Florida Scrub-Jay distribution (Pranty et al. 1998)

[Note: I no longer have a digital copy of the 1993 report that I submitted to USFWS, as the

following reference:

Pranty, B. 1996. Distribution of the Florida Scrub-Jay, 19921993. Final report to U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Cooperative Agreement No. 14-16-0004-91-950, Modification No.

5. Jacksonville, FL.

This document is the 1996 report revised with 19941998 data and with John W.

Fitzpatrick and Bradley M. Stith added as co-authors. This document was intended to be

published by the Florida Ornithological Society as a Special Publication. However, edits

and additions that the second author insisted be made prior to publication were never sent

to me, thus the manuscript was never submitted much less published.

This draft contains various highlighted items that I was working on until it became clear to

me that the manuscript would never be published.]

Distribution of the

Florida Scrub-Jay,

1992-1998

BILL PRANTY1

, JOHN W. FITZPATRICK2

, AND BRADLEY M. STITH3

Archbold Biological Station, Venus, Florida 33960 1

Permanent address: 8515 Village Mill Row, Bayonet Point, Florida 34667-2662 2

Current address: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker Woods, Ithaca, New York 14850 3

Permanent address: 2910 San Rafael Drive, Tampa, Florida 33629

2 July 1998

Distribution of the Florida Scrub-Jay, 1992-1998 - 2

We dedicate this book to

Herbert W. Kale, II

(1933-1995)

A Charter Member of the Florida Ornithological Society

Friend, colleague, teacher, and friend of the jays


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ....................................................................................... 4

Methods ............................................................................................. 5

Results ............................................................................................... 9

Scrub habitats in Florida .................................................................. 11

Protected lands with FSJs, 1992-1998 .............................................. 13

Format of FSJ sites in this report ...................................................... 16

Acknowledgments............................................................................ 17

Alachua County ............................................................................... 19

Bay County ...................................................................................... 19

Brevard County ................................................................................ 19

Broward County ............................................................................... 30

Charlotte County.............................................................................. 31

Citrus County .................................................................................. 37

Clay County ..................................................................................... 40

Collier County ................................................................................. 41

DeSoto County ................................................................................. 42

Flagler County ................................................................................. 43

Glades County ................................................................................. 44

Hardee County ................................................................................. 47

Hendry County ................................................................................. 48

Hernando County ............................................................................. 48

Highlands County ............................................................................ 50

Hillsborough County ........................................................................ 63

Indian River County......................................................................... 65

Lake County .................................................................................... 67

Lee County ...................................................................................... 76

Levy County .................................................................................... 79

Manatee County ............................................................................... 81

Marion County................................................................................. 83

Martin County ................................................................................. 86

Ocala National Forest ...................................................................... 88

Okeechobee County ......................................................................... 89

Orange County................................................................................. 92

Osceola County ................................................................................ 93

Palm Beach County.......................................................................... 94

Pasco County ................................................................................... 98

Pinellas County .............................................................................. 101

Polk County ................................................................................... 102

Putnam County .............................................................................. 109

St. Johns County ............................................................................ 110

St. Lucie County ............................................................................ 110

Sarasota County ............................................................................. 112

Seminole County............................................................................ 116

Sumter County ............................................................................... 117

Volusia County .............................................................................. 119

Literature cited .............................................................................. 125

County compilers and other cooperators ......................................... 127

FSJs, 1980-1998 by Township, Range, and Section ........................ 128


INTRODUCTION

The Florida Scrub-Jay (FSJ, Aphelocoma coerulescens) is the only bird species whose worldwide range is

restricted to Florida (AOU 1995, Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1996a). FSJs and scrub habitats formerly were

widespread in the peninsula during the Ice Ages, when sea levels were as much as 100 m below their present level,

and the peninsula was at times twice its present width (Webb in Myers and Ewel 1990). Recent fossil evidence

indicates scrub-jays first colonized Florida 1.6-2.0 million years ago (Emslie 1996). With rising sea levels

following the end of the most recent Ice Age about 11,000 years ago, much of the Florida peninsula became mesic

(i.e., moist). Scrub and FSJs became restricted to the well-drained soils that remained, mostly on coastal and inland

ridge systems that represent earlier shoreline dune systems.

In the past century, the population of FSJs has been reduced further by agricultural (predominately citrus),

residential, and commercial development, fire exclusion resulting from habitat fragmentation, and widespread fire

suppression. Cox (1987) estimated the extent of this decline by the early 1980s as 50%. Our more extensive survey

conducted about 10 years later suggests a decline of about 90%, to about 10,000 birds presently (Fitzpatrick et al.

1994). In 1987, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the FSJ as a Threatened species, but this

designation has failed to halt or even curb the decline. Indeed, Fitzpatrick et al. (1994) estimated that 25-40%

of the overall decline of the FSJ occurred between 1980 and 1993, and some populations have declined an

additional 25% or more since 1994 (David Breininger pers. comm., Brian Toland pers. comm.). About 30% of all

FSJ groups recorded during our 1992-1993 survey were living in developing suburban and urban areas, and these

jays likely will disappear as development proceeds (Stith et al. 1996).

In the past 10 years, preservation efforts have acquired many large and significant privately owned scrub

sites and have protected numerous FSJ groups. Acquisition continues on most of the remaining significant scrub

tracts, but often is extremely slow, especially at the State level, and some sites have been lost to development prior

to being acquired. Once a scrub site is acquired, extensive restoration efforts often are needed, and may take years

to implement. Recent surveys at a few sites in Florida suggest that many FSJ populations are crashing, including

some on publicly owned sites. Until all significant scrub sites are placed under public ownership and are managed

properly, there probably is sufficient justification for listing the Florida Scrub-Jay as an Endangered species.

Because the FSJ is such a well-studied species, we do not go into detail about aspects of it other than its

current population and distribution. References to consult for other aspects of FSJs include: demography:

Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick (1984, 1990, 1996a, b), survey methods: Fitzpatrick et al. (1991), metapopulation

structure: Stith et al. (1996), habitat conservation plan: Fitzpatrick et al. (status?), evolution: Fitzpatrick and

Woolfenden (1986) and Emslie (1996), source-sink dynamics: Breininger et. al. (1995), and translocation

(Mumme and Below 1991).

This report documents the results of an FSJ survey undertaken by staff and associates of Archbold

Biological Station. Funded primarily by the USFWS, the project began in September 1992 and ended in March

1994. Information was accepted until August 1996, when a draft of the report (Pranty 1996) was submitted to the

USFWS regional office in Jacksonville, Florida. Some of the information received after the termination of

fieldwork (i.e., in 1994-1998) includes new FSJ sites not known previously that were reported to us. This report is

a revised version of Pranty (1996), with updated text and maps for every county containing FSJs, with information

received up through June 1998.

Jeffrey A. Cox (1987) conducted the first attempt at mapping all known FSJ sites in the early 1980s by

researching the published literature and unpublished field notes of the previous century for FSJs reports, and by

conducting a fairly extensive survey throughout the Florida peninsula. Not surprisingly, he overlooked sites

occupied by jays. As Cox wrote (1987:9), "No doubt I missed Scrub Jays entirely in places where they are present

... It is simply not possible to conduct in one year an absolutely complete survey of a species found in as many

widely scattered locations as is the Florida Scrub Jay.

In 1985, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the Florida Ornithological Society, and

numerous corporations and individuals funded a six-year project (1986-1991) to map the breeding ranges of all

birds that breed, or could potentially breed, in the state. This Florida Breeding Bird Atlas project was organized by

the Florida Audubon Society and sent many hundreds of observers into the field throughout the state to document

the presence of breeding birds. During the BBA, atlassers located dozens of FSJ sites, including many that were

not known to Cox (Kale et al. 1992).


In April 1986, Tom Webber (in litt. to David Wesley, USFWS, 18 July 1986) surveyed 11 Cox sites in

Citrus (1), Clay (both), Flagler (2), Hernando (all 3), and Putnam (all 3) counties. Of the 5 northernmost sites

(those in Clay and Putnam counties), jays had become extirpated from 4 of them, and only 1 jay was found at the

other site. Two of the remaining 6 Cox sites that Webber visited in April 1986 were also devoid of jays, and the

remaining 4 sites were privately owned and showed indications of impending development.

In an attempt to halt the continuing decline of the FSJ, and as a means of solving increasing conflicts

when landowners applied for permits to clear scrub occupied by FSJs, the USFWS in 1992 implemented plans to

design an FSJ Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The first step in the HCP process was to assess the current

number and distribution of jays statewide. To meet this need, the USFWS organized the Statewide Mapping

Project.

At a meeting at Archbold Biological Station in fall 1992, mapping duties were divided among many

observers to ensure the most thorough coverage possible. Nine compilers were chosen, and each was assigned

one or more counties. Most compilers were assigned the county(ies) with which they were most familiar. The

peninsula was divided and surveyed as follows: David Breininger (northern and central Brevard County); Jack

Dozier (Clay, Flagler, Marion, Putnam, and Volusia counties, and portions of Glades and Osceola counties); John

Fitzpatrick (Glades County); Grace Iverson and the late Jack Gardner (Palm Beach County); Bill Pranty (Citrus,

Hernando, Hillsborough, Lake, Levy, Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Pasco, Seminole, and Sumter counties); Brad

Stith (Highlands and Polk counties); Jon Thaxton (Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Hardee, Lee, Manatee, and Sarasota

counties); and Brian Toland (southern Brevard County, and Indian River, Martin, and St. Lucie counties). Eight

additional counties (i.e., Alachua, Broward, Dade, Duval, Gilchrist, Hendry, Pinellas, and St. Johns) that

historically had FSJ populations were not surveyed because jays already had been virtually or entirely extirpated

from them.

Most Federally owned properties were not officially surveyed for this project, but population estimates

were obtained for the three Federally owned sites known to contain many FSJ groups. (We use the word group to

describe each FSJ unit; others have used the terms pair, family, clan, and territory). These sites are Kennedy Space

Center (Canaveral National Seashore in Volusia and Brevard counties, and Merritt Island National Wildlife

Refuge in Brevard County), Cape Canaveral Air Station in Brevard County, and Ocala National Forest in Lake,

Marion, and Putnam counties. Personnel from the U.S. Forestry Service are engaged in FSJ studies in Ocala

National Forest and supplied us with preliminary data on jay numbers and locations. For the Brevard sites, David

Breininger estimated the number of jays based upon the most current survey and habitat data.

METHODS

We compiled virtually all recently published FSJ sites, sought information on known but unpublished

sites, and searched for new sites. Published information of FSJ sites includes the following sources.

1. Cox: sites in Cox (1987), the baseline FSJ survey. Most of these sites were surveyed by Cox from 1980 to

1983 (mostly in 1981), and, in this report, lack the name of any observer. Sites reported to Cox by others,

which always list the name(s) of the observer(s), frequently lack some data (e.g., the number of jays

observed). Cox did not list the number of FSJ groups he observed, which is a more accurate measurement

of an FSJ population than the number of birds.

In our analyses, we consider a Cox site to be still occupied if subsequent surveys recorded jays

within 0.5 miles from the site where Cox recorded his jays. If the jays closest to a Cox site are greater than

this distance, we consider this to be a different site, and we consider the Cox site to be extirpated if it lacks

jays currently. In a few cases, we consider a Cox site to be extirpated even if extant jays occur within about

0.3-0.4 miles if we feel that habitat destruction or vehicular traffic probably was responsible for the

disappearance of the jays at the Cox site.

2. BBA: sites discovered during the Florida Breeding Bird Atlas project, 1986-1991 (Kale et al. 1992), a

database of about 200,000 observations. Every BBA observation was accompanied by at least 1 code that

specified the type of breeding activity observed (e.g., a singing male, a pair of birds, courtship, nest-

building, fledglings, or nests with eggs or nestlings, etc.); there were 20 breeding evidence codes in all.


The BBA required that species be recorded only during their breeding seasons (permanent residents), or

outside the migratory seasons (non-permanent resident species). A list of safe-dates was devised to

exclude any records of minor breeding evidence (e.g., observations of one or more birds not engaged in

courtship or nesting activities; essentially birds merely observed) that were obtained by atlassers. The

safe-dates for FSJs were 1 March-1 July. Outside these dates, an atlasser could not record an FSJ

observation unless strong breeding activity was observed (i.e., courtship or nesting in February, or

fledglings seen in July or August). Perhaps not surprisingly, many hundreds of BBA records outside the

safe-dates periods were nonetheless submitted. These unsafe records were purged from the BBAs

computer database, but remain on the original field cards. Because our project deals with the locations of

FSJs rather than their breeding evidence, these unsafe BBA observations were of value to us. So in 1992,

BP examined nearly every BBA data card from the Florida peninsula to rescue these unsafe observations

so they could be included here.

The standard survey unit of the BBA was the "block," one-sixth of a U.S. Geological Survey

topographic quadrangle map. (The BBA surveyed portions of 1028 quadrangles in Florida). The BBA

designation of blocks is as follows: Block 1 = northwest; Block 2 = west-central; Block 3 = southwest;

Block 4 = northeast; Block 5 = east-central; and Block 6 = southeast.

The area within an Atlas block is approximately 10 square miles. More specific mapping of bird

distribution was not required by the BBA. Therefore, for the SMP, we contacted the atlassers to determine

the specific site(s) where they had encountered FSJs, 1-7 years previously. Because many atlassers had

forgotten the site(s), others had moved, and a few have died, these inquiries often were unsuccessful. (One

would hope that subsequent BBAs will require that the precise locations of all rare, Threatened, and

Endangered species be specified by atlassers). An extensive effort by BP to contact the atlassers that

reported FSJs in his area resulted in specific site locations for only 72% of the BBA block reports. BBA

reports that could not be determined to a specific site are not included here unless the BBA report

represents the only report from a block. BBA reports that are unique to an area, but lack information to

identify the specific FSJ site(s), are not numbered in the county accounts, but are instead marked with an

asterisk (*). Table 1 lists all the Quadrangles and Blocks that contain unique but unspecified FSJ reports

from the BBA.

3. FNAI: sites in the database of the Florida Natural Areas Inventory, supplied in 1993 and updated in

October 1997 by Katy NeSmith.

4. GFC: sites in the Wildlife Observations database of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,

supplied in 1993 by Glenn Reynolds. (This database contained very few FSJ reports).

5. Add: newly discovered or reported sites not included in any of the above categories, up to 1991; 1992-

1998 Add sites are listed below in one of two other categories.

6. SMP: sites reported or discovered during the Statewide Mapping Project, 1992-1993 (1992-1994 in

Glades County).

7. New: sites reported or discovered after the SMP (i.e., 1994-1998). Because we could not visit the majority

of these sites, we accepted them only when we trusted the field skills of the observers (see #2, below).

Known but previously unpublished FSJ sites were located using three methods.

1. Observers with possible knowledge of unpublished FSJ sites were contacted throughout the jay's

range. These included biologists, environmental consultants, local government officials, park employees,

birders and bird-watchers, and even residents of developments built in scrub habitats. The contacts we

made with dozens of local observers resulted in many jay sites being brought to our attention and greatly

improved the database and this report.


2. Requests for assistance were published widely in ornithological and environmental journals,

magazines, and newsletters. Notices appeared in the Florida Naturalist (magazine of the Florida

Audubon Society, with about 40,000 members), the Florida Field Naturalist and FOS Newsletter (both

published by the Florida Ornithological Society), The Skimmer (a nongame newsletter of the Florida

Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission), and Resource Management Notes (newsletter of the

Department of Natural Resources [now the Department of Environmental Protection]). In addition, stories

mentioning the project and providing the address and phone number of ABS were published in numerous

newspapers.

Statewide, numerous reports were received from the public concerning purported FSJ sites. In

order to avoid including misidentified Blue Jays (Cyanocitta cristata) or other species in this report, we

have included only those sites that we later visited, or those sites for which observers supplied

photographs of FSJs to us. Sites purported to contain FSJs that we did not visit are listed at the end of each

county summary under the heading "Unconfirmed Sites." A few FSJ reports were so far out of range that

we did not consider them further. Two such reports were of jays at Flamingo, Everglades National Park in

Monroe County in 1993, and 1 jay east of Tallahassee, in Leon County in April 1994. (The published

report of 1 scrub-jay in Bay County in 1992 see page 30 probably also belongs in this category).

3. Soil maps published by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (USSCS) were scrutinized to identify well-

drained, sandy soils, on which scrub vegetation most frequently grows. Thousands of xeric soil

deposits were identified on these soil maps in the peninsula. After these xeric sites were identified on the

soil maps, a field survey was undertaken to visit as many of them as possible. Because of the limited time

and funding available to complete the field work, most potential habitat polygons we actually located

and surveyed were located along or near public roadways. Access to private properties was requested

mainly when FSJs already were known or strongly suspected to be present, or when substantial areas of

scrub appeared to exist in an area. Access to private property for the purpose of censusing FSJs frequently

was denied by landowners. Overall, we mapped 4733 xeric sites in the peninsula and obtained complete

attribute data for 2291 (48%) of these.

Certain soil types were ruled out after ground-truthing revealed no, or only marginal, FSJ

habitats. Most often, especially in the northern and northwestern counties, these areas of well-drained

soils turned out to harbor turkey oaks (Quercus laevis) and sandhill vegetation, which often includes sand

pines (Pinus clausa), but usually lacks scrub oaks. Conversely, certain sandy soil types that had been

suspected of being inappropriate for harboring scrub occasionally were included in the survey after

fieldwork determined their suitability for occupancy by FSJs. Other habitats marginally suitable for FSJs

(especially dead citrus groves now regenerating as open, weedy fields with scattered young oaks of several

species) were surveyed as encountered.

Soil maps sometimes proved inadequate for identifying scrub habitat, and in two counties (Glades

County, and portions of Osceola County), soil maps were lacking altogether. Our approach in these areas

was to cruise public and accessible private roadways to locate scrub patches visually, and to search

available aerial photographs for any additional evidence of scrub habitat.

4. Visual searches and playback of FSJ territorial scolds provided the principal means of confirming

presence or absence of jays. All habitat patches we visited that seemed to be potentially appropriate for

FSJs were surveyed via well-established protocol (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991) using a portable tape player to

broadcast recorded FSJ territorial scold calls. Although fieldwork was carried out during all months of the

year, the most extensive surveys occurred during September-November 1992 and 1993, and February-May

1993. These fall and spring seasons encompass periods of most active response by FSJs to playback of

territorial scolds. Typical responses occurred within 1-2 minutes after initial broadcast of the tape. For

those sites surveyed by vehicle, we usually used the vehicle's odometer to stop every 0.1-mile. For those

scrub sites surveyed on foot, we often played the tape continuously while walking around and through the

scrub. About 3-5 minutes of playback per station without a response constituted evidence that the site was

unoccupied. Site-to-site variation in habitat structure and day-to-day variation in weather conditions

precluded full standardization of this playback procedure. Some sites could be surveyed quickly, while


other sites required extensive effort before the careful observer could conclude that FSJs were not present.

(Despite this, we probably missed jays at some sites we surveyed, because many sites were surveyed only

once, and jays do not always respond to taped playback within a few minutes).

We emphasize that the most important criteria for a credible survey of FSJs are: 1) an observer

with substantial field experience with FSJs during all seasons of the year, which permits accurate

assessment of the effects of subtle variables such as habitat quality, seasonal changes in jay behavior, and

weather conditions that are unfavorable for locating FSJs, and 2) an observer who genuinely wants to find

every FSJ present at a site. Any survey in which either of these two components is not met should be

evaluated with caution.

5. Habitat features were recorded for most patches surveyed. A standardized data sheet was used to

record several characteristics of each patch, including occupancy by FSJs (unoccupied, currently, recently

[1980-1991], and formerly [pre-1980] occupied, and unknown [inaccessible]), estimated degree of

vegetative overgrowth (optimal, and somewhat, moderately, and heavily overgrown), estimated degree and

nature of human disturbance (undisturbed, moderately to highly disturbed agricultural, and minimally,

moderately, and heavily disturbed residential or commercial), and whether or not the patch was under

public ownership or conservation management.

Time and funding did not permit quantitative measurement of overgrowth or level of human

disturbance. Rather, while surveying for FSJs, most compilers qualitatively characterized the overall

condition of each patch (guidelines in Fitzpatrick et al. 1994). Single habitat patches that had large,

homogeneous portions with different degrees of overgrowth, disturbance, or ownership were considered

separate sub-patches on our maps. Patches that were heterogeneous in structure often were difficult to split

into sub-patches. These were assigned a code reflecting the highest degree of overgrowth or disturbance

represented within the patch. Variation existed among observers in assigning overgrowth and disturbance

features to habitat polygons. Therefore, these attributes must be interpreted with caution when compared

at the statewide scale.

Unoccupied scrub tracts were not recorded in this study for Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin

counties, but Fernald (1989) provides detailed maps of these tracts, of which most are no longer occupied

by FSJs.

6. Field maps were digitized into a Geographic Information System (GIS) at Archbold Biological

Station. Habitat polygons and jay locations were hand-drawn on field maps, usually USSCS soil sheets

where available. Prior to digitizing, 4 registration tics were located and drawn on each map, and the x,y

coordinates of these tics were written down and assigned ID numbers on a standardized data form. These

tic coordinates and IDs were then entered into the ARC/INFO county coverages. Field maps were taped

onto the digitizer board and registered using the appropriate tics. Habitat polygons and jay locations were

then digitized by hand. Attribute data for each habitat polygon and jay location were entered into the

ARC/INFO database during this process.

7. Repeated drafts of the county maps were produced as hard-copy check plots. Each county

underwent detailed proofreading to compare the GIS database with the original field maps and data

sheets. Digitizing or data entry problems were corrected. New information in jay locations was accepted,

entered into the database, and proofread through March 1994. The original compilers proofread the data

in 15 counties (BPs 11 counties, plus Glades, Highlands, Palm Beach, and Polk counties). For this report,

FSJ data were accepted through June 1998, and all changes to the database were made with ArcView GIS

3.0a software on a Compaq Presario owned by BP.

8. Final maps were plotted. Large-scale (34x44-inch) four-color maps of the 31 counties surveyed during

the project were plotted for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1994, using ARC/INFO software. For

this book, color maps were produced using ArcView GIS 3.0 software and a Lexmark 1020 printer. These

maps contain coverages of county boundaries, coast lines, all Federal, State, and selected county roadways,

larger lakes (>36 ha [90 acres]) and rivers, areas under public ownership or private conservation


management, areas marked for acquisition but not yet acquired, extant scrub habitats identified during the

SMP, the location of all recently (i.e., since 1980) extirpated FSJ sites, and the location of every FSJ group

mapped from 1992 through 1998. All coverages other than the scrub and FSJ coverages were obtained

from other sources, and may contain errors of omission and commission beyond our control. Most of these

coverages were obtained from the University of Florida in 1996. We modified some property boundaries

according to 1997 land acquisition and selection activities, and have deleted properties that are not

managed for conservation (i.e., airports, correctional institutions, state hospitals, and Indian reservations).

Blanchard et al. (1998) was extremely helpful in determining current names and acreage for nearly all the

public lands listed in this book.

9. Original field records for all sites occupied by FSJs are on file at Archbold Biological Station. At

ABS, the original field data sheets, including soil maps, polygon attribute sheets, and backup notes are

stored in the Ornithology Laboratory, and the statewide map data are maintained in coverages and

databases in the GIS Laboratory. All digital data are stored also on Pentium PCs owned by the authors.


Table 1. All Blocks reported to contain FSJs during the Florida Breeding Bird Atlas project (1986-1991), but

with no previous or subsequent observations. None of these reports have been determined to specific

sites.

County Quadrangle/Block County Quadrangle/Block

Citrus Stokes Ferry 3 Marion Shady 3

Flagler Bunnell 6 Martin Gomez 1

Glades Goodno 4 Martin Rood 4

Glades LaBelle NW 6 Orange Narcoossee NW 1

Glades Lake Hicpochee 1 Orange Pine Castle 4

Hardee Sweetwater 2(?) Orange Sorrento 6

Hardee Crewsville SW 1 Palm Beach Greenacres City 4

Hardee Sweetwater 6 Polk Alturas 3

Highlands Childs 6 Polk Davenport 2

Highlands Fort Basinger 4 Polk Davenport 4

Highlands Lake Arbuckle SE 3 Polk Davenport 6

Highlands Lake Arbuckle SW 1 Polk Eloise 4

Highlands Lorida 2 Polk Fort Kissimmee NW 1

Highlands Lorida 4 Polk Hesperides 5

Highlands Lorida 5 Polk Lake Marian SW 6

Highlands Venus NW 6 Polk Lake Weohyakapka 4

Lake Center Hill 2 Polk Lake Weohyakapka 5

Lake Lake Louisa 2 St. Johns Matanzas Inlet 1

Lake Lake Louisa 3 St. Lucie Oslo 6

Lake Lake Louisa 5 Sarasota Englewood 4

Lake Mascotte 5 Sumter Wahoo 6

Lee Fort Myers 3 Sumter Wildwood 4

Levy Chiefland SW 6 Volusia Lake Helen 6

Levy East Pass 6 Volusia Oak Hill 2

Marion Dunnellon 5 Volusia Osteen 4

Marion Ocala West 3


RESULTS

County-by-county results of the Statewide Mapping Project are summarized in Table 2. We either

observed directly or received credible evidence for 2691 FSJ groups during and following our 1992-1993 survey.

An estimated 950 groups occur on Federal properties we did not census. These figures yield a combined total of

3641 FSJ groups statewide. As a comparison, Cox's (1987) data are also included. As is evident, most counties (28

of 35, 80%) have more occupied jay sites currently than were found in the early 1980s. In fact, FSJ increases of

1000% or more were recorded for Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Hillsborough, Indian River, Manatee, Okeechobee,

Osceola, Pasco, and Sarasota counties. With widespread habitat destruction, habitat succession, and other

causes of natural and human-caused extirpations taking place, the number of jays statewide surely did not

actually increase (except in local cases due to a recent fire that improved previously unsuitable habitat). Rather,

Cox simply overlooked many jay-occupied sites that were subsequently discovered by others.

The jays in Alachua County consisted of apparently 1 group of birds on private property that has not been

accessed since 1981. Of the counties that now contain fewer jays, habitat destruction and habitat succession appear

equally responsible for the loss in Orange County, while habitat succession appears largely responsible in Clay,

Hernando, Levy, and Putnam counties. Brevard Countys totals are decreased due largely to overly inflated

estimates of FSJ numbers used by Cox for the Federal properties. The current totals from Brevard County, while

still based largely on estimates of FSJ numbers rather than counts, now seem much more realistic, based on the

amount of habitat available, and the severely overgrown condition of those habitats.

Using the 1992-1993 SMP data, Stith et al. (1996) determined the statewide FSJ population was

composed of 42 separate metapopulations broken down into 191 subpopulations. Metapopulations are

aggregation of jays separated from other aggregations by more than 8 miles (12 km), the limit of normal FSJ

dispersal distance. Subpopulations are groups of jays separated from other groups by more than 2 miles (3.6 km),

the limit of frequent (i.e., 85%, Stith et al. 1996) dispersal. These subpopulations range in size from 1 group to

over 1000 groups, but most are small (Figure 1). Three subpopulations contain almost 70% of the total FSJ

population, and the 6 largest subpopulations make up 86% of this total. Twenty-one metapopulations contain 10 or

fewer jay groups, and have a 50% probability of becoming extinct within 100 years (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). Only 6

metapopulations are composed of more than 100 groups and are considered to be immune from extinction. (Note

that FSJ data from 1994-1998 alter the above figures somewhat. Most notable is the reduced estimate of FSJ

groups at Kennedy Space Center/Cape Canaveral Air Station from 1100 groups to 502).

Nearly half of all remaining FSJs occur in two counties, Brevard (886 groups estimated) and Highlands

(889 groups counted). Nearly 20 (n = 19) occupied counties now contain 30 or fewer groups, and three of these

counties (i.e., Broward, Hendry, and St. Johns) each contain a single group. As of 1998, FSJs are believed to be

extirpated from 7 additional counties (i.e., Alachua, Clay, Dade, Duval, Gilchrist, Hernando, and Pinellas).

Add Figure 1.

Table 2. Comparison of SMP and Cox (1987) data. OK data are blued

County

SMP jays

SMP groups

SMP sites

Cox jays1

Cox sites

Alachua 02 02 0 2 1

Brevard 8863 86 9600-16,0003 35

Broward 3 2 2 0 0

Charlotte 303 131 52 28 7

Citrus 86 27 16 25 9

Clay 5 2 2 2 2

Collier 56 22 14 2 1

DeSoto 67 23 3 ? 2

Flagler 23 8 5 5 2

Glades 773 16 62 13


Hardee 21 9 3 5 1

Hendry 2 1 1 1 1

Hernando 9 3 3 13 3

Highlands 2829 935 105 768 53

Hillsborough 66 23 16 ? 2

Indian River 52 15 12 5

Lake 157 47 105 26

Lee 48 22 14 15 8

Levy 27 8 4 62 7

Manatee 76 30 22 4 4

Marion 494 14 77 6

Martin 993 16 118 64

Okeechobee 47 16 3 3 2

Orange 38 10 6 48 8

Osceola 29 7 11 2

Palm Beach 112 41 17 37 15

Pasco 75 26 13 7 2

Pinellas 02 02 02 0 0

Polk 597 210 48 119 25

Putnam 10 1 6 3

St. Johns 4 2 2 0 0

St. Lucie 703 283 6 17 5

Sarasota 426 149 40 39 14

Seminole 31 11 8 6 2

Sumter 60 18 2 12 5

Volusia 269 107 33 63 17

Totals 36412,3 6345 12-18,0001, 3 2944

1 - minimum number; Cox often included hearsay reports for which he did not specify the number of jays

2 - excludes single dispersing jays

3 - estimate

4 - publicly owned properties usually are counted as only 1 site, regardless of the number of FSJ groups. Cox usually used this method also, but 2 exceptions are Jonathan

Dickinson State Park, where he mapped 6 separate sites, and Ocala National Forest, where he mapped 61 sites.


Population Decline

Our survey documents in several ways the continuing decline of the Florida Scrub-Jay. Over half of the

groups documented during the SMP were censused for family size (n = 1982 of 3604, 60%). Average group size

statewide was 2.79 jays, yielding a total population estimate of 10,055 jays as of 1998. Correcting for the larger

average group sizes in Highlands County (X = 2.99, n = 889 groups; for the remainder, X = 2.72 [2.62 on page

15.], N = 2715 groups) yields a slightly more conservative estimate of 10,708 jays statewide.

Cox estimated that 15,400-22,800 FSJs existed in the state as of the early 1980s. However, Cox clearly

missed a substantial number of occupied sites during his one-man census, conducted primarily in 1981. It is

therefore difficult to compare our numerical results with Coxs directly. In particular, the proportion of the

statewide population existing on Federal lands remains unclear. While admitting considerable uncertainty in his

estimates, Cox (1987) inferred that 12,200-19,400 jays (79-85%) were on Federal lands. Our results are quite

different. We accounted for 2691 FSJ groups outside Federal lands, and our best sources indicate only about 950

groups on Federal lands. Our results suggest that only 33% of all FSJs exist on Federal lands as of the early 1990s.

Without doubt, FSJ numbers at most sites have been reduced dramatically since Coxs survey, especially

in the northern part of the FSJs range. Same-site comparisons of our results with Coxs allow us to quantify the

change (Table 3). In the 11 counties surveyed by BP, 64 of the 67 non-Federal FSJ sites listed as occupied by Cox

(1987) were surveyed carefully in 1992 and 1993. Of these, only 19 (29%) were still occupied. Cox personally

counted 290 FSJs at 58 of these sites in 1981; at these same 58 sites, BP found only 116 jays, plus 57 in a recently

burned site near one of Coxs sites. Outside the burn, BPs count was only 40% of Coxs. Even including the burn,

BPs count at these 58 sites was only 59% of Coxs from 12 years earlier.

We conclude that in the northern third of its range, the FSJ has declined between 25-50% since the early

1980s. It is perhaps significant that this well-documented rate of decline matches the apparent difference between

Coxs and our estimates for the total statewide population, including both Federal and non-Federal lands (10,708

today vs. 15,400-22,800 in 1981).

Fire suppression and habitat succession appear to be responsible for much of the FSJ population decline in

the north. Of the 45 unoccupied Cox sites BP visited in his 11 counties, only 3 had been cleared completely, while

42 (93%) still contained at least some scrub habitat (Table 3). Most of this scrub was found to be mature sand pine

forest or xeric oak hammock.

Some of the most noteworthy peripheral populations of FSJs are now either extirpated or nearly so. In

general, the northern subpopulations appear to be disappearing most rapidly. Until 1989, for example, Camp

Blanding Military Reservation and Goldhead Branch State Park, both in Clay County, had long supported the

northernmost jay groups. As of 1998, the state park population is extirpated, and the military reservation contains

only a single known group. Guana River State Park and surrounding barrier island scrubs of St. Johns County

supported the northernmost coastal jays, but were believed to have been eliminated by the time of Coxs (1987)

survey. We received two reports of FSJs from St. Johns County in the 1990s, including one report of a single FSJ

that successfully bred with a Blue Jay in 1996 (Morgan and Morgan 1997) and 1997 (Reed Bowman pers. comm.).

The other report was of a single group seen for only a brief amount of time. Finally, the Cedar Key scrub in Levy

County once supported a large population of jays (reviewed in Cox 1987), but this population had been reduced to

only 3-4 groups as of 1998.


Table 3. Status of Coxs (1987) FSJ sites in 11 counties in Florida, 1992-1993.

Cox sites

by County

Cox

jays

SMP

jays

Habitat

cleared?

Over-

growth

Comments

Citrus 1 2 0 No Some


Lake 24 2 0 No Heavy Extensive undeveloped area; targeted for

acquisition

Lake 25 6 0 No Some Large mobile home park with scattered small

patches of scrub; some jays still may exist

Levy 1 5-7 ? ? ? No access

Levy 2 5 0 No Heavy

Levy 3 7 0 No Heavy Adjacent to Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve, but

not targeted for acquisition currently

Levy 4 23 12 No Some Adjacent to Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve; parts

are targeted for acquisition

Levy 5 16-17 7 No Some Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve; management has

begun

Levy 6 4 0 No Heavy Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve

Levy 7 2 0 No Heavy Atypical habitat (live oak hammock)

Okeechobee 1 3 0 No Heavy


the groups were censused during summer and fall, when numbers were still enhanced by fledglings or juveniles. In

a demographically stable population that has been studied in detail, the long-term average group size in April is

exactly 3.00 (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1990), which is virtually identical to the census result for the same

region (2.99, see above).

We suspect that average group sizes outside of the southern Lake Wales Ridge are indeed significantly

smaller than 3.00. This means that less than one-third of all FSJ groups contains non-breeding helpers. This, in

turn, means that over most of its range, the FSJ is at best barely replacing itself. If we assume that yearling non-

breeders experience an average mortality of 25% (Fitzpatrick and Woolfenden 1986), then average production of 2-

year-old recruits for a population with only 0.6 non-breeding yearlings per pair is between 0.4 and 0.5 recruits (0.6

x 0.75). Therefore, if virtually every one of these potential recruits filled a breeding vacancy immediately (which is

unlikely), then sufficient numbers would exist to replace breeders exactly at the rate of 20% annually (0.4 recruits

per pair, or 0.2 per breeder). This 20% matches the annual adult death rate in healthy populations.

In the real world, stochastic variation across space and time actually prohibits such a delicate match of

birth rates and death rates from persisting throughout the range of the FSJ. The absence of a standing surplus of

non-breeding jays implies that across most of its range, the species now exists in a precarious demographic

(im)balance. This pattern explains the continued, steady disappearance of FSJs, even from areas that still contain

scrub habitat. Local extirpations are to be expected as a result of local shortfalls in the reservoir of recruits. Table 4

lists average FSJ group sizes from the 6 Florida counties that contain at least 100 censused groups.

Table 4. FSJ average group size from selected Florida counties. Fix when final.

County # groups # jays Avg. group size

Highlands 889 2660 2.99

Sarasota 149 426 2.85

Lake 115 306 2.66

Volusia 107 281 2.62

Polk 202 507 2.50

Charlotte 127 294 2.31

Table 5. Percentages of FSJ groups occurring on publicly owned lands, arranged by county. Fix when final.

County

% of groups

protected

County

% of groups

protected

Brevard ~53 Martin 51

Charlotte 8 Okeechobee 0

Citrus 28 Orange 80

Clay 0 Osceola 75

Collier 27 Palm Beach 45

DeSoto 0 Pasco 76

Flagler 0 Pinellas 0

Glades 0 Polk 59

Hardee 0 Putnam 100

Highlands 33 St. Johns 50

Hillsborough 21 St. Lucie 85

Indian River 15 Sarasota 25

Lake 45 Seminole 64

Lee 4 Sumter 100

Levy 50 Volusia 3

Manatee 14

Marion 83 Totals ~46


Conclusions and recommendations

The Florida Scrub-Jay is continuing to decline statewide, especially across the northern third of its range.

Fire suppression apparently now plays a larger role than habitat destruction in explaining this decline. Further

declines are to be expected, as remnant subpopulations continue to blink out because of demographic imbalances,

or continuing habitat destruction and/or succession.

Efforts to protect large tracts of natural scrub habitats, and to place them under long-term conservation

management, should be increased. Prescribed fire is needed urgently over much of the range of the species, as it is

clear that the FSJ is an early-successional habitat specialist. We realize that there is great difficulty and cost of

habitat management with fire, so educating the public and land-management agencies about the importance of

periodic, intense scrub fires is critical to this restoration effort.

The status and fate of FSJs on Federally owned lands remain uncertain. New surveys of FSJs are needed

most urgently in the Merritt Island/Cape Canaveral area, where the population may have declined dramatically in

only the past few years (David Breininger pers. comm. March 1997). Prescribed fire appears to be urgently needed

in this large and vital Core Population.

Ocala National Forest should be declared critical habitat for the FSJ, and should incorporate ecosystem

management, including the use of fire, over major expanses of its scrub habitats. Continued cultivation of planted

sand pines, and its associated disturbance of soil and plant composition, may not be compatible with the

management of FSJs. Detailed studies of the effects of current silvicultural practices on FSJs should be conducted.

The southern Lake Wales Ridge population is the third major Core Population, and large scrub patches

still remain in private holdings. Efforts to acquire the remaining sites in the Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife

Refuge (Federal) and the Lake Wales Ridge Ecosystem Network (State of Florida) should be strengthened and

accelerated.

Regional-scale Habitat Conservation Plans will be essential to the long-term protection of FSJs in the

myriad of smaller populations across the state. As the human population continues to expand in peninsular Florida,

the HCP process could play a vital role in helping to channel mitigation funding toward local networks of scrub

ecosystem preserves that can be managed in perpetuity. To date, however, only one county (Brevard) has attempted

a countywide HCP, and this attempt was defeated in 1995 by property-rights advocates.

Lastly, the severe decline in FSJ numbers since Jeffrey Coxs surveys in the early 1980s demonstrates the

clear need for continued, extensive monitoring of the statewide population.

This report contains 814 FSJ sites including 646 (77%) that were occupied in 1992-1998 compared to

294 occupied sites located in the early 1980s by Cox (1987) and others. While Cox's surveys were extremely

important for providing baseline data on the FSJ sites he surveyed, his one-year effort clearly was not nearly as

extensive as the SMP. Although he missed few large FSJ populations, not surprisingly, Cox overlooked many

hundreds of small ones.

This report updates and greatly improves upon Cox's data, but cannot be considered a complete count.

Many areas with scrub, including some sites known to be occupied by FSJs in the past, were inaccessible to this

survey. Vast areas of marginally suitable FSJ habitat (e.g., the Brooksville Ridge) were surveyed only cursorily.

And many FSJs are located in non-scrub habitats (e.g., suburban backyards or abandoned citrus groves) that often

were ignored during surveys because they are of little conservation value or would be excessively time-consuming

to survey in detail. Therefore, the sites listed in this report must be considered the minimum number of jays

rather than a complete inventory. Ironically, relatively undeveloped areas such as Glades, eastern Manatee,

Okeechobee, eastern Orange, and Osceola counties were surveyed less thoroughly than were developed areas,

because development means roads, and roads mean access to scrub sites. Undoubtedly, there are other FSJs

waiting to be discovered by others. Since the submission of the final SMP report to USFWS (Fitzpatrick et al.

1994), 53 new FSJ sites (Table 6) [as of 21 Jun 1998] have been brought to our attention, and other sites unknown

to us must surely exist.

Observers who know of currently occupied, or recently extirpated, FSJ sites that are not included in

this report are requested to submit this information to Bill Pranty, 8515 Village Mill Row, Bayonet Point,

Florida 34667-2662, phone 813-862-4556, email [email protected]. We also request notice of any


asterisked (*) BBA reports that can be identified to a specific site.

Table 6. New FSJ sites discovered 1994-1998.

County Site(s) County Site(s)

Broward 1 Manatee 6, 16, 18, 19

Charlotte 2, 43, 45 Okeechobee 5

Citrus 1, 4, 9 Orange 11, NEW

Clay 2, 3 Osceola 1

Flagler 5 Palm Beach ADD 1, ADD 1

Hardee 1, 3 Pasco 2, 5, 9, 12, 17

Hendry 1 Pinellas 1

Hernando 1 Polk 9, 19, 20, 38, 44, 52

Highlands 11, 37. 49 St. Johns 1

Hillsborough 3, 6, 18, 20 Seminole 2

Lake 18, 23, 29, 32, 61 Sumter 9

Levy 3, 7

SCRUB HABITATS IN FLORIDA

It is known well that FSJs are restricted to the various types of scrub habitats in Florida, of which most are

endemic to the state. Scrub habitats include xeric oak scrub dominated by stunted evergreen oaks (sand live oak

Quercus geminata, Chapmans oak Q. chapmanii, myrtle oak Q. myrtifolia, and Archbold oak Q. inopina),

scrubby flatwoods (oak scrub with an overstory of slash pine Pinus elliottii or longleaf pine P. palustris), sand pine

scrub (oak scrub with an often complete overstory of P. clausa), rosemary scrub (oak scrub with Ceratiola

ericoides and numerous endemic shrubs and forbs), sandhills (mixed forests of pine and turkey oak Q. laevis, often

with small, scattered clumps of scrub oaks), and palmetto scrub, a.k.a. coastal strand (saw palmetto Serenoa repens

with scattered oaks). Photographs of most scrub habitats are found in Cox (1987) and Fitzpatrick et al. (1991).

Christman (1988) is an excellent reference for all scrub types in peninsular Florida.

Generally, scrub is restricted to excessively well drained sandy soils. Much scrub occurs on ridge systems

that represent earlier coastlines, especially along the Atlantic coast. Ridges that contain FSJ populations include

the Lake Wales Ridge (the tallest and therefore oldest ridge in Florida) from Lake and Orange counties south

through Highlands County, the Bombing Range Ridge in southeastern Polk and northeastern Highlands counties,

the Atlantic Coastal Ridge along the states entire east coast, and the Ten Mile Ridge, 8-22 km inland from the

Atlantic Coastal Ridge. Other, inland ridges that contain small FSJ populations include the Brooksville Ridge from

Gilchrist and Alachua counties south to Pasco County, the Mount Dora Ridge from Marion County south to

Orange County, and three small ridges in Polk County (the Lakeland, Winter Haven, and Lake Henry ridges).

Based on their numerous endemic plants and animals, the Lake Wales, Winter Haven, and Lake Henry ridges were

called ancient scrubs by Christman (1988). Another ridge unnamed and largely unrecognized in eastern

Osceola, southwestern Indian River, and northeastern Okeechobee counties contains some widely scattered FSJ

groups, of which most were not discovered until this project.

Thousands of patches of scrub occur in many areas of the peninsula seemingly unrelated to ridge systems

(White 1970), and many of these contain FSJ groups. Non-ridge FSJ habitat includes the oak scrub and scrubby

flatwoods on the mainland near Cedar Key; the extensive sand pine scrub in and around Ocala National Forest;

scrubby flatwoods in northeastern Citrus, southwestern Marion, and northwestern Sumter counties; fire-shadowed

patchy oak scrub around wetlands in north-central Pasco County; scattered oak scrub throughout eastern Manatee

County; scrubby flatwoods at Disney Wilderness Preserve in Osceola and Polk counties; oak scrub in the

Immokalee area; and oak and sand pine scrub in and around Jonathan Dickinson State Park in Martin County. A

few non-ridge FSJ sites occur along watercourses (e.g., the Little Manatee River in Hillsborough County,

Fisheating Creek in Glades County, and the Kissimmee River in at least Polk, Highlands, and Okeechobee


counties) and in uplands bordering many lakes and ponds.

A man-made habitat that has recently become available to FSJs consists of areas regenerating as second-

growth oak forests, mostly of Q. geminata or laurel oak Q. laurifolia (Christman 1988, pers. obs.). These pioneer

scrubs include extensive areas of the Mount Dora Ridge in Lake County, and Lake Wales Ridge in Lake and Polk

counties that had been converted to citrus groves. Severe freezes in the early and mid-1980s killed the groves and

most have been abandoned. Along with cleared areas in other parts of the peninsula, some of these former groves

currently support small numbers of FSJs. However, it is unlikely that FSJs can persist at most of these unmanaged

sites for more than a decade or so. (As of 1997, residential development is rampant in much of this area in Lake

and Polk counties).

As many human residents of Florida are well aware, FSJs persist in areas where the native vegetation has

been almost or entirely eliminated by development. Many jays in these areas become extremely tame, often

perching on the heads, shoulders, or arms of people while accepting handouts of peanuts and bread. However,

despite the presence of reproducing FSJs in these areas, the birds are unlikely to survive once the developments are

built out.

Table 7. Estimates of the amount of scrub habitats that remain in most peninsular counties and Ocala National

Forest as of 1992-1993. These calculations are extremely coarse because much private property was off-

limits to our surveys, because scrub is not always identified on the soil maps, and for other reasons. (Note

how inaccurate our estimates were for Brevard County and Ocala National Forest).

County ........................................................................................ Acres

Brevard, total ........................................................................... 63,0361

Brevard, Federal ...................................................................... 43,3001

Charlotte .......................................................................................8180

Citrus............................................................................................3161

Clay ............................................................................................... 541

Collier ..........................................................................................1295

DeSoto ..........................................................................................1906

Flagler ..........................................................................................6236

Glades ..........................................................................................5618

Hardee ..........................................................................................3843

Hernando ......................................................................................3701

Highlands .................................................................................. 52,820

Hillsborough .................................................................................4756

Indian River ................................................................................ 49732

Lake .......................................................................................... 29,451

Lee ...............................................................................................3540

Levy........................................................................................... 13,602

Manatee ..................................................................................... 13,959

Marion ....................................................................................... 21,523

Martin ........................................................................................ 57202

Ocala National Forest. ........................................................... 267,3681

Okeechobee...................................................................................5784

Orange ....................................................................................... 11,274

Osceola ...................................................................................... 15,723

Palm Beach ...................................................................................1492

Pasco ............................................................................................2940

Polk ........................................................................................... 46,824

Putnam .........................................................................................4272


St. Lucie ..................................................................................... 48872

Sarasota ........................................................................................4637

Seminole .......................................................................................3564

Sumter ..........................................................................................4375

Volusia ...................................................................................... 43,639

Total ........................................................................................ 664,604

1 - Because we did not survey Federal properties, our estimates of the amount of scrub in Brevard County and Ocala National Forest are extremely coarse. Swain et al. (1995)

documented a total of 37,069 acres of scrub in Brevard County in 1993 as follows: 23,655 acres on publicly owned lands (16,876 acres at Kennedy Space Center and 6479

acres at Cape Canaveral Air Station) and 13,714 acres that are privately owned. ONF section lists 200,000 acres

2 - scrub was not mapped in these counties; the acreage shown is the amount of occupied FSJ habitat.


PROTECTED LANDS WITH FSJs, 1992-1998

Cox (1987:99) wrote, The best way to ensure the survival of Florida Scrub Jays is to preserve their

habitat. Vegetational succession rendering the habitat unsuitable for Scrub Jays and mortality caused by

vehicles, guns, slingshots, and cats have no doubt contributed to population declines in a few local areas, but those

factors probably have had relatively minor effects statewide, when compared to the effects of habitat destruction.

Since Cox wrote these words, vegetational succession has become the major contributor to the decline of

FSJs, especially in the northern portion of their range. Nonetheless, habitat destruction continues to be a major

problem. Fortunately, the State of Florida is currently involved in one of the nations largest land acquisition

projects, Preservation 2000, designed to raise about 3 billion dollars over the 10-year period from 1991-2000. As a

result of P2000 and other land acquisition programs in Florida, many of the states most significant privately

owned scrub tracts have been purchased for preservation since Coxs surveys in the early 1980s. Furthermore,

many of these sites will be restored and managed by using prescribed fire and other techniques to maintain and in

many cases to increase the number of FSJs that inhabit these scrubs.

Table 8. Virtually all publicly owned sites that contain FSJs currently (excluding campuses). Privately owned areas

under conservation easements are also included here. Most sites in this table have scrub management

plans but a few sites (especially airports) do not. Additional scrublands continue to be purchased by the

various land acquisition agencies, and property surveys preceding or following acquisition often result in

the discovery of previously unknown FSJ populations. It is a certainty that this list will be outdated

immediately. Further, this list includes only those sites that are already publicly owned. Many of these

sites, marked with an asterisk (*), have been acquired only partially. Sites marked with a double asterisk

(**) are less than 10% acquired (and there is no guarantee the remainder of these sites will be protected).

In the county summaries, the names of all sites in Table 7 are underlined and capitalized.

County (ies) ..................... Site ................................................................... Number of FSJ groups

Alachua ........................... Morningside Nature Center (#2) ........................................................ 01

Alachua ........................... Paynes Prairie State Preserve (#3) ..................................................... 01

Brevard ............................ Cape Canaveral Air Station (#3) .................................................... 102

Brevard ............................ Coconut Point Preserve (#44) ............................................................. 3

Brevard ............................ Jetty County Park (#4) ........................................................................ 1

Brevard, Volusia .............. Kennedy Space Center (#B16, V1) ................................. estimated 400

Brevard ............................ Liberty Park (#36) .............................................................................. 1

Brevard ............................ Lori Wilson Park (#9) ........................................................................ 1

Brevard ............................ Malabar Scrub Sanctuary (#55) ........................................................ 10

Brevard ............................ Melbourne Regional Airport (#59) ..................................................... 7

Brevard ............................ Micco Scrub Preserve (#43) .............................................................. 26

Brevard ............................ North Coconut Point Preserve (#58) ................................................... 6

Brevard ............................ **Rockledge Scrub Preserve (#5) ..................................................... 24

Brevard ............................ Sebastian Creek (#31, 35)................................................................. 11

Brevard ............................ Spessard Holland County Park (#57) .................................................. 2

Brevard ............................ **Tico Scrub Preserve (#74)............................................................. 24

Brevard ............................ Titusville Wellfield (#84) ................................................................... 3

Brevard ............................ Valkaria Airport (#40) ....................................................................... 7

Brevard ............................ **Valkaria Scrub Preserve (#41) ...................................................... 17

Brevard ............................ Wickham County Park (#26) .............................................................. 2

Broward ........................... Crystal Lake ESL Tract (#1)............................................................... 1

Charlotte .......................... Babcock-Webb Wildlife Management Area (#2) ................................. 1

Charlotte .......................... Charlotte Harbor CARL site (#56) ...................................................... 3


Charlotte .......................... Myakka Estuary CARL site (#17) ....................................................... 9

Citrus ............................... Potts Preserve (#18)............................................................................ 8

Clay ................................. Camp Blanding Military Reservation (#2) .......................................... 1

Collier .............................. Immokalee Airport (#13) .................................................................... 4

Collier .............................. Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (#1)...................... 2

DeSoto ............................. Bright Hour Ranch (#3) (conservation easement) ............................. 21

Highlands ........................ Archbold Biological Station (#21; private) ..................................... 113

Highlands, Polk................ Avon Park Air Force Range (#H35, P21) .......................................... 78

Highlands ........................ *Carter Creek Preserve (#50, 52)...................................................... 36

Highlands ........................ *Flamingo Villas Scrub Preserve (#98) .............................................. 7

Highlands ........................ Gould Road Scrub Preserve (#24) ..................................................... 13

Highlands ........................ *Henscratch Road/Jack Creek Preserve (#56) ................................... 18

Highlands ........................ Hickory Hammock Management Area (#11) ....................................... 1

Highlands ........................ Highlands Hammock State Park (#27, 30) .......................................... 5

Highlands ........................ *Highlands Ridge (#56a) .................................................................. 57

Highlands ........................ *Holmes Avenue Scrub Preserve (#71) ............................................. 16

Highlands ........................ *Lake Apthorpe Scrub Preserve (#68) .............................................. 18

Highlands ........................ Lake June West Scrub Preserve (#64) ................................................. 5

Highlands ........................ Placid Lakes Wildlife and Environmental Area (#18) ....................... 39

Highlands ........................ Platt Branch Mitigation Park (#122)................................................... 9

Hillsborough .................... Balm-Boyette Scrub Preserve (#3) ...................................................... 1

Hillsborough .................... Camp Bayou ELAPP Tract (#13)........................................................ 1

Hillsborough .................... Dickman East ELAPP Tract (#12) ..................................................... 01

Hillsborough .................... Golden Aster Scrub Preserve (#6) ....................................................... 2

Hillsborough .................... Little Manatee River ELAPP tract (#15) ............................................. 1

Hillsborough .................... Little Manatee River State Recreation Area (#14) ............................... 2

Indian River ..................... Sebastian Municipal Airport (#1) ....................................................... 8

Indian River ..................... Wabasso Scrub (#11) .......................................................................... 2

Lake ................................. Lake Apopka Restoration Area (#2) ................................................. 1?

Lake ................................. Seminole State Forest (#60) .............................................................. 14

Lake, Marion, Putnam...... Ocala National Forest ..................................................................... 448

Lake, Orange ................... Rock Springs Run State Reserve (#L61, O12) ................................... 10

Lake, Seminole ................ Lower Wekiva River State Preserve (#L62, S11) ................................ 3

Lee ................................... Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve (#8, 9) ................................................... 1

Levy ................................. Cedar Key Scrub State Reserve (#7) ................................................... 4

Manatee ........................... Duette Park (#8) ................................................................................. 5

Manatee ........................... Lake Manatee State Recreation Area (#16) ......................................... 1

Manatee ........................... Little Manatee River SWFWMD tract (#20) ....................................... 1

Marion ............................. Etoniah/Cross Florida Greenway (#4, #6) ........................................... 4

Marion ............................. Ross Prairie Preserve (#7) .................................................................. 8

Martin .............................. Jonathan Dickinson State Park (#4) .................................................. 47

Martin .............................. Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge (#5) ......................................... ?

Martin .............................. SeaBranch (#17) ................................................................................ 4

Martin .............................. Willoughby Development FSJ Preserve (#15; private) ........................ 3

Okeechobee ...................... Kissimmee Prairie State Preserve (#5) ................................................ 4

Orange ............................. East Orange County Sewage Treatment Plant (#11) ........................... 1

Orange ............................. Split Oak Mitigation Park (#7) ........................................................... 1

Orange, Seminole............. Wekiwa Springs State Park (#O2, S13) .............................................. 2

Osceola ............................ Three Lakes Wildlife Management Area (#6) ..................................... 4

Osceola, Polk ................... Disney Wilderness Preserve (#O5, 43) .............................................. 39

Palm Beach ...................... Carlin County Park (#9) ..................................................................... 1

Palm Beach ...................... County Property [name?] (#14) .......................................................... 3


Palm Beach ...................... Hester Park (#19) ............................................................................... 1

Palm Beach ...................... *Juno Hills (#15) ................................................................................ 5

Palm Beach ...................... Jupiter Lighthouse Park (#7) .............................................................. 1

Palm Beach ...................... Jupiter Ridge Preserve (#12) ............................................................... 1

Palm Beach ...................... Loggerhead Park (#16) ....................................................................... 1

Palm Beach ...................... Radnor Tract (#13) ............................................................................. 4

Palm Beach ...................... Yamato Scrub Preserve (#4) ............................................................... 1

Pasco................................ Al-Bar Ranch (#6)............................................................................ 17

Pasco................................ Alston Tract (#14) .............................................................................. 1

Pasco................................ Cross Bar Wellfield (#9)..................................................................... 2

Pasco................................ Green Swamp Wildlife Management Area (#4) .................................. 6

Pasco................................ J. B. Starkey Wilderness Park (#8) ..................................................... 1

Polk ................................. Alston Tract (#53) .............................................................................. 1

Polk ................................. Catfish Creek Preserve (#28) ............................................................ 35

Polk ................................. Lake Kissimmee State Park (#34) ....................................................... 6

Polk ................................. Lake Wales Ridge State Forest (#38) ................................................ 13

Polk ................................. Saddle Blanket Lakes Scrub Preserve (#24) ........................................ 2

Polk ................................. Tiger Creek Preserve (#48) ................................................................. 2

St. Johns .......................... Guana River Wildlife Management Area (#1) .................................... 1

St. Lucie........................... Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute (#7; private).......................... 1

St. Lucie........................... St. Lucie County Airport (#3) ............................................................. 1

St. Lucie........................... Savannahs State Reserve (#1a) ....................................................... ~20

Sarasota ........................... Brohard Park and Pedway (#32) ......................................................... 2

Sarasota ........................... Buchan Airport (#1) ........................................................................... 1

Sarasota ........................... Casperson County Park (#33) ............................................................. 5

Sarasota ........................... Myakka River/Charlotte Harbor CARL site (#6) ................................. 1

Sarasota ........................... Myakka River State Park (#25) ........................................................... 3

Sarasota ........................... Oscar Scherer State Park (#13) ......................................................... 19

Sarasota ........................... Ringling-MacArthur Tract (#20) ........................................................ 1

Sarasota ........................... Shamrock Park and Nature Center (#34) ............................................ 5

Sarasota ........................... Verna Wellfield (#47) ........................................................................ 1

Seminole .......................... Yankee Lake Sewage Treatment Plant (#12) ...................................... 6

Sumter ............................. Half Moon Wildlife Management Area (#2) ..................................... 17

Volusia ............................ Blue Spring State Park (#29) .............................................................. 1

Volusia ............................ North Peninsula State Recreation Area (#15)...................................... 3

Total ................................ .................................................................................................... 1710

1 - only single, dispersing FSJs were reported from these sites

Table 9. Privately owned tracts of land that contain FSJ populations and are under consideration for purchase. In

the county summaries, the names of sites in Table 8 are underlined but not capitalized.

County ............................. Site .............................................................................. # of FSJ groups

Brevard ............................ Canova Scrub (#92) ............................................................................ 6

Brevard ............................ Condev Scrub (#85)............................................................................ 2

Brevard ............................ Jordan Boulevard (#38) .................................................................... 18

Brevard ............................ Seminole Ranch Conservation Area (#83) .......................................... 5

Charlotte .......................... Myakka Estuary (#14, 20, 45) ............................................................ 4

Charlotte .......................... Prairie/Shell Creek (#10-13)............................................................... 6

Citrus ............................... Florida Springs Coastal Greenway (#20) ............................................ 2


Citrus ............................... Flying Eagle (#14) ............................................................................ 01

Collier .............................. Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (#9) ................................. 2

Glades .............................. Fisheating Creek (#15, 16, 22) ......................................................... 16

Hardee ............................. Horse Creek (#1, 2) ............................................................................ 2

Hernando ......................... Weekiwachee Springs (#1, 5) ............................................................ 02

Highlands ........................ Avon Park Lakes (#1)......................................................................... 8

Highlands ........................ Charlie Creek (#91)............................................................................ 1

Highlands ........................ Henscratch Road/Jack Creek (#92) ..................................................... 3

Highlands ........................ Highland Park Estates (#70) ............................................................... 1

Highlands ........................ Kissimmee River (Lower Basin) (#8).................................................. 2

Highlands ........................ McJunkin Ranch (#22) ..................................................................... 12

Highlands ........................ Silver Lake (#3) ................................................................................. 9

Highlands ........................ Sun N Lakes South (#15) .................................................................. 9

Hillsborough .................... Casperson property (#18) ................................................................... 1

Hillsborough .................... Hillsborough River Corridor (#21) ..................................................... 1

Hillsborough .................... Little Manatee River (#20) ................................................................. 1

Lake ................................. Ocala-Wekiva Greenway (#36, 37, 44, 46-48, 55, 56)....................... 14

Lake, Polk ........................ Green Swamp (L16, P28) ................................................................... 3

Levy ................................. Cedar Key Scrub (#6) ......................................................................... 2

Manatee ........................... Lake Manatee Lower Watershed (#15) ............................................... 1

Manatee ........................... Little Manatee River (#5, 7, 21) ......................................................... 1

Manatee ........................... Upper Myakka River Watershed (#14, 17) .......................................... 2

Marion ............................. Gum Slough (#11) ............................................................................ 20

Martin .............................. Atlantic Ridge Ecosystem (#3) ...................................................... 1-2?

Osceola ............................ Upper Econ Mosaic (#1) ..................................................................... 3

Pasco................................ Pasco 1 (#5, 7) ................................................................................. >2

Pasco................................ Weekiwachee Riverine System (#1) ................................................... 02

Polk ................................. Bombing Range Ridge and Flatwoods (#18) ....................................... 9

Polk ................................. Crooked Lake (#9) ............................................................................. 1

Polk ................................. Hesperides (#33) ................................................................................ 5

Polk ................................. Lake Walk-In-Water (#36) ................................................................. 1

Polk ................................. Peace Creek System (#2, 6[?], 8) ........................................................ 1

Polk ................................. Lake Wales Ridge (#27, 33, 38) ......................................................... 7

Polk ................................. Sun Ray (#23) .................................................................................... 7

Polk ................................. Trout Lake (#27) ................................................................................ 1

Polk ................................. Upper Lakes Basin Watershed (#17, 40, 41) ..................................... 18

Sarasota ........................... Myakka River/Charlotte Harbor (#22) ................................................ 1

Sumter ............................. Gum Slough (#3)................................................................................ ?

Volusia ............................ North Indian River Lagoon (#12) ................................................ 1 or 3

Total ................................ .................................................................................................... >245

1 - only single, dispersing FSJs were reported from these sites

2 - jays became extirpated from these sites in 1992-1998


Table 10. Other privately owned tracts of land that contain FSJ groups and that should be acquired for various

reasons (e.g., geographic location, number of jays). However, none of these sites currently are proposed

for acquisition.

County ............................. Site .............................................................................. # of FSJ groups

Glades .............................. how many sites do we list?

Highlands ........................ name Ranch (#51) .

Documents

Florida Scrub-Jay distribution (Pranty et al. 1998)