterbird Habitat Protection and Management
The Southeastern Coastal Plain and Caribbean Region Shorebird Conservation Plan correlates
roughly to the Partners in Flight, in that it identifies priority species, outlines potential and present
threats to shorebirds and their habitats, reports gaps in knowledge relevant to shorebird conservation,
and makes recommendations for addressing identified problems. General habitat goals for the region
are to (1) provide optimal breeding habitat for priority species; (2) provide high-quality managed
habitat to support requirements of species migrating through or spending winter in the region; and (3)
maintain human disturbances at tolerable levels for shorebirds throughout the year.
The plan notes many sites within the refuge that provide breeding and wintering habitat and critical
migratory stopovers for shorebirds. In particular, the refuge contributes to the goals of the plan by
providing feeding, loafing, and roosting habitat in the impoundments. The refuge also provides
nesting habitat on two islands (Palmetto and Piney) for American oystercatchers and willets.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Wilson=s plovers nest on hard pan/open areas in high marsh and occasionally in impoundments.
American oystercatchers and Wilson=s plovers are in the highest regional priority category.
The Southeastern Coastal Plain Colonial Waterbird Conservation Regional Plan follows the same
format as the previous two bird conservation plans, with a focus on herons, ibises, storks, seabirds,
and their habitats. Through public use area closures and habitat protection, the refuge provides
important breeding and wintering habitat for 15 candidate priority conservation species included in the
plan. The refuge has regionally important habitats, such as coastal wetlands, islands, lakes, and
impoundments.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT RECOVERY PLANS
Several species known or believed to occur on the refuge are listed under the federal Endangered
Species Act as threatened or endangered (Section B, Appendix IV). To be endangered means that a
species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a major portion of its range, while threatened
means that a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. Under the Act, all
federal agencies must use their authorities to conserve listed species and make sure that their
actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. They must protect these species
and conserve their habitats. Recovery plans are developed for each of the federally listed threatened
or endangered species with the objective of restoring the species to a healthy population. The
refuge=s role in the recovery of species listed as endangered is briefly described below.
The Florida manatee, Gulf sturgeon, purple bankclimber, and the Kemp=s ridley, green, and
leatherback sea turtles inhabit the rivers and Gulf of Mexico within the Executive Order Closure
portion of the refuge. The refuge=s role in the recovery of these species is minimal. An additional
species, the Ochlockonee mocassinshell, was not located in the Ochlockonee River below Lake
Talquin dam; however, the purple bankclimber, a species listed as threatened, was documented in
the river below the dam. A 2003 recovery plan addresses seven species of mussels. These include
five that are endangered (the fat threeridge, shinyrayed pocketbook, Gulf and Ochlockonee
moccasinshells, and oval pigtoe) and two threatened species (the Chipola slabshell and purple
bankclimber).
The wood stork is known to feed and roost on the refuge, but no nesting sites have been observed.
Drawing down water levels in the impoundments and providing feeding habitat for wood storks also
benefits shorebirds and wading birds. No other special management efforts are currently being
undertaken to encourage use by this species.
The refuge is actively involved in the recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Under the Service’s
current Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan (2003), the refuge hosts the Central Florida
Panhandle Primary Core population, together with Apalachicola National Forest, Tate=s Hell State
Forest and Wildlife Management Area, and Ochlockonee River State Park. The Central Florida
Panhandle Primary Care population is the largest population with 665 active clusters. The recovery
plan has a panhandle population goal of 1,000 potential breeding groups, with a refuge goal of 71
active clusters. Active refuge management of the red-cockaded woodpecker population and habitat
since 1980 has not only prevented extirpation, but also fostered population growth.
16 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
BLACK BEAR STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
While the black bear is not a federally listed species, the State of Florida has listed it as a threatened
species. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has identified privately owned lands as
strategic habitat conservation areas critical for ensuring the long-term viability of Florida=s biodiversity
(Cox et al. 1994). In May 2000, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory hosted a workshop to rank black
bear habitats for potential acquisition under the Florida Forever Program. A total of 1.65 million acres of
private lands was identified as necessary to support five viable populations of black bears. These lands
center around five large blocks of public land and two landscape linkages of private land (Figure 6). The
black bear population on and around Ocala National Forest is in greatest need of protection and at the
highest risk of losing habitat due to development. The Apalachicola National Forest black bear
population is expanding to the east. Habitat in the vicinity of the Aucilla River and south through the Big
Bend region is important to this expanding population. Known as the Aucilla Gateway, this area has the
potential to provide a link to the small and isolated Chassahowitzka population in Citrus and Hernando
counties. It includes the refuge and private lands to the north and east. It is ranked as the third
acquisition priority of the seven statewide strategic habitat conservation areas.
As part of the greater Apalachicola black bear population, which encompasses a land base of
approximately 2.6 million acres, the refuge presently meets or exceeds the current habitat
management guidelines set in 1995 by the Apalachicola Bear Management Committee, in terms of
silviculture management, prescribed fire, set-aside areas, and road access.
GULF OF MEXICO PROGRAM
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency initiated the Gulf of Mexico Program to protect and restore
the health and productivity of the Gulf in an economically sound manner. The Agency funds research
studies and restoration projects through partnerships with the five Gulf states, local governments,
environmental and agricultural groups, regional businesses, and citizens. In 2003, the refuge was
designated as a Gulf Ecological Management Site due to its unique habitats and ecological
significance to the production of fish, wildlife, and other natural resources. It is now eligible for
research and restoration projects.
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES ACT
The Coastal Resources Barrier Act of 1982 designated Piney Island (Unit P27A-Ochlockonee
Complex) for inclusion within the John H. Chaffee Coastal Barrier Resources System. Areas so
designated are not eligible for federal financial assistance that might support development. This law
requires agencies that propose using federal expenditures within the Coastal Barrier Resources
System to consult with the Ecological Services Office for consistency with the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act.
NORTHEAST GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM TEAM
The Service is working to protect and restore the function, structure, and species composition of
ecosystems based on watershed units. Interagency teams are assembled regionally for this purpose.
The Northeast Gulf Coast Ecosystem Team is a coordinating group that focuses on the Northeast
Gulf Watershed Unit. The unit extends from the Aucilla River watershed through the Perdido River
watershed in northwest Florida, including southeast Alabama and western Georgia (Figure 7). It
contains three major ecoregions and is a national focal point of species rarity and richness (The
Nature Conservancy, Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States, Rarity-
Weighted Richness Index, by Stein et al. 2000, p. 172). Important biological resources include
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
extensive estuarine systems, warm- and cold-water fisheries, longleaf pine-wiregrass communities,
bottomland hardwood swamp forests, and coastal dunes.
The ecological associations in the Northeast Gulf Watershed Unit have been reduced in either
function or structure to the point that more than 30 species are federally listed as threatened or
endangered. In addition, more than 300 species are potential candidates for federal listing. Other
Service trust resources include anadromous fish, migratory birds, nongame waterbirds, waterfowl,
and wetlands.
The team=s vision for the watershed unit is to conserve natural animal and plant diversity through the
perpetuation of dynamic, healthy ecosystems. This will be accomplished by working with partners
and cooperators to protect, secure, and expand the remaining areas of ecological integrity, and by
enhancing biodiversity. Many ongoing efforts, such as the Partners in Flight and the Gulf of Mexico
Program, have already been effective in developing plans on an ecosystem scale. The team=s efforts
focus on working with these groups and others to identify key ecological associations and
interrelationships and to conserve natural animal and plant diversity.
Issues addressed by the team include ecosystem dysfunction due to habitat degradation and
reduction of natural diversity; resource exploitation; lack of adequate scientific information; and the
need for a greater public understanding of ecological needs and biodiversity. Priority is placed on
protecting existing ecologically important areas and preventing further degradation. In 2004, the
landscape-level priorities included: (1) watershed restoration, with emphasis on improving water
quality and water quantity; (2) nuisance species control; (3) native forest restoration, with emphasis
on longleaf pine restoration; (4) an outreach position for the ecosystem team; (5) corridors and
buffers that cross state lines, with a focus on coordination between adjacent states; (6) bay health; (7)
watershed buffers and the use of Best Management Practices; and (8) improvements in managing
reservoirs to benefit fish and wildlife.
SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR THE AUCILLA AND ST.
MARKS RIVERS
Florida=s Surface Water Improvement and Management Act authorizes and directs creation of surface
water and improvement management plans throughout the state and provides the basis for actions by
state agencies to enhance the environmental and scenic value of surface waters. The Act states that
because of point and nonpoint source pollution, as well as destruction of natural systems, many
surface waters have become or are threatened to become degraded to the point where they no
longer perform the functions they once performed. These functions include (1) providing aesthetic
and recreational pleasure for the people of the state; (2) providing habitat for native plants, fish, and
wildlife, including threatened and endangered species; (3) providing safe drinking water to the
growing population of the state; and (4) attracting visitors and accruing other economic benefits.
The individual surface water improvement management plans recognize the importance of public
conservation lands, such as the refuge, for watershed protection.
OUTSTANDING FLORIDA WATERS DESIGNATIONS
Section 403.061(27), Florida Statutes, grants the Department of Environmental Protection the power
to AEstablish rules which provide for a special category of water bodies within the state, to be referred
as >Outstanding Florida Waters,= which shall be worthy of special protection because of their natural
attributes.@ The regulatory significance of this statute is to prevent the Department from issuing
permits for direct or indirect pollutant discharges into Outstanding Florida Waters, which would lower
18 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
or degrade their existing water quality. Permits for new dredging and filling must clearly be in the
public interest. Among other public conservation lands within the state, all waters in national wildlife
refuges are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. The Aucilla, Ochlockonee, and St. Marks
Rivers have such a designation. The Wakulla River is designated as a ASpecial Water,@ a subset of
Outstanding Florida Waters for those waters of Aexceptional recreational or ecological significance.@
BIG BEND SEAGRASSES AQUATIC PRESERVE
The Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve is the largest aquatic preserve in the state. It comprises
about 945,000 acres of sovereign submerged lands along 150 miles of coastline from the St. Marks River
in Wakulla County to the Withlacoochee River in Levy and Citrus Counties. The boundaries (Figure 5)
encompass all tidal lands, islands, seagrass beds, shallow banks, and submerged bottoms located 9
miles waterward into the Gulf of Mexico to which the state holds title, generally below the mean high
water line. The preserve was designated as such in 1985 for the primary purpose of biological resource
protection and to Aensure public recreational opportunities while assuring the continued propagation of
fish, birds, manatees, and other wildlife resources@ (Draft Management Plan 1992, unpublished).
Management intent is defined in the Florida Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975 for such preserves possessing
A...exceptional biological, aesthetic and scientific value...to be set aside forever as aquatic preserves or
sanctuaries for the benefits of future generations@ (Section 258.36, Florida Statutes). In 1986, the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (now merged into the Department of Environmental Protection)
designated the entire preserve as Outstanding Florida Waters.
The refuge currently plays a passive but important role in the protection of aquatic resources. The
Big Bend region of Florida contains one of the largest continuous areas of seagrass beds in the
United States (Figure 8). The seagrass beds located offshore from the Aucilla, St. Marks, and
Ochlockonee Rivers appear to be in good health. Aerial surveys of seagrass resources located
between Waccasassa Bay and the Suwannee River were acquired by the Suwannee River Water
Management District in 2001. Field work began in the refuge area in 2004 (Rob Mattson, Suwannee
River Water Management District, pers. comm.). As funding becomes available, the District has been
interpreting and mapping that photography. In October 2003, the U.S. Geological Survey acquired
the aerial photography to cover Apalachee Bay, but funding has not been secured to map the
seagrasses from the photography.
NATIONAL FIRE INITIATIVE
Nearly a century of fire exclusion, along with land use practices and an increase of exotic species,
has resulted in altered vegetation composition and structure on many public and private lands.
These conditions contribute to higher fire intensities, rates of spread, and resistance to control. The
result has been an increase in the number of large wildland fires over the last two decades. Another
factor that has compounded this problem has been the growth of communities in the wildland-urban
interface (i.e., the areas adjacent to public lands). These new developments put homes and other
structures closer to public forests where larger wildland fires can occur. Several communities share
borders with the refuge: Shell Point, St. Marks, Panacea, Medart, Sopchoppy, Otter Creek, Spring
Creek, Live Oak Island, Ochlockonee Bay, and Oyster Bay.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Figure 6. Florida Forever Black Bear Work Group land acquisition priorities
20 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
F lo r ida
Misso ur i
Al a b ama Ge o r g i a
Arkan sa s
V i rgi nia
Lou i sia na
I l l i n oi s
Ken tu ck y
Mi ss i s s ipp i
Te nne s se e
Te xa s
No r t h Ca rol in a
Ohio
I nd ian a
Sou th C ar ol i na
Wes t Vi r gi n i a
􀀀 27
􀀀 26
􀀀 29
􀀀 16
􀀀 33
􀀀 30
􀀀 28
􀀀 34
􀀀 32
􀀀 31
􀀀 53
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecoregions
Southeast Region
  98
  319
  27
  19   319
  319
  319
  319
NORTHEAST
GULF
WATERSHEDS
ECOREGION
NORTH
FLORIDA
ECOREGION
􀀀 30
􀀀 32
St. Marks
National Wildlife Refuge
ECOREGION BOUNDARY
Apalachicola
National
Forest
A p a l a c h e e B a y
G u l f o f M e x i c o
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
􀀀 0 5 10 15 Miles
Approved Acquisition Boundary
Refuge Land
Public & Conservation Land
Ecoregion Boundary
J E F F E R S O N
C O U N T Y
􀀀 31 ALTAMAHA WATERSHEDS
􀀀 29 CENTRAL GULF WATERSHEDS
􀀀 30 NORTHEAST GULF WATERSHEDS
􀀀 27 LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER
􀀀 26 OHIO RIVER VALLEY
􀀀 32 NORTH FLORIDA
􀀀 34 ROANOKE/TAR/NEUSE/CAPE FEAR RIVERS
􀀀 33 SAVANNAH/SANTEE/PEE DEE RIVERS
􀀀 53 SOUTH FLORIDA
􀀀 16 SOUTHERN APPALACHIANS
􀀀 28 TENNESSEE/CUMBERLAND RIVER
FEDERAL & TRIBAL LANDS
Figure 7. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ecoregions, Southeast Region
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Figure 8. St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge seagrass coverage, 1999
22 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
In 2001, the National Fire Plan was developed in response to the severe wildfire season of 2000.
Since fiscal year 2001, the National Fire Plan has included congressionally directed appropriations for
wildland fire management. If implemented as written, the plan would ensure sufficient funds to
support and improve firefighting resources, to restore ecosystems damaged by recent fires, to rebuild
community economies, and to reduce wildfire risk by reducing fuel loads.
The federal government is developing a common planning and budgeting process for five federal
wildland firefighting agencies called the Fire Program Analysis. A team of wildland fire staff members
is working on an Initial Response module to guide the development of the new interagency fire
program. This system will restructure fire programs to comply with directions from federal
departments, Congress, and the Office of Management and Budget. The objectives of this effort are
to identify cost-effective collaborative programs at the local level and to improve the formulation of
wildland fire budget requests. This collaborative program may be extended to state and county fire
equipment and personnel. Project completion is expected by the end of fiscal year 2008, with
implementation by 2010.
LONGLEAF PINE/WIREGRASS HABITAT RESTORATION
Prior to extensive European settlement of the Southeast Coastal Plain and Piedmont in the 1700s,
longleaf pine forests and savannahs were the dominant community types. It is estimated that these
communities covered 92 million acres from southeast Virginia to eastern Texas across the Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plains. Today, no more than 3 million acres remain, 8,800 of which are classified
as old growth. North Florida still has the largest remaining acreage of longleaf pine ecosystem. The
Apalachicola National Forest, which is adjacent to the refuge, nearby Eglin Air Force Base, and
Blackwater State Forest contain the largest tracts of longleaf pine forests in the world.
Longleaf pine forests and savannahs include some of the most biologically diverse groundcover in
the Northern Hemisphere. At the refuge, surveys indicate that there may be 100 to 250 understory
plant species found on a given acre and at least 650 species across the refuge. Unfortunately, this
once extensive ecosystem has been lost due to development, agricultural practices, and conversion
to other forest types and the remaining longleaf pine has been degraded due to past management
and fire suppression. In Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary Assessment of
Loss and Degradation (Noss et al. 1995), the longleaf pine ecosystem is classified as Acritically
endangered.@ The report states A... of all our natural biotic communities, the longleaf pine type may
be the hardest to find in anything approaching its original condition.@ The intent of management in
refuge pinelands is to perpetuate the remaining longleaf pine communities and to restore converted
sites to their historically rich floral and faunal diversities.
The process for restoring the longleaf pine ecosystem is still in its infancy. Information is available
concerning the use of fire for longleaf habitat management, especially growing season fires, but there
are many unknowns. Several types of information are needed for effective management and
restoration, including those that:
• observe and document wildlife responses to the various management and restoration
techniques;
• determine the best use and timing of fire and/or other management techniques; and
• evaluate the results, adverse impacts, and cost-effectiveness of the various techniques (e.g.,
fire, chemical treatments, mechanical site preparations, seeding, and planting) used to restore
groundcover and longleaf pine in sandhills, mesic flatwoods, and hydric savannahs.
24 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
The refuge is centrally located within the historic range of the longleaf pine belt and contains a
representative spectrum of longleaf pine ecotypes, ranging from xeric sandhills to mesic flatwoods
and savannahs. Recent partnership projects with Apalachicola National Forest (on red-cockaded
woodpecker recovery management and wiregrass seed collection) and The Nature Conservancy (on
wiregrass restoration) underscore the refuge=s commitment to longleaf pine ecosystem management
and highlight the critical need for additional information and resources to implement projects on a
landscape scale.
Twenty-seven federally listed species and 99 species proposed for federal listing are associated with
the longleaf pine ecosystem in the southeast. The Nature Conservancy includes the Florida
Panhandle on its national list of most biologically diverse, threatened regions in its report Precious
Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States (Stein et al. 2000). It tracks more than 300
globally imperiled plant and animal taxa that are directly dependent upon longleaf pine habitats. Of
those species, 155 are fire-adapted herbaceous perennial plants, now rare because of fire exclusion
and habitat loss/fragmentation. Eighty-six bird species, excluding transients, use longleaf pine
habitats, including 17 species at the refuge that are listed by Partners in Flight as priority species.
The refuge contains high-quality mesic flatwoods habitat that is home to several newly discovered
breeding sites of the federally listed flatwoods salamander. The refuge also supports a portion of the
world=s largest functioning population of federally endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers. The State
of Florida=s AClosing the Gaps@ program identified pine flatwoods and associated lowland habitats in
the refuge and surrounding public lands as primary habitat for the largest Florida black bear
population in the Southeast Coastal Plain, and as suitable potential habitat for Florida panther
reintroduction. Rangewide, longleaf pine communities support 34 amphibian species and 38 reptile
species, of which approximately one-third are longleaf pine habitat specialists. Notable among those,
the refuge hosts populations of the federally threatened eastern indigo snake and of the gopher
tortoise, a keystone species whose burrows provide habitat for more than 360 commensal species of
vertebrates and invertebrates.
Since 1980, the refuge has worked with Tall Timbers Research Station to manage 34 season-of-fire
research plots in two types of longleaf pine communities on the refuge. The plots are the oldest,
most comprehensive, and continuous season-of-fire plots in existence. The research conducted at
these plots has resulted in numerous scientific papers and has helped the refuge staff to understand
the importance of using seasonal fires to shape longleaf pine communities. The plots remain a focal
point of tours by visiting scientists and biologists.
In 1998, the refuge and the Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center established a series of
longleaf pine restoration plots on the refuge and the Jones Center (Ichauway Plantation). The
research is funded by the Service through the National Interagency Fire Center, with additional
support from American Forests through their Global Releaf 2000 Program. These plots are designed
to use adaptive management in restoring the longleaf pine community on sites previously converted
to slash pine plantations.
In addition to the work by Tall Timbers, the Jones Center, and their collaborators, the refuge staff and
outside researchers are currently conducting numerous ongoing studies, including work on flatwoods
salamander distribution and habitat; red-cockaded woodpecker population dynamics; wiregrass seed
collection and restoration; longleaf pine restoration and regeneration; and rare plant responses to
management.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
In 1999, the Service produced an internal planning and guidance document entitled AFulfilling the
Promise: The National Wildlife Refuge System, Visions for Wildlife, Habitat and Leadership.@ It proposed
a pilot program to establish Land Management Research and Demonstration Areas on selected refuges
throughout the nation. The purposes are to showcase state-of-the-art management and to promote
innovative research in important wildlife habitats. In conjunction with Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife
Refuge, the St. Marks Refuge has been selected as such a site for the management of longleaf pine
ecosystems. Fourth in the Service=s national priority, the site awaits funding.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
CLIMATE
Due to its latitude and position near the Gulf of Mexico, St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge has a mild,
subtropical climate. Winters are generally mild. Summers are hot and humid; summer sea breezes
can lower temperatures slightly along the coast. The region’s wind direction and circulation patterns
are influenced by tropical air masses in the spring and summer, and by cold fronts pushing down the
continent during the fall and winter. The mean summer temperature of nearby Tallahassee is 81
degrees Fahrenheit, with a mean winter temperature of 54 degrees Fahrenheit. Table 3 depicts the
monthly average high and low temperatures for the 30-year period of 1961 though 1990. These data
are from nearby Tallahassee. Actual temperatures on the refuge are moderated due to the coastal
influence, which results in lower daytime highs and higher nighttime lows.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, global temperature records show an average
warming of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, with the past two decades experiencing the
most rapid warming. This is due to human activities, such as forest clearing and fossil fuel burning,
the latter of which emits large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Scientists predict
an average global warming of 2 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 and greater warming thereafter.
The 40-year (1961-2000) normal, average rainfall at the Mounds station on the refuge is 55 inches
per year (Table 3). Monthly rainfall amounts vary from 3 to 7 inches with October and November as
the driest months. The summer months (June through September) are wettest. Late afternoon and
evening thundershowers occur, on average, every other day. Florida also receives a major portion of
its yearly rainfall from hurricanes and tropical storms, usually in the summer and early fall.
Hurricanes occur in the area about once every 17 years, with lesser effects from non-direct landfall
storms about once every 5 years.
Florida had the worst drought in its history between 1998 and 2000. Recreational use of lakes
declined as water levels lowered. Wildfires were abundant. Crops were lost and water restrictions
for domestic use were put into place.
Physiography
Table 4 shows the divisions of time within the Cenozoic Era when Florida=s lands formed.
During higher sea levels in ancient times, the rocks and sediments that comprise the coastal plains
were formed. Most of the panhandle of Florida is an uneven platform of carbonate bedrock covered
by one or more layers of clastic sediments. The bedrock is limestone; the overlying sediments are
sand, silt, clay, shell marl, rock, fuller’s earth, and phosphatic matrix. Fossils, peat (e.g., dead
vegetable matter), or petrified wood can also
26 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Climatological data for St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Month
2003
Rainfall -
Mounds
40-year Normal
Rainfall Total
(inches) - Mounds
Monthly Avg.
Temperature -
Maximum (F)*
Monthly
Avg.Temperature
-Minimum (F)*
January 1.83 3.56 62.8 38.4
February 8.25 4.38 66.1 40.3
March 12.76 4.91 73.4 46.9
April 4.55 3.76 80.4 52.3
May 4.06 3.23 86.2 60.9
June 13.36 6.07 90.6 68.4
July 6.67 7.57 91.3 71.2
August 7.32 6.28 90.8 71.4
September 4.87 6.01 88.2 67.9
October 6.41 2.72 81.2 55.7
November 2.37 2.80 72.8 46.3
December 3.78 3.93 65.8 40.5
Total 76.23 55.22
Source: Rainfall data from the refuge’s Mounds weather station (1961-2000).
*Temperature data are for the 30-year period from 1961-1990. These data are from Tallahassee and reported by the
Northwest Florida Water Management District=s website: http://www.state.fl.us/nwfwmd/rmd/temps/mthtemps.htm.
Table 4. Geologic time chart - Cenozoic Era
Era Period Epochs began (million
years ago)
ended (million
years ago)
Holocene .008 present
Quarternary Period
Pleistocene 1.8 .008
Pliocene 5.3 1.8
Miocene 23.8 5.3
Oligocene 33.7 23.8
Eocene 55.5 33.7
Cenozoic Era
Tertiary Period
Paleocene 65 55.5
Source: United States Geologic Survey, http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/geo_time_scale.html.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
occur. The refuge lies within the Gulf Coastal Lowlands physiographic province (Figure 9), which
extends from the Gulf of Mexico inland to the Northern Highlands or Tallahassee Hills. The
separation between the two is the distinctive Cody Scarp, which rises noticeably in the predominantly
flat landscape of Florida. The Cody Scarp is the northern extent of a Pleistocene Epoch sea level
transgression that removed older Miocene and Pleistocene sediments and exposed the underlying
limestone carbonates.
Within the Gulf Coast Lowlands, the refuge lies mostly within the Woodville Karst Plain. It consists of a thin
layer of Plio-Pleistocene sands over limestone. The shallow sand deposits extend down no more than 30
feet and the limestone often outcrops along streams and near the coast. These limestone features are
known as karst topography, which is porous land affected over millions of years by the solution of limestone
by acidic rain or ground waters. Solution features include sinkholes, lakes, underground rivers, springs, and
caverns. Notable karst features in the area include Wakulla Springs, Leon and River Sinks, Natural Bridge,
and Spring Creek. The coastal portion of the Woodville Karst Plain is known as the Marsh Strip. Here the
limestone is within 6 feet of the surface and covered by sand or peat.
During the Pleistocene, Florida was twice its current size and extended to the present-day
Continental Shelf. The sea level rose during the Holocene to its present position about 4,500 years
ago. Today, the low energy coastline of Apalachee Bay has little wave action. The low relief and low
energy coastline provide the conditions necessary for extensive seagrass bed development.
HYDROLOGY - HISTORICAL CHANGES AND IMPACTS
Historically, the flat topography and low, wet nature of the eastern half of the refuge and adjoining
lands to the north provided a slow steady release of water into the refuge and Apalachee Bay. In the
1930s and early 1940s, the Civilian Conservation Corps constructed dikes (levees) and developed
impoundments for the benefit of wintering waterfowl. The Corps captured some of this runoff,
particularly from East River (Figure 10) and Gum Swamp. These regular flows from the private lands
north of the refuge changed considerably over time as these low, wet lands were impacted by road
building (and their associated roadside ditches) and the bedding of the land for industrial forest
production, especially in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Recent flows of water from north of the
refuge into the impoundments have been much less consistent than those experienced historically,
with heavy flows following major rain events and virtually no flow during dry periods. The altered
hydroperiods have greatly decreased the refuge=s capability to manage the impoundments for
migratory birds (particularly shorebirds), wetland wildlife, and fish by limiting the ability to reliably re-flood
the impoundments throughout the year.
SURFACE AND GROUND WATER QUALITY
Water quality data on the St. Marks Refuge are scant. There are no permanent stations on refuge
land to monitor the quality of surface or ground water. Most of the refuge is contained within the St.
Marks and Ochlockonee River Basins (Figure 11). The Ochlockonee River Basin originates in
Georgia, extends through 11 counties and drains 2,416 square miles. It flows south 206 miles to
Ochlockonee Bay. The St. Marks River Basin also originates in Georgia. It drains about 871 square
miles and is 37 miles long. The spring-fed Wakulla River is the largest tributary and flows for 10
miles to its confluence with the St. Marks River. The St. Marks Basin is unique in that it contains 6 of
Florida=s 27 first magnitude springs, that is, springs with discharge rates greater than 100 cubic feet
per second. The submarine Spring Creek springs, measured at 2,003 cubic feet per second in 1970,
had the highest discharge of all Florida spring groups.
28 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 9. Geology of north central Florida and St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Geology of
North Central Florida &
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
􀀀  10
  90
  319
  19
  98
  221
  231
  98   319
  27
  319
  27
  19
  90
  27
  27
  319
TALLAHASSEE
PERRY
QUINCY
PORT ST. JOE
WEWAHITCHKA
APALACHICOLA
CARRABELLE
LEE
MADISON
CYPRESS
HAVANA
ALTHA
MONTICELLO
ST. MARKS
BLOUNTSTOWN
MEXICO BEACH
ALFORD
GRETNA
SOPCHOPPY
GREENVILLE
GREENSBORO
HORSESHOE BEACH
L E ON
T A Y L OR
GUL F
L I B E R T Y
MA D I SON
WA KU L L A
CA L HO UN
GAD S D EN
D I X I E
J E F F E R SON
FR A NK L I N
BA Y
J A CK SO N
LA F A Y E T T E
HAMI L T ON
S UWA NN E E
WA SH ING TO N
CODY SCARP
0 10 20 30 40 Miles
Apa l a c h ee B a y
GULF OF MEXICO
G E O R G I A
TALLAHASSEE
HILLS
GULF COASTAL LOWLANDS
QUINCY
HILLS
GULF COASTAL LOWLANDS
DELTA PLAIN
WOODVILLE
DELTA PLAIN KARST PLAIN
GULF
COASTAL
LOWLANDS
Refuge Boundary
Oligocene
Eocene
Quaternary Tertiary
St. Marks
National Wildlife Refuge
Holocene
Pleistocene / Holocene Miocene
Pliocene
􀀀
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Figure 10. East River Watershed
East River Watershed
􀀀 98
  59
Lighthouse Rd.
East River
East
River
Pool
St. Marks River
St. Marks River
Visitor
Center
Wakulla River
  267
  363
City of
St. Marks
0 1 2 Miles
Refuge Boundary
GUL F O F M EXICO
EAST RIVER
WATERSHED
Ap a l a c h e e B a y
East River Watershed
Road
Dike
 
St. Marks
Lighthouse
W a k u l l a C o u n t y
􀀀
J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y
30 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 11. Watershed coincidence of St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Watershed Coincidence of
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
􀀀 90
􀀀 98
􀀀 19
􀀀 319
􀀀 27
􀀀 319 􀀀 19
􀀀 27
   10
LEON
LIBERTY
WAKULLA
GADSDEN
JEFFERSON
FRANKLIN
TAYLOR
JACKSON
MADISON
CALHOUN
0 10 20 30 Miles
Ochlockonee Watershed
Refuge Boundary
St. Marks Watershed
G U L F O F MEXICO
G E O R G I A
OCHLOCKONEE
WATERSHED
ST. MARKS
WATERSHED
AUCILLA
WATERSHED
Aucilla Watershed
Apa l a ch e e B a y
􀀀
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
The Department of Environmental Protection classifies both surface and ground waters according to
their intended use and sets water quality standards and regulations to maintain these standards.
There is only one groundwater classification called Class I, potable water supplies. Sixty wells were
sampled by the Department during 2000 to assess water quality in confined and unconfined aquifers
for both health and aesthetic contaminants. Basin resource indices signify good ground water overall
on a regional scale. The Florida Aquifer supplies the drinking water for most of northwest Florida,
with 90 percent of all drinking water coming from ground water. In its publication entitled Looking at
the Big Picture: St. Marks River Watershed, the Northwest Florida Water Management District reports
that ground water in the St. Marks Basin is generally plentiful and of high quality. It requires little
treatment for public use.
Portions of Apalachee and Ochlockonee Bays are Class II (for shellfish propagation or harvesting)
due to the presence of oyster beds. Few data exist on the condition of the waters that comprise the
coastal watersheds and Apalachee Bay adjacent to the refuge. This area includes Dickerson Bay,
Oyster Bay, Spring Creek, Shell Point, Walker Creek, Goose Creek Bay, the mouth of the St. Marks
River, and the East and Pinhook Rivers. According to the 1997 Surface Water Management Plan for
the St. Marks Watershed, AApalachee Bay is not impacted by humankind and is in exceptional
biological condition.@ Yet, shellfish closings after major rain events suggest otherwise. All other
waters in both basins are Class III, meaning that they are intended for recreation, propagation, and
maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife.
The Department=s 2001 Basin Status Report indicates that few water quality data have been collected
for the South Ochlockonee River. Segments of the river have potentially been impaired by metals
(e.g., iron), fish consumption advisories, and low dissolved oxygen. The report also states that the
water quality of the Sopchoppy River is generally very good, although it has been listed for fish
consumption advisories. The U.S. Geological Survey uses the Sopchoppy River as a national
ambient water quality monitoring site to represent pristine water quality.
While the report ranks much of the St. Marks River as good, there are several problems, such as the
occurrence of invasive aquatic vegetation, predominantly hydrilla and water hyacinth. At the town of
St. Marks, four docking terminals carry, offload, process, and distribute petroleum products and bulk
chemicals. Numerous oil spills have occurred throughout the years in this area. A spill of about
10,000 gallons in 1978 contaminated bottom sediments. Three potentially impaired water bodies for
biology include Black and Lloyd Creeks and a segment of the St. Marks River (793B), which is also
impaired due to low dissolved oxygen.
The Wakulla River also has problems with invasive aquatic vegetation (e.g., hydrilla and water
hyacinth). Nitrate concentrations in Wakulla Springs have tripled in the past 25 years. A major
decline in apple snails and the limpkin population since 2000 has been documented. A 2002
Northwest Florida Water Management District report states that Abased on measurements of stream
condition index and other observations, the biota of Wakulla Springs and the upper river have been
adversely perturbed by anthropogenic (human-caused) impacts. These appear to result from the
introduction of invasive aquatic plants and increased nutrient (nitrate) discharge.@
Potentially impaired water bodies include McBride Slough (dissolved oxygen) and Big Boggy Branch
(total coliform and biology).
According to the 1991 Aucilla River Surface Water Management Plan, the water quality in the Aucilla
and Little Aucilla Rivers is classified as Agood@ by the Department of Environmental Protection, and
both meet Class III standards.
32 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
The Northwest Florida Water Management District publication, The Big Picture: St. Marks River
Watershed (2001), states that Aone of the most effective methods of protecting water quality has been
the public purchase of natural lands.@
CONTAMINANTS
Two contaminant studies have been conducted on the refuge by the Fish and Wildlife Service=s
Ecological Services Field Office in Panama City, Florida. In 1988, a sediment study was done with
32 samples collected, of which 14 were onsite and 18 were on the St. Marks and Wakulla rivers
(Hemming et al. 2002). Samples were analyzed for metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
organochlorine and aliphatic hydrocarbons. The only contaminants found on the refuge were oil and
grease, located in the impoundment known as Stoney Bayou #2. These contaminants are typically
associated with small engine motor use. While metals (e.g., copper and mercury) and both polycyclic
aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons were found on the industrial portion of the St. Marks River (i.e.,
near the refinery), none were detected on the refuge. No organochlorine residues were found in the
study area. Since these are associated with pesticide use, it is a good indicator for the area.
In 1991, 7 species of fish were sampled for mercury contamination (Bateman et al. 1994). The 11
sampling stationsBboth on and off the refugeBincluded a variety of habitats. Four coastal saltwater
sites, five freshwater ponds, lakes or impoundments, and two coastal rivers were sampled. Fish with
muscle tissue that contains greater than 0.5 parts per million wet weight of mercury are limited for
consumption. Four of the seven species exceeded the limits, including 12 of 36 largemouth bass
sampled. The sites of contaminated bass were Otter Lake, Lake Renfro, and East River Pool. Other
species above the limit were spotted sea trout (3 of 26), gafftopsail catfish (4 of 7), and hardhead
catfish (4 of 26). The gafftopsail catfish was the only saltwater fish to exceed state consumption
advisory levels. These were sampled in Dickerson Bay at channel marker 12. No fish are known to
exceed the nonconsumptive standard of 1.4 parts per million wet weight. The study concludes that
human-caused inputs of mercury should be stopped, since the difference between naturally occurring
emissions (e.g., background levels) and toxic effects is very small.
AIR QUALITY
Air quality is a global concern. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has lead responsibility for
the quality of air. Through the 1990 Clean Air Act, the Agency sets limits on the amount of pollutants
that can be discharged into the air. Nationally, more than 170 million tons of pollution is emitted into
the air annually within U.S. borders, through either stationary sources (e.g., industrial and power
plants) or mobile sources (e.g., automobiles, planes, trucks, buses, and trains). There are also
natural sources of air pollution, such as fires, dust storms, volcanic activity, and other natural
processes. The Agency has identified six principal pollutants that are the focus of its national
regulatory program: lead, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate
matter.
Air pollution causes damage to the environment and property and affects human health. Both federal
and state governments track air quality and visibility impairment, through a system of 5,200 monitors
at 3,000 locations across the United States. Florida has 227 monitors at 141 sites. Carbon
monoxide is from combustion or fire sources and is a problem mainly in cold weather climes. Lead
has not been detected above standard levels, except in places that have a smelter source. Nitrogen
dioxide is only monitored in large metropolitan areas, but Florida has never approached the standard.
Sulfur dioxide is emitted from power plants and paper mills. None of these four principal pollutants
are monitored near the refuge since they are not considered problem pollutants in this area.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
The Clean Air Act provides for the protection of visibility in national parks and wilderness areas, also
known as Class 1 areas. A visibility station for monitoring airborne particulate matter was established
on the refuge in June 2000. In April 2001, an ozone monitor was also installed. From the data
collected since that time, the 85 parts-per-billion standard for ozone over an 8-hour period has been
exceeded only twice, on May 14 and 16, 2001.
BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
NATIVE VEGETATION/PLANT COMMUNITIES/FLORA
The refuge encompasses more than 43 miles of coastal salt marshes backed by hardwood swamps,
hardwood hammocks, and upland pine communities within Florida=s Big Bend region. The dominant
forces affecting vegetation characteristics are minor elevation changes, fire history and current fire
management practices, historical timber harvest, and current timber management practices.
While elevation on the refuge ranges from sea level to 45 feet, subtle changes in topography result in
substantial vegetation differences. Historically, frequent low-intensity fires burned the uplands every
1 to 8 years, resulting in a classic mosaic of longleaf and slash pine-dominated flatwoods and
sandhills on the refuge=s uplands. Prior to refuge acquisition, much of the original growth of pine and
cypress was commercially harvested for lumber. Subsequent to refuge acquisition in 1931,
approximately 1,900 acres of brackish and salt marshes were enclosed by levees and water
management structures. These areas, formerly dominated by salt-tolerant marsh vegetation, now
support a diverse assemblage of freshwater and brackish emergent, aquatic, and floating plants,
including sedges, rushes, spikerushes, cattails, water lilies, and widgeon grass.
The refuge contains examples of 24 natural communities as defined in the Florida Natural Areas
Inventory (FNAI) Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida (1990). In 2005 the refuge completed
an in-house Geographic Information Systems (GIS) project to map the natural vegetation
communities within the refuge, based on forest stand inventory data from the Forest Management
Plan (1985) and corrected upon Digital Ortho Quarter Quad (DOQQ) aerial imagery from 1999
provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Discrete habitat units were
delineated at a scale of less than one acre (38 percent of 5,969 polygons are from .01-.99 acres in
size). Minimal ground truthing was employed during this phase, since the primary effort was to
digitize available data. Forested habitats had already been assigned habitat descriptions that were
easily matched to the FNAI’s Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. Nonforested areas of the
refuge, primarily coastal marshes and associated habitat types, were relatively easy to distinguish
and attribute at a scale of 1:5,000 on available DOQQ imagery. No attempt was made to distinguish
marine or estuarine habitat types seaward of the coastal salt marsh fringe. The refuge’s Executive
Closure Areas include at least three additional FNAI marine/estuarine habitat types. Seven additional
habitat types or groups, not described in FNAI 1990, were employed in this analysis. In general,
these habitat types are either anthropogenically disturbed or managed or naturally occurring
communities for which FNAI has not yet developed a full and relevant description. They are, in
increasing order of area covered: (1) Borrow Pits and Non-vegetated Areas (including naturally
occurring nonvegetated areas); (2) Coastal Depression Ponds; (3) Former Pasture / Grass and
Brush; (4) Human Disturbed Recreational Areas and Road Shoulders; (5) Coastal Salt Barrens; (6)
Managed Impoundments (excluding marsh or forested areas); and (7) Mesic Hammock.
A technical description of the predominant natural communities and land use data is provided in
Section B, Appendix IV. The land cover data are shown for the St. Marks, Wakulla, and Panacea
Units, respectively, in Figures 12, 13 and 14. Table 5 summarizes area of occurrence of these 24
34 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
FNAI and 7 additional habitat types on all lands owned and administered by the St. Marks Refuge as
of May, 2005. The sum of all habitat types in Table 5 totals 68,558 acres, slightly less than the
current official refuge acreage figure by 0.5 percent. This variance is the result of two primary factors.
First, the official acreage figure represents surveyed and deeded acres, while the habitat acreage
figure is the result of GIS analysis of land cover types using aerial imagery. Secondly, some areas of
water features, if not completely surrounded by refuge lands, were not included in the GIS analysis of
habitat types, and digitizing of the saltmarsh fringe may have included or omitted slivers of refuge
acres.
The following are generalized habitat descriptions of the four most common habitat assemblages on
the refuge and collectively account for 91 percent of the refuge area. The remaining 9 percent of
vegetation assemblages are primarily Mesic Hammock, Maritime Hammock, and various human-altered
habitat types.
Salt Marsh (Tidal Marsh)
Salt marshes cover 29 percent of lands within the refuge, forming the immediate landward side of the
low energy coastline along Apalachee Bay and extending up tidally influenced rivers. They are plant
communities of the intertidal zone, the transition area between terrestrial and marine environments.
The dominant plant is black needlerush, found in expansive stands with few other plants, generally
slightly elevated above average tidal influence. The lowest fringes of the salt marsh, inundated at
least twice daily by tides, are dominated by smooth cordgrass. Saltmeadow cordgrass transitions
between the tidal reach and the highest portions of the salt marsh community, which are only flooded
during the highest tides or storm surges. There a mix of herbaceous and woody salt-tolerant
vegetation is found, which includes saltbush, marsh elder, Christmas berry, seaside goldenrod, sea
blite, marsh hay cordgrass, saltwort, glasswort, sea purlane, coastal dropseed, and sand cordgrass.
Longleaf and Slash Pine Flatwoods and Sandhills
Pine-dominated uplands occupy about 28 percent of the total refuge area, and are represented by
four Florida Natural Areas Inventory natural community types: mesic flatwoods, scrubby flatwoods,
wet flatwoods, and sandhill. While great variation exists between these communities, all are
influenced by frequent fire. They typically have pine-dominated overstory and ground cover with a
highly diverse herbaceous component. Vegetation plots representative of the various pine types on
the refuge document approximately 650 vascular plant species (Section B, Appendix IV). Four of the
six native pine species present on the refuge are common: longleaf, slash, pond, and loblolly. Sand
pine is rare, occurring as scattered individual trees on the Panacea Unit, while spruce pine is an
occasional component of some hardwood hammock forests. Woody midstory species are
typically dominated by scrub oaks (e.g., turkey, bluejack, sand-live, and sand-post); hollies (e.g.,
large gallberry, gallberry, and yaupon); oaks (e.g., live, laurel, and water); blueberry species (e.g.,
sparkleberry, highbush, and deerberry); and a variety of other trees (e.g., sweetgum, persimmon, red
maple, swamp bay, pond cypress, and cabbage palm). The greatest diversity of these communities
resides in the understory. The most common grasses, forbs, and woody plants include wiregrass,
Florida dropseed, blueberries, huckleberries, and saw palmetto.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Figure 12. St. Marks Unit natural community types
36 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Figure 13. Wakulla Unit natural community types
38 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Figure 14. Panacea Unit natural community types
40 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Table 5. Land use summary - natural community types in ascending order of area represented
FNAI Natural Community Type
(Refuge-specific habitats are noted in italics) Acres
Spring Basin 1.1
Borrow Pits and Bare Soil 4.1
Freshwater Stream 11.7
Coastal Depression Pond 110.1
Swamp Lake 138.8
Basin Lake 136.0
Dome Swamp 148.3
Flatwoods Lake 229.2
Floodplain Forest 257.7
Coastal Berm 273.1
Marsh Lake 273.1
Sandhill Upland Lake 330.7
Former Pasture / Grass and Brush 381.1
Human Disturbed Recreation + Roads 440.4
Xeric Hammock 500.8
Scrubby Flatwoods 514.6
Shrub Bog 701.2
Coastal Salt Barren 803.5
Maritime Hammock 848.9
Floodplain Swamp 889.1
Managed Impoundment (normal pool level, open water portion) 943.2
Depression Marsh 1,227.4
Floodplain Marsh 1,509.8
Basin Marsh 1,719.9
42 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
FNAI Natural Community Type
(Refuge-specific habitats are noted in italics) Acres
Wet Flatwoods 2,586.1
Sandhill 5,059.2
Mesic Hammock 6,136.0
Basin Swamp 6,187.4
Hydric Hammock 7,691.9
Mesic Flatwoods 9,791.2
Tidal Marsh 18,712.5
Total 68,558.0
Hardwood Swamp Forest and Hydric Hammock
In contrast to the pinelands of the refuge, hardwood habitat types generally have a closed canopy
formed by a diverse array of overstory tree species. Lowland hardwood forests occupy 24 percent of
the refuge, typically situated between saltmarsh communities and pine-dominated uplands, as a
wetland mosaic interspersed within pine flatwoods, or associated with river and creek systems.
Though represented by a broad array of ten FNAI community types, lowland hardwood forests
frequently share several dominant common tree species: pond cypress, cabbage palm, live oak,
water oak, red maple, blackgum, Southern and sweetbay magnolias, red cedar, and loblolly pine.
Freshwater Lakes, Marshes, and Impoundments
These habitat types collectively amount to 10 percent of the refuge’s surface area, and provide a
majority of the seasonal waterfowl and shorebird habitat available on the refuge. Public use activities
such as wildlife viewing, photography, and freshwater fishing are highly concentrated within the
roughly 1,600 acres of managed impoundments present on the refuge. Numerous natural freshwater
lakes occur in the Panacea Unit, while extensive freshwater marshes are associated with the upper
tidal portions of the Sopchoppy and St. Marks/Wakulla river systems. Dominant vegetation in these
communities includes emergent herbaceous plants (e.g., cattails, sawgrass, spikerushes, and
sedges); grasses (e.g., switchgrass, maidencane, and cord grasses); and sparse woody shrubs or
small trees (e.g., willows, buttonbush, and wax myrtle).
EXOTIC PLANT SPECIES
The refuge staff has identified and initiated treatment of 18 species of terrestrial nonnative plants
(classified by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council as Category I and II exotic invasive pest plants) on
no less than 27 discrete locations throughout the refuge. The general locations of these species are
provided in Section B, Appendix IV. The same section also provides details on treatments relating to
each species and area of infestation. Table 6 below lists all current exotic invasive species tracked in
the state by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. It includes their respective terrestrial, aquatic, and
watch-out list categories, and notes those that occur on or near the refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
Category I plants are altering native plant communities by displacing native species, changing
community structure or ecological functions, or hybridizing with native species. This definition does
not rely on the economic severity or geographic range of the problem, but on the documented
ecological damage caused.
Category II plants have increased in abundance or frequency, but have not yet altered Florida plant
communities to the extent shown by Category I species. These species may become ranked
Category I, if ecological damage is demonstrated.
All known populations of Category I and II species on the refuge have undergone initial chemical
and/or mechanical treatment, but it is suspected that numerous infestations remain to be discovered.
The majority of sites and species have been identified since 1999, although the largest two exotic
pest plant infestations, cogon grass on the levees and Chinese tallow at an old field south of Picnic
Pond, were identified and partially treated prior to this date. While these 18 exotic invasive plant
species have disrupted natural communities and displaced native species on the refuge, less than 0.7
percent of the refuge=s non-aquatic habitats have been affected to date. With continuous treatment,
these infestations will be eradicated or brought under maintenance control, and new sites discovered
before treatment options become limited.
In addition to the 18 upland species, 4 aquatic Category I and II species are known to be present in
state sovereign waters on or adjacent to the refuge. Of these, hydrilla has by far been the most
disruptive to natural communities, and it remains a potential threat to inland freshwater sites on the
refuge.
The geographic origins of these 22 known species of terrestrial and aquatic invasive exotic plants are
as follows: (1) temperate and subtropical East Asia, India and China, 59 percent; (2) tropical South
America and the West Indies, 23 percent; and (3) subtropical and tropical Southeast Asia, 18 percent.
Eleven additional Category I and II species have been identified as potential problem species. They
are either established in close proximity to the refuge or have demonstrated the potential to infest
similar habitats to those on the refuge, and are within possible dispersal distance.
For additional information on distributions of particular species by county, visit the Atlas of Florida
Vascular Plants website, www.plantatlas.usf.edu. For additional general exotic plant species
information, visit the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council website, www.fleppc.org.
FISH AND WILDLIFE/FAUNA
Birds
The documented natural communities of the refuge provide habitat for 278 species of birds
throughout the year (Bird List, Section B, Appendix IV). A total of 116 are considered to be common
or abundant during some seasons. Avian species that are listed under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act and documented on the refuge include the red-cockaded woodpecker,
wood stork, bald eagle, and piping plover. State-listed species include the least tern, Peregrine
falcon and Southeastern American kestrel. Even though it is situated between the Atlantic and
Mississippi Flyways, the refuge provides important breeding, wintering, and stopover habitat for
neotropical migratory birds (e.g., songbirds, raptors, and shorebirds). Through the Partners in Flight
initiative, federal, state, and private agencies are developing and implementing a comprehensive
approach for managing selected species of migratory nongame birds (see Priority Bird – (General)
Habitat Relationships for Southeastern Coastal Plain, Section B, Appendix IV). In an attempt to
prevent the listing of most of these birds as
44 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Table 6. Invasive exotic plant species found in Florida and known to occur on the refuge
Common Name Scientific Name
Florida Exotic Pest Plant
Council Category
mimosa, silk tree Albizia julibrissin* I
coral ardisia Ardisia crenata* I
camphor-tree Cinnamomum camphora* I
wild taro Colocasia esculenta* I
winged yam Dioscorea alata** I
air-potato Dioscorea bulbifera* I
Water-hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes*** I
Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata*** I
Cogon grass Imperata cylindrica* I
lantana, shrub verbena Lantana camara* I
glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum* I
Chinese privet, hedge privet Ligustrum sinense* I
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica* I
Japanese climbing fern Lygodium japonicum* I
Chinaberry Melia azedarach* I
nandina, heavenly bamboo Nandina domestica** I
Sword fern Nephrolepis cordifolia** I
Skunk vine Paederia foetida** I
torpedo grass Panicum repens* I
Water lettuce Pistia stratiotes*** I
Kudzu Pueraria montana** I
Mexican petunia Ruellia brittoniana** I
popcorn tree, Chinese tallow tree Sapium sebiferum* I
white-flowered wandering jew Tradescantia fluminensis** I
tung oil tree Aleurites fordii** II
alligator weed Alternanthera philoxeroides** II
Eurasian water-milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum*** II
golden bamboo Phyllostachys aurea* II
Chinese brake fern Pteris vittata** II
castor bean Ricinus communis** II
Purple sesban, rattlebox Sesbania punicea* II
Chinese wisteria Wisteria sinensis* II
malanga, elephant ear Xanthosoma sagittifolium* II
* = confirmed on refuge, treatment underway.
** = known or suspected to be present in proximity to refuge (watch-out list).
*** = aquatic invasive confirmed on or adjacent to refuge in state waters.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
threatened or endangered species, these trust species are given high priority in management
decisions. However, few systematic surveys for migratory nongame birds are currently underway on
the refuge. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are monitored and banded yearly, in accordance with the
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002). Nesting bald eagles, wading birds, and
least terns are also surveyed annually.
Waterfowl. St. Marks= coastal marshes, seagrass beds, and riverine estuaries are important wintering
and migration areas for several diving ducks of national importance (redheads and scaup).
Additionally, the managed impoundments provide a mix of habitats and water depth capabilities not
readily available in adjacent marshes or associated habitats of Apalachee Bay. Teal, pintail,
widgeon, mallard, and many other ducks are common in the impoundments and may exceed 8,000
birds on any single survey event. Table 7 shows peak observed waterfowl use of the refuge
impoundments for a 9-year period.
Of the refuge=s 104,826 plus acres (including the Executive Closure Areas) less than two percent
have the capability for water management. When managed, the 1,600 acres of impoundments
provide flexibility for creating habitats scarce throughout the refuge and Apalachee Bay ecosystem.
Impoundment management adds a multitude of plant/water communities required by a large variety of
migratory bird groups (e.g., fresh water, shallow depths, and multi-vegetation types).
Shorebirds, Waterbirds, and Marshbirds. The refuge is host to 28 species of breeding shorebirds,
waterbirds, and marshbirds (Section B, Appendix IV). Another 57 species of this group use refuge
habitats for non-breeding portions of their life cycles. Examples of high-priority species found on the
refuge include the black, king, and yellow rails; piping plover; little blue heron; American avocet;
lesser yellowlegs; and Wilson=s snipe.
Tower Pond has been specifically managed for shorebirds over the past few years. Thousands of
shorebirds use the other impoundments during drought conditions also, which attests to the
importance of the pools in providing quality northbound and likely southbound shorebird stopover
habitat when it is made available. Similarly, these conditions can benefit wading birds, terns, and
other species.
The refuge also contains inland waterbird rookeries within depressional marsh, scrub/shrub, and
swamp forest habitat types. These sites have produced high proportions of failed nest attempts due
to unreliable water levels during moderate to severe drought years.
Certain small islands in Apalachee Bay (especially Palmetto and Smith) are critically important as
waterbird and shorebird nesting habitat, but only Palmetto Island is owned by the refuge. These two
islands support one of the few brown pelican rookeries in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. The number
of nesting wading birds shifts among islands over the years, demonstrating their collective
importance.
Systematic monitoring of shorebirds, waterbirds, and marshbirds has not been conducted recently on
the refuge.
Neotropical Migratory Birds. One of the refuge=s primary purposes is conservation of migratory birds.
This includes neotropical migratory birds, which are defined as shorebirds, waterbirds, and landbirds
that are listed in the most recent (1983) American Ornithologists Union checklist. They are
distinguished by having separate breeding and winter ranges, with at least part of the winter range
being south of the Tropic of Cancer. Where separate populations of a species exhibit differing
46 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
Table 7. Peak observed waterfowl use of refuge impoundments, 1994-95 through 2002-03
SPECIES 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03
American Coot 10,820 12,624 12,606 5,021 811 2,258 2,956 3,247 473
Snow goose 19 12 2 58 -- 11 -- 29 5
Greater white-fronted goose 5 -- -- 6 -- -- -- 1 --
Mallard 330 790 500 417 337 514 264 199 354
Black duck 15 16 5 9 2 23 8 6 6
Gadwall 75 192 166 150 125 110 1,335 293 187
Pintail 581 1,364 486 909 697 610 469 616 743
Green-winged teal 1,171 2,223 2,111 740 2,285 2,228 1,097 557 1,189
Blue-winged teal 463 1,347 497 239 228 1,573 365 364 171
American widgeon 611 1,086 664 568 175 682 598 510 865
Northern shoveler 230 158 254 58 34 212 133 138 46
Wood duck 2 1 -- 4 -- -- -- 4 --
Redhead 532 383 215 29 271 169 21 288 20
Canvasback 27 280 63 78 11 20 2 2 24
Bufflehead 128 109 14 3 50 5 7 19 117
Ruddy duck 67 182 327 100 12 39 87 12 29
Scaup 383 971 772 439 620 29 29 882 660
Red-breasted merganser 8 1 -- 16 26 1 -- 4 --
Hooded merganser 8 119 12 42 99 184 72 42 60
Common goldeneye 1 1 2 -- 1 -- -- -- 6
Ring-necked 167 457 161 152 17 10 403 140 296
Total ducks 4,799 9,680 6,249 3,953 4,990 6,409 4,890 4,076 4,773
Total waterfowl 15,643 22,316 18,857 9,038 5,801 8,678 7,846 7,353 5,251
breeding and wintering behavior, an effort has been made to include only those local species that
spend the winter in the tropics. These species are of keen public and conservation interest because
they migrate incredible distances, often at night, or in rain, wind, and snow. Breeding males are often
visibly stunning and have distinctive songs or calls.
These same species are experiencing population-wide declines due to destruction and fragmentation
of breeding and wintering habitat, poisoning by pesticides, and climate change. Collisions with
skyscrapers and communication towers kill an estimated 4 to 5 million birds per year and are a major
source of population decline. Predation is another source of decline, with feral domestic cats killing
an estimated 39 million birds per year. Of the 278 regularly occurring avian species listed for the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
refuge, 142 are categorized as neotropical migratory birds (Section B, Appendix IV). All but 3 of the
refuge=s 48 listed warblers, tanagers, vireos, and new world finches are neotropical migratory birds.
Raptors (Vultures, Hawks and Allies). Nineteen species of raptors are recorded on the refuge: 3
species of incidental occurrence; 7 species which are abundant or common during some portion of
the year; and 9 species that are uncommon, occasional, or rare throughout the year. Eight species
are known to nest on the refuge. The Partners in Flight program identifies swallow-tailed kites as the
highest conservation priority raptor species in the South Atlantic and East Gulf Coastal Plains. This
species is frequently sighted throughout the refuge from March through August.
Mammals
Fifty species of mammals are known or suspected to occur on the refuge, including the least shrew,
Seminole bat, golden mouse, rice rat, fox squirrel, grey fox, river otter, bobcat, black bear, coyote,
and manatee (Section B, Appendix IV). Presently, no surveys are being conducted to monitor the
population levels of these species.
White-tailed deer are currently monitored through data collected at check stations during refuge hunts
and occasionally through herd health checks by the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease
Study, which is based in Athens, Georgia. The last health check was conducted in July 2002, and
future checks are planned at 5-year intervals. In addition, night spotlight surveys were conducted
annually from 1974 through 2000. On the Panacea Unit, the deer herd currently appears to be below
the carrying capacity of the habitat; on the Wakulla Unit it is at carrying capacity.
Amphibians
Forty species of amphibians (21 frogs and 19 salamanders) are known or suspected to occur on the
refuge (Section B, Appendix IV). These include the barking tree frog, river frog, gopher frog, striped
newt, flatwoods salamander, and one-toed amphiuma. The U.S. Geological Survey=s Florida
Integrated Science Center examined the amphibians on the refuge as part of its Southeastern
Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative. A 3-year inventory phase will be completed in 2005
and then monitoring of populations will occur. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission is surveying refuge ponds for the federally listed flatwoods salamander through 2007.
Reptiles
Sixty-eight species of reptiles are known or suspected to occur on the refuge (Section B, Appendix
IV). These include the American alligator, 13 species of lizards, 36 species of snakes, and 18 species
of turtles. The mole skink, island glass lizard, pine snake, eastern indigo snake, southern hognose
snake, blue-striped garter snake, blue-striped ribbon snake, alligator snapping turtle, spotted turtle,
gopher tortoise, Kemp=s ridley sea turtle, and diamondback terrapin are noteworthy species. No
specific monitoring of refuge reptiles is currently underway, although the amphibian surveys may
generate some information on reptiles.
Invertebrates
No attempt has been made to catalogue the plethora of invertebrates on the refuge, although some
outside researchers have studied certain species or groups. The Shepherd Spring basin and
underwater cave system has been partially explored under a refuge special use permit by cave divers
with the Woodville Karst Plain Project. Their explorations have yielded documentation of three
imperiled but not federally listed invertebrates: the Big Blue Springs cave crayfish, Hobb=s cave
amphipod, and Florida cave amphipod. The Big Blue Springs cave crayfish is considered a G1
(globally imperiled) species, and is listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature as
endangered. It is known to occur in less than five locations in three counties in Florida. The Hobb=s
cave amphipod is ranked as a G2 (globally vulnerable) species, and listed by the International Union
48 St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
as Avulnerable.@ It is known to occur in at least 36 sites in 5 counties in Florida. The Florida cave
amphipod is also considered a G2 species. It is listed by the International Union as Avulnerable@ and
is known to occur at 15 sites in 10 counties in Florida. Mussels are discussed briefly under recovery
plans and endangered and threatened species. Scallops are at times plentiful in Apalachee Bay, and
scalloping is a popular recreational activity for skin divers.
The monarch butterfly fall migration roosting aggregation at the lighthouse area has been studied
since 1981. The monarchs have been regularly banded at the lighthouse since 1989, first by
researchers, then by refuge volunteers. As an outgrowth of the popular tagging project and general
interest in migrating butterflies by the visiting public, the St. Marks Refuge Association, Inc. and
refuge volunteers developed a checklist of butterflies in 2002 (Section B, Appendix IV).
Fish
Due to the high diversity of the refuge’s aquatic habitats--from open bays to tidal creeks, estuaries,
blackwater rivers, spring runs, fresh and brackish impoundments, freshwater ponds, and wooded
wetlands--the refuge hosts over 145 species of fish (Section B, Appendix IV). Fish surveys, including
a simple inventory of fishes occurring on the refuge, are needed for resource management. To
support sport fishing, the refuge occasionally stocks its impoundments with gamefish such as
largemouth bass and bluegill.
Exotic Animal Species
Considered the most destructive exotic animal on the refuge, the feral hog competes with native
wildlife for mast. It preys upon small vertebrates and invertebrates. By rooting it destroys wetland
vegetation including many rare species. Hog rooting also damages grassy refuge roads and dikes
and provides favorable conditions for the spread of invasive exotic plants. Refuge hunts provide
some control of the hog population on the Wakulla and Panacea Units, but the hunting pressure is
generally too light to be very effective.
Domestic and feral cats and dogs are occasionally found on the refuge, particularly near houses
adjoining the refuge boundary. The impacts of these animals on overall refuge wildlife are
considered relatively small, although free-ranging cats can have a devastating impact on small bird,
reptile and mammal populations. The jaguarundi is a medium-sized cat that may have become
established after release in natural areas across the state several decades ago (Neill 1977). The
rarity of reported sightings suggests that the population is relatively small, and it is thought to have
little impact on native wildlife.
Other exotic animals, including the rock pigeon, Eurasian collared dove, starling, greenhouse frog,
Norway rat, house mouse, black rat, and possibly the house sparrow, occur in small numbers, mostly
in developed areas. They are thought to have little impact on native refuge wildlife. A few species,
such as the cattle egret, coyote, and armadillo, occur (or would have occurred) on the refuge due to
range expansion, and are not currently considered to be exotic species.
Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern
At least 60 imperiled animal and plant species have been documented on the refuge. These species
are either federal or state listed as threatened, endangered, or species of special concern (Section B,
Chapter IV). There are no federally listed plants known on the refuge at this time, although one
endemic species (the Godfrey=s spiderlily) is under review. The Service has primary responsibility for
federally listed species.
Many of these species are declining or experiencing severe population losses due to alteration and/or
degradation of their habitats. By perpetuating intact natural communities, restoring degraded natural
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49
communities and processes (e.g., fire-driven longleaf pine-wiregrass ecosystem), and eliminating
adverse human impacts, the refuge can contribute to species recovery goals and benefit other plants
and animals dependent on these endangered ecosystems. Monitoring efforts of sufficient intensity
and duration to determine refuge-specific status and trends of federally listed species are needed.
A description of selected federally listed threatened and endangered species follows:
Endangered Species
Red-cocka