Reptile, Amphibian, and Avian Inventory Surveys at the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve

Reptile, Amphibian, and Avian Inventory Surveys at the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Monroe County, Indiana

Prepared for: Bloomington Parks and Recreation c/o Steve Cotter PO Box 848 Bloomington, Indiana 47402 Prepared by: Emily Stulik, Dakota Kobler, Ashley Hedrick, and T. Travis Brown 408 West Sixth Street Bloomington, Indiana 47404 December 23, 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

STUDY PARTICIPANTS Emily Stulik T. Travis Brown Dakota Kobler Ashley Hedrick David Rupp Wes Conway Jeanette Haddock

Project Manager, Herpetologist Senior Manager, Herpetologist Avian Biologist, Report Writer Biologist, Report Writer Avian Technician, Field Biologist GIS Specialist Technical Editor

REPORT REFERENCE Stulik, E., D. Kobler, A. Hedrick, and T. T.Brown. 2021. Reptile, Amphibian, and Avian Inventory Surveys at the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve. Prepared for Bloomington Parks and Recreation. Prepared by Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Bloomington, Indiana. December 23, 2021.

WEST

i

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 1 Griffy Lake Nature Preserve ................................................................................................... 1 Overview of Reptile, Amphibian, and Avian Diversity ............................................................. 5 Reptile and Amphibian Diversity ......................................................................................... 5 Avian Diversity.................................................................................................................... 5 METHODS ................................................................................................................................. 6 Reptiles and Amphibian Surveys............................................................................................ 6 Bird Surveys........................................................................................................................... 7 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................10 Reptile and Amphibian Species.............................................................................................10 Species of Greatest Conservation Need ............................................................................10 Species not detected from previous surveys .....................................................................13 Bird Species ..........................................................................................................................14 Species of Greatest Conservation Need ............................................................................16 Species not detected from previous surveys .....................................................................18 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................19 Threats to Reptile and Amphibian Diversity ...........................................................................19 Habitat fragmentation: Impacts of road and trails...............................................................20 Habitat degradation: Impacts of invasive species ..............................................................21 Disease: Chytrid, Ranavirus, and Snake Fungal Disease ..................................................21 Threats to Avian Diversity .....................................................................................................23 Habitat fragmentation: Edge effects...................................................................................24 Predation by domestic cats and dogs ................................................................................24 Noise.. ..............................................................................................................................26 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................................26

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Plant community types, coverage, and percent composition at the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve, Monroe County, Indiana. ................................................................................ 4 Table 2. Amphibian and reptile species detected during inventory surveys at Griffy Lake Nature Preserve from September 2020 to October 2021. ..............................................12

WEST

ii

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

Table 3. Avian species and observations during the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Inventory surveys from September 2020 to August 2021. .............................................................14 Table 4. Species of Greatest Conservation need observed during inventory surveys at the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve from September 2020 to August 2021. .............................16

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve, Monroe County, Indiana. ....................... 3 Figure 2. Mesic sloping woodlands that underwent a controlled burn in spring of 2020. ............. 4 Figure 3. A coverboard in the mesic sloping woodland community............................................. 6 Figure 4. Lake-edge basking habitat for fence lizards and water snakes, frequently targeted during VES surveys. ....................................................................................................... 6 Figure 5. Call surveys target amphibian species actively breeding at night, like American toads. ............................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 6. A fyke net placed in Griffy Lake to capture and release turtle species. ........................ 7 Figure 7. Herpetological survey locations in the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve, Monroe County, Indiana. .......................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 8. Avian survey location points in the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve, Monroe County, Indiana. .......................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 9. An adult male eastern box turtle found at the Preserve. .............................................11 Figure 10. A juvenile midland water snake found under a rock in a creek bed...........................11 Figure 11. A breeding pair of Cope’s gray treefrog in amplexus, found during call surveys. ......11

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Permits Obtained to Conduct Reptile and Amphibian Surveys within the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve.

Appendix B. Detailed Results of Reptile and Amphibian Species Observations within the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve

WEST

iii

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

INTRODUCTION The City of Bloomington Parks and Recreation Department (Department) requested Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) conduct wildlife inventory surveys for reptile, amphibian, and bird species as part of the update to the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Master Plan. The objective of the surveys was to identify species’ occurrence and distribution within the 1,240-acre (502-hectare) Griffy Lake Nature Preserve (the Preserve).

In order to conduct reptile and amphibian inventory surveys in the Preserve, which included capture and release of animals, WEST received Indiana Scientific Purpose Licenses and a Division of Nature Preserves Research and Collecting permit, to conduct surveys from September 2020 to October 2021 (Appendix A).

BACKGROUND Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve is located within the City of Bloomington in north-central Monroe County, Indiana (Figure 1). The Preserve is located within the Shawnee Hills Natural Region of Indiana, and overlaps both the Mitchell Karst Plain Section and Brown County Hills Section (Homoya et al. 1984). The community types of the Mitchell Karst Plain Section consists of swamps, flatwoods, limestone glades, and several upland forest types. The Brown County Hills section is characterized by American beech (Fagus grandifolia) red oak (Quercus rubra), and white ash (Fraxinus americana) trees on ravines and lower slopes, with somewhat pure stands of oaks on upper slopes that host thick growth of green briar (Smilax spp.), low growing shrubs, and a carpet of sedges (Carex spp.), usually Carex picta.

A floristic inventory completed by Ecologic, LLC in 2019 identified Mesic Sloping Woodlands, Young Mesic Woodlands on Limestone Ridges, and Dry Mesic Slope as the three most dominant plant community types in the Preserve (Table 1, Tungesvick 2019). Mesic Sloping Woodlands is the most common plant community in the Preserve, and this community hosts the greatest diversity of canopy species composed of American beech, maple (Acer), oak (Quercus), and hickory (Carya) species, among others. The understory supports multiple species of shrubs, common spring wildflowers, and a variety of woodland sedges.

Other plant community types in the Preserve that provide wildlife habitat include the 109-acre (44 hectare) Griffy Lake and its associated emergent wetlands and seasonal mudflats. The mudflats are formed during the summer, and the exposed vegetation and soil provides important habitat for migratory shorebirds and basking turtles. The emergent wetlands that form adjacent to the lake and within a wet old field below the dam support emergent vegetation such as hybrid cattails, which provides cover and habitat for breeding amphibians. The floodplain woodlands experience frequent inundation from flood events, and support isolated and fishless vernal pools that serve as amphibian breeding sites.

WEST

1

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

The Preserve contains a network of trails for recreational use that total approximately 7.2 miles (mi; 11.6 kilometers [km]), and a new, 5.7 mi (9.2 km) loop trail is proposed around Griffy Lake.

The Preserve also has an active management program, including herbicide treatment of invasive species, controlled burns, and scheduled hunts to control the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) population. In the spring of 2020, the Preserve conducted a prescribed burn north of Griffy Lake in the mesic sloping woodlands to improve habitat for the eastern fence lizard (Sceloperus undulatus).

WEST

2

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

Figure 1. Location of the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve, Monroe County, Indiana.

WEST

3

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

Table 1. Plant community types, coverage, and percent composition at the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve, Monroe County, Indiana.

Plant Community Mesic Sloping Woodlands Young Mesic Woodland on Limestone Ridges Reservoir- Open Water (Griffy Lake) Dry Mesic Slope Mature Mesic Woodland on Limestone Ridges Mesic Floodplain Woodlands Wet-mesic Floodplain Woodlands Dry Slopes Wet Floodplain Woodlands Pine Plantation Wet Old Field Dry Mesic Ridges Seasonal Mudflats Cultural Communities Emergent Wetlands Dry Ridges Sterile Old Field Habitat Totala

Acres 553 173.2 109 104.4 47.8 44.8 42.8 20.6 17.9 9.4 7.2 7 5.6 5.2 5 3.1 0.3 1,156.3

Percent Composition 47.8 15.0 9.4 9.0 4.1 3.9 3.7 1.8 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.0 100

Source: Adapted from Tungesvick 2019 a Sums of values may not add to total value shown due to rounding

Figure 2. Mesic sloping woodlands that underwent a controlled burn in spring of 2020.

WEST

4

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

Overview of Reptile, Amphibian, and Avian Diversity The plant community types and lake present at Griffy Lake Nature Preserve are known to provide habitat for herpetofauna (reptile and amphibian) and avian species. We reviewed the work of Peel (2008) who previously conducted herpetofauna and avian surveys in the Preserve, as well as state and regional field guides (Minton 2001, MacGowan et al. 2001, Williams et al. 2001, MacGowan et al. 2005, Williams et al. 2017) to identify species which might be encountered during inventory surveys within the Preserve.

Reptile and Amphibian Diversity The mesic sloping woodlands and dry mesic slopes, especially when managed with prescribed fire, which allows sunlight penetration to the forest floor and reduces understory density, can provide important basking habitat for reptiles like the eastern fence lizard, as well as a variety of snake species. The emergent wetlands, seasonal mudflats, floodplain woodlands, and wet old field, can provide important breeding habitat for amphibians that rely on seasonal, ephemeral wetlands. The mature woodland ravines provide important habitat for terrestrial salamanders, and the streams throughout the Preserve provide habitat for stream dwelling salamanders as well.

There are 51 species of turtles, snakes, lizards, frogs and salamanders that may be found in the Preserve (Minton 2001, MacGowan et al. 2001, Williams et al. 2001, MacGowan et al. 2005, Williams et al. 2017).

Avian Diversity The Preserve is located within the Central Hardwoods Bird Conservation Region (BCR 24), which is dominated by oak-hickory deciduous forest that provides habitat for interior forest species such as the cerulean warbler (Setophaga cerulean; state endangered), worm-eating warbler (Helmitheros vermivorum; species of special concern), and Louisiana waterthrush (Parkesia motacilla; US North American Bird Conservation Initiative [NABCI] 2021). Although the central hardwood region contains extensive forests, the river floodplain systems provide important habitat and staging areas for migrating waterfowl. Large concentrations of waterfowl, including mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), and canvasback (Aythya valisineria), are common during both spring and fall migration (NABCI 2021).

The Preserve is located within the Mississippi Flyway, which is used by waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, songbirds, and raptors migrating from breeding grounds in Canada and northern US to wintering grounds along the Gulf of Mexico and in Central and South America (USFWS 2019).

The Preserve is also located near three Important Bird Areas (IBA), Morgan Monroe State Forest, Yellowwood State Forest, and Hoosier National Forest – Pleasant Run Unit. The connectivity of these large, forested areas and their proximity to the Preserve, enhance the quality of habitat within and surrounding the Preserve. The lake, seasonal mudflats, and emergent wetlands, along with extensive forest of the Preserve all provide important stopover habitat for many species of migratory birds, as well as breeding habitat for nesting birds. Approximately 180 bird species are known to breed in Indiana, and 260 species are typically seen in Indiana over the course of a year (Indiana Audubon Society 2021). Many of these species are likely to breed in the Preserve or be

WEST

5

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

present during migration, although some of these species favor habitats that are mostly absent from the Preserve (e.g., grasslands).

METHODS Reptiles and Amphibian Surveys Survey methods for reptiles and amphibians included a combination of auditory surveys, visual encounter surveys, coverboard surveys, and aquatic surveys; all completed for one year at the Preserve from September 2020 to October 2021. Due to the susceptibility of reptiles and amphibians to disease, WEST disinfected all equipment used and used a 3% bleach solution to clean boots and equipment between visits to the Preserve (Northeast Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 2014).

Coverboard surveys consisted of placing and checking eighteen three by four wooden coverboards throughout the Preserve. WEST biologists placed boards in various habitat types, including the emergent, herbaceous wetlands, and grassland in the old field west of Dunn street (boards 1 -12; Figure 7), mesic sloping woodlands north of Griffy Lake that underwent a controlled burn in spring of 2020 (boards 13-15; Figures 3 and 7), and wet floodplain woodlands east of Griffy Lake (boards 16-18; Figure 7). We placed the majority of boards in wetland and herbaceous habitat predicted to provide the most suitable basking and foraging habitat for snakes.

Figure 3. A coverboard in the mesic sloping woodland community.

Visual encounter surveys (VES) involved searching habitat such as rock outcrops, streams, ponds, wetlands, logs, leaf litter, and artificial cover (e.g., tin, boards, and trash) for herptile species.

Biologists walked trails among varied habitat types in the Preserve, including emergent and scrub-shrub wetland, forested wetland, upland forest, streams, lake, etc. Any logs, woody debris, or artificial cover that was disturbed when checking for species, was returned to its original position on the ground.

Biologists used binoculars to scan and identify basking reptiles on logs or debris within Griffy Lake and surrounding wetlands.

Information recorded included temperature, wind speed, cloud cover, species observed, sex and age of species if discernable, basking and habitat type where species were found.

Figure 4. Lake-edge habitat for fence lizards and water snakes, frequently targeted during VES surveys.

WEST

6

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

During the spring of 2021 when amphibians were actively breeding, biologists conducted auditory surveys to identify male anurans advertising to females. Each frog and toad species has its own unique call that it uses to attract females during the breeding season. Biologists listened for calling anurans for ten minutes at 45 points in the Preserve between 30 minutes after sunset and midnight (Figure 7). Biologists recorded all frog and toad species heard calling, and assigned an activity index for each species heard based on methods outlined in the North American Amphibian Monitoring Program (US Geological Survey 2016). In addition to the activity index and species heard, we collected data on weather variables, including air temperature, wind speed, humidity, Figure 5. Call surveys target moonlight, and car traffic.

amphibian species actively breeding at night, like American toads.

During the summer of 2021, WEST conducted aquatic surveys in Griffy Lake using fyke nets to trap and release turtle species. Fyke nets use a funnel and cone structure to bait and trap aquatic species within the net. WEST placed three fyke nets in Griffy Lake; one net was placed east of north Headley Road in a ponded area that connects to Griffy Lake through a culvert, and two nets were placed on the north side of the lake within two inlets (Figure 7).

Biologists placed flotation devices within the traps to allow air holes for turtles, and baited the traps with Figure 6. A fyke net placed in Griffy Lake to canned cat food to attract turtle species. Biologists capture and release turtle species. checked traps for three consecutive mornings in early August, 2021. We used waders and a small fishing boat to check traps and identify turtle species caught in the nets.

Bird Surveys WEST conducted bird inventory surveys year-round at the Preserve, from September 2020 to August 2021. Surveys consisted of avian counts of bird use around fixed observation points following methods similar to Reynolds et al. (1980). We selected ten observation points, known as survey locations, in the following plant community types in order to get a representative survey of bird species in the Preserve: mesic sloping woodlands, dry mesic wooded slopes, dry mesic ridges, wet- mature mesic woodland on limestone ridges, mesic floodplain forest, emergent wetlands, mudflats, wet old field, and open water (community types adapted from Tungesvick 2019; Figure 8). Biologists surveyed each location for ten minutes, twice per month. Biologists recorded the date, start and end time of the ten-minute observation period, survey location point number, species (or best possible identification), number of individuals, sex and age class (if possible), distance from observer when first observed (meter), activity, and habitat/vegetation type.

WEST

7

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

Figure 7. Herpetological survey locations in the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve, Monroe County, Indiana.

WEST

8

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

Figure 8. Avian survey location points in the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve, Monroe County, Indiana.

WEST

9

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

RESULTS Reptile and Amphibian Species In total, we observed 26 unique species of reptiles and amphibians within the Preserve (Table 2, Appendix B). The majority of frogs and toads were detected during call surveys in early spring of 2021, when most anurans were actively breeding (Appendix B). Snakes and salamanders were most often observed during visual encounter surveys by flipping natural cover like logs and rocks, as well as checking coverboards. Common garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis) were the most frequently encountered species of snake under coverboards, and all garter snakes observed were under coverboards placed in the wet old field west of Dunn Road. We found one ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus) under coverboard 13 in the mesic sloping woodlands on the south facing slope. One copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) was observed during VES surveys, in mesic floodplain forest. With the exception of the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), all turtles were found in the fyke nets set in Griffy Lake in August, 2021. The most common species of turtle caught in the nets were the eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus odoratus) and midland painted turtle (Chrysemys picta marginata). Two adult common snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) were caught and released in Trap 1.

Species of Greatest Conservation Need Two state species of special concern, the eastern box turtle and the Blanchard’s cricket frog (Acris blanchardi), were observed at the Preserve. The Blanchard’s cricket frog is a commonly encountered species in the Preserve, and breeds in the permanent and semi-permanent emergent wetlands and shallow margins of Griffy Lake. While the Blanchard’s cricket frog can be considered a common species in the southern half of Indiana, populations have declined in northern portions of its range, and it becomes increasingly rarer in the northern part of the state (Minton 2001). It is likely that habitat degradation, pollution, and climate change have all contributed to population declines (Minton 2001, Williams et al. 2017). The Preserve provides important breeding habitat for this listed species.

The Preserve also provides important habitat for the eastern box turtle, another state species of special concern observed at the Preserve. We found an adult male box turtle in wet floodplain woodlands during VES surveys. Box turtles prefer moderately well-drained woodland, and can occur on both hilltops and ravines. The home range of box turtles is 350-400 feet (ft; 107-122 meters [m]), and males travel farther than females (Minton 2001). Box turtles need seven to ten years to reach sexual maturity, and this can make them susceptible to population declines from factors such as habitat degradation and fragmentation. The Preserve provides ample habitat for this imperiled reptile, and habitat within the Preserve can support home ranges of a small population of box turtles.

WEST

10

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

Figure 9. An adult male eastern box turtle found at the Preserve.

Figure 10. A juvenile midland water snake found under a rock in a creek bed.

WEST

Figure 11. A breeding pair of Cope’s gray treefrog in amplexus, found during call surveys.

11

December 2021

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Herpetofauna and Avian Surveys

Table 2. Amphibian and reptile species detected during inventory surveys at Griffy Lake Nature Preserve from September 2020 to October 2021.

Common Name Turtles Common Snapping Turtle Eastern Musk Turtle Eastern Box Turtle* Midland Painted Turtle Red-eared Slider Lizards Eastern Fence Lizard Common Five-lined Skink Broad-headed Skink Snakes Common Gartersnake Midland Watersnake Eastern Milksnake Ring-necked Snake Copperhead Frogs and Toads American Toad Blanchard’s Cricket Frog* Western Chorus Frog Spring Peeper Cope's Gray Treefrog American Bullfrog Green Frog Southern Leopard Frog Wood Frog Salamanders Long-tailed Salamander Southern Two-lined Salamander Eastern Red-backed Salamander Northern Zigzag Salamander

Scientific Name

Notes

Chelydra serpentina Sternotherus odoratus Terrapene carolina Chrysemys picta marginata Trachemys scripta elegans

Griffy Lake; captured in fyke nets Griffy Lake; captured in fyke nets Observed during VES in wet, floodplain forest east of lake Observed basking in Griffy Lake; captured in fyke net Observed basking in Griffy Lake; captured in fyke net

Sceloporus undulatus Plestiodon fasciatus Plestiodon laticeps

Commonly observed on sunny, south-facing dry slopes north of the lake Observed basking Observed basking; separate dead observation on road

Thamnophis sirtalis Nerodia sipedon pleuralis Lampropeltis t. triangulum Diadophis punctatus Agkistrodon contortrix

Common snake observed under coverboads in wet old field Common snake observed along streams, lake edge on basking platforms Observed dead on N Headley Rd. Under coverboard 13 in mesic sloping woodlands Observed crossing trail in floodplain forest

Anaxyrus americanus Acris blanchardi Pseudacris triseriata Pseudacris crucifer Hyla chrysoscelis Lithobates catesbeianus Lithobates clamitans Lithobates sphenocephalus Lithobates sylvaticus

Full chorus heard calling/breeding in spring, east of lake Full chorus heard calling/breeding in spring, east of lake Heard calling in old field west of dam Full chorus heard calling/breeding in spring, east of lake Full chorus heard calling/breeding in spring, east of lake Heard calling in wetlands, floodplains east of lake Heard calling in wetlands, floodplains east of lake Heard calling in wetlands, floodplains east of lake Full chorus heard calling/breeding in spring, east of lake

Eurycea longicauda Eurycea cirrigera Plethodon cinereus Plethodon dorsalis

Observed under rocks in dry streambed Under flat rocks in streambeds Floodplain forest, under logs Floodplain forest, under logs

*state species of special concern

WEST

12

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

Species not detected from previous surveys While the project is within the known range of 51 species of reptiles and amphibians, not every species would be expected to occur due to the fact that some species’ habitats are not present in the Preserve (e.g. large grasslands, large fishless vernal pools, sandy soils) and other species may be absent due to land use history and/or persecution (e.g. timber rattlesnakes [Crotalus horridus]). Inventory surveys typically capture a snapshot of breeding or seasonal activity, and differences in methodology can account for differences in species observed between the 2020 – 2021 inventory and 2007 – 2008 surveys. We used coverboards to increase the probability of detecting snakes and salamanders, but coverboards take time to create the sheltered microhabitat that appeals to herpetofauna. It usually takes months to even years to significantly have an increase in detection of species under boards. The 2008 surveys recorded presence of the black rat snake (Pantherophis spiloides), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivuso), slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), and Jefferson salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum), and a recent 2019 flora inventory recorded an eastern hog-nose snake (Heterodon platirhinos). While coverboards are useful for increasing the likelihood of encountering many snakes, some species, such as rough green snakes and eastern hognose snakes, are more often found through chance encounters while they are actively foraging during the day. The rough green snake can be very difficult to detect due to its arboreal nature and tendency to blend into the vegetation of shrubs and small trees. It is likely that the reptile and amphibian species detected in 2008 are present in the Preserve due to the presence of suitable habitat, although they were not detected during the 2020 – 2021 inventory surveys.

Biologists attempted to verify the pre-2008 record of the four toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) in the Preserve, but did not observe this species or its preferred breeding habitat. The four toed salamander is a state species of special concern, and requires forested, ephemeral pools with moss substrate growing on rocks, boulders, tree roots, and other outcrops for breeding.

The species lays eggs hidden in the moss cover and guards these eggs until larvae hatch and drop into the water (Minton 2001). According to Peel (2008), this species was encountered in the area east of Griffy Lake, but this record could not be verified (personal communication, Nate Engbrecht, February 2020). During early spring, when the species can be found under mossy tussocks, biologists targeted a VES survey for the four-toed salamander east of Griffy Lake, but did not encounter the species. We did not observe forested wetlands with the mossy tussock substrate that the species prefers, and it has been determined that it is unlikely that the four-toed salamander would be found breeding in the Preserve.

We did not detect the Fowler’s toad (Anaxyrus fowleri) during call surveys; a species that was recorded breeding during 2008 surveys (Peel et al. 2008). Fowler’s toads typically begin breeding following the American toad’s (Anaxyrus americanus) breeding season, and Fowler’s toads can usually be heard in the weeks after American toads begin calling. Although we expected to hear Fowler’s toads during call surveys, American toads were the dominant and most common species. According to Minton (2001), there is a tendency for one species to be relatively rare while the other is common, which appears to be the case observed at the Preserve.

WEST

13

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

The eastern spiny softshell turtle (Apalone s. spinifera), a species recorded in the Preserve in 2008, was not captured in fyke nets or observed during VES surveys. Griffy Lake represents the preferred habitat for this species, and it likely remains present but undetected in the Preserve.

Bird Species In total, 103 unique bird species were observed in the Preserve, including four species listed as state species of special concern, and six species listed as birds of conservation concern in Region 24 (Tables 3 and 4). The most commonly observed species was Canada goose (Branta Canadensis; 341 individual observations), which tends to travel and forage in large flocks, and is considered a nuisance species throughout its non-migratory range. Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata; 304 observations), red bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus; 290), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor; 267), and Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis; 220) were also commonly observed in the Preserve. The number of unique species accounted for no more than 8% of observations across the year.

Table 3. Avian species and observations during the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Inventory surveys from September 2020 to August 2021.

Common Name Acadian flycatcher American crow American goldfinch American robin American tree sparrow bald eagle* Baltimore oriole barn swallow bay-breasted warbler belted kingfisher black-throated green warbler1 black vulture blue-gray gnatcatcher blue-headed vireo blue-winged teal blue jay brown-headed cowbird brown creeper brown thrasher Canada goose Carolina chickadee Carolina wren cedar waxwing chimney swift1 cliff swallow common grackle common loon common yellowthroat Cooper's hawk dark-eyed junco downy woodpecker eastern bluebird eastern kingbird

WEST

Scientific Name Empidonax virescens Corvus brachyrhynchos Spinus tristis Turdus migratorius Spizelloides arborea Haliaeetus leucocephalus Icterus galbula Hirundo rustica Setophaga castanea Megaceryle alcyon Setophaga virens Coragyps atratus Polioptila caerulea Vireo solitarius Spatula discors Cyanocitta cristata Molothrus ater Certhia americana Toxostoma rufum Branta canadensis Poecile carolinensis Thryothorus ludovicianus Bombycilla cedrorum Chaetura pelagica Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Quiscalus quiscula Gavia immer Geothlypis trichas Accipiter cooperii Junco hyemalis Dryobates pubescens Sialia sialis Tyrannus tyrannus

14

Number of Observations 36 135 174 65 2 1 19 35 1 31 1 6 14 1 14 304 35 7 3 341 220 108 66 5 2 18 1 32 3 1 129 62 7

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

eastern phoebe eastern towhee eastern wood-pewee European starling golden-crowned kinglet gray catbird great blue heron great crested flycatcher greater yellowlegs* green heron hairy woodpecker house finch house wren indigo bunting Kentucky warbler1 killdeer least flycatcher least sandpiper lesser yellowlegs1 Louisiana waterthrush mallard mourning dove Nashville warbler northern cardinal northern flicker northern parula northern rough-winged swallow orchard oriole osprey* Philadelphia vireo pied-billed grebe pileated woodpecker purple finch purple martin red-bellied woodpecker red-breasted nuthatch red-eyed vireo red-headed woodpecker1 red-shouldered hawk red-tailed hawk red-winged blackbird rock pigeon rose-breasted grosbeak ruby-crowned kinglet ruby-throated hummingbird scarlet tanager solitary sandpiper* song sparrow spotted sandpiper summer tanager Swainson's thrush swamp sparrow Tennessee warbler tree swallow tufted titmouse turkey vulture

WEST

Sayornis phoebe Pipilo erythrophthalmus Contopus virens Sturnus vulgaris Regulus satrapa Dumetella carolinensis Ardea herodias Myiarchus crinitus Tringa melanoleuca Butorides virescens Dryobates villosus Haemorhous mexicanus Troglodytes aedon Passerina cyanea Geothlypis formosa Charadrius vociferus Empidonax minimus Calidris minutilla Tringa flavipes Parkesia motacilla Anas platyrhynchos Zenaida macroura Leiothlypis ruficapilla Cardinalis cardinalis Colaptes auratus Setophaga americana Stelgidopteryx serripennis Icterus spurius Pandion haliaetus Vireo philadelphicus Podilymbus podiceps Dryocopus pileatus Haemorhous purpureus Progne subis Melanerpes carolinus Sitta canadensis Vireo olivaceus Melanerpes erythrocephalus Buteo lineatus Buteo jamaicensis Agelaius phoeniceus Columba livia Pheucticus ludovicianus Regulus calendula Archilochus colubris Piranga olivacea Tringa solitaria Melospiza melodia Actitis macularius Piranga rubra Catharus ustulatus Melospiza georgiana Leiothlypis peregrina Tachycineta bicolor Baeolophus bicolor Cathartes aura

15

3 41 49 8 20 30 30 4 1 8 29 3 1 11 6 64 1 3 1 21 144 26 4 130 50 24 65 2 1 1 8 112 1 2 290 2 51 74 17 17 92 1 7 9 10 14 16 72 13 2 2 4 5 4 267 62

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

unidentified buteo unidentified raptor warbling vireo white-breasted nuthatch white-eyed vireo white-throated sparrow winter wren wood duck wood thrush1 yellow-bellied sapsucker yellow-billed cuckoo yellow-breasted chat yellow-rumped warbler yellow-throated vireo yellow-throated warbler yellow warbler Total number of species observed

Vireo gilvus Sitta carolinensis Vireo griseus Zonotrichia albicollis Troglodytes hiemalis Aix sponsa Hylocichla mustelina Sphyrapicus varius Coccyzus americanus Icteria virens Setophaga coronata Vireo flavifrons Setophaga dominica Setophaga petechia

1 1 29 167 4 24 2 17 25 1 10 3 15 8 7 9 4,137

*State species of special concern 1 Region 24 Birds of Conservation Concern.

Species of Greatest Conservation Need Four species listed as state species of special concern were observed in the Preserve: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), greater yellow legs (Tringa melanoleuca), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and solitary sandpiper (Tringa solitaria). No other state-listed species were observed, but six species included on the Region 24 list of Birds of Conservation Concern, including blackthroated green warbler (Setophaga virens), chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), Kentucky warbler (Geothlypis formosa), lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), and wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), were observed.

Table 4. Species of Greatest Conservation need observed during inventory surveys at the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve from September 2020 to August 2021.

Common Name bald eagle black-throated green warbler chimney swift greater yellowlegs Kentucky warbler lesser yellowlegs osprey red-headed woodpecker Solitary sandpiper wood thrush

Scientific Name Haliaeetus leucocephalus Setophaga virens Chaetura pelagica Tringa melanoleuca Geothlypis formosa Tringa flavipes Pandion haliaetus Melanerpes erythrocephalus Tringa solitaria Hylocichla mustelina

Status State Species of Special Concern Bird of Conservation Concern Bird of Conservation Concern State Species of Special Concern Bird of Conservation Concern Bird of Conservation Concern State Species of Special Concern Bird of Conservation Concern State Species of Special Concern Bird of Conservation Concern

State Species of Special Concern Bald Eagle An adult bald eagle was observed soaring over Griffy Lake and deciduous forest on May 11, 2021, and this species was not detected in the 2008 surveys. The observation could be that of a migrating individual, or year round resident returning to a nest site in the area. Both resident and

WEST

16

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

long-distance migrant bald eagles are found throughout Indiana. Mature bald eagles build huge nest structures in forested corridors near large bodies of water, generally avoiding areas of heavy human disturbance, though are tolerant of human activity while feeding (Buehler 2020). In Indiana, bald eagles typically return to their nest sites by late February, lay eggs by March, and hatch out in April (eBird 2021). Migration occurs from late June through early spring (eBird 2021).

As of 2020, Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) estimates over 350 eagle nests in the state (IDNR 2021a).

Greater Yellowlegs Observation of one greater yellow legs in late April in the Preserve suggests the individual was migrating from South America to their northern breeding grounds (eBird 2021b). Greater yellowlegs are a migratory shorebird that overwinter in South America and breed in the summer throughout the boreal zone in Canada and Alaska (eBird 2021b). Migration for the greater yellowlegs begins by late February, and are typically first observed in the US two to three weeks later (Elphick and Tibbitts 2020). During migration greater yellowlegs utilize a variety of wetland habitats ranging from high quality wetlands to mudflats, sewage ponds, and flooded agricultural fields (Elphick and Tibbitts 2020). Griffy Lake provides important migration stop-over habitat for this species of special concern.

Osprey One osprey was observed soaring over Griffy Lake on June 27, 2021. Ospreys migrate throughout Indiana, and breed in limited portions of northern and south-eastern Indiana (Bierregaard et al.

2020). Osprey’s habitat includes nearly any shallow, fish filled waterbody including reservoirs, lakes, and marshes (Bierregaard et al. 2020). This species builds large platform nests atop a variety of structures including trees, snags, and utility poles near bodies of water (INDR 2021b).

Following widespread declines between the 1950s–1970s due to use of Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), poaching, and loss of habitat, recovery efforts in Indiana have successfully allowed for osprey to be down-listed from state-endangered to species of special concern in 2018 (IDNR 2015). As of 2020, an estimated 100 osprey nests are found in Indiana (INDR 2021b).

Solitary Sandpiper The observations of sixteen solitary sandpipers in late April, mid-August, and early September are likely of individuals migrating to and from their breeding grounds, respectively. The solitary sandpiper resides in north and central South America during its nonbreeding season and migrates through the Midwest to its summer breeding grounds in the boreal regions of Canada and Alaska (eBird 2021b). Throughout the migration, they occupy a diversity of habitats ranging from lakes, ponds, and streams to flooded agriculture fields, ditches, and sod farms (Moskoff 2020). Loss and degradation of habitat—in both breeding and wintering grounds—is likely the greatest threat to this species (Moskoff 2020). The mudflats and emergent wetlands associated with Griffy Lake provide important stop-over habitat during migration.

WEST

17

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

Birds of Conservation Concern Six species of birds listed as Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) were observed during surveys.

Five of these species—red-headed woodpecker, wood thrush, Kentucky warbler, and chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica ) are likely breeding within or nearby the Preserve. Red-headed woodpeckers were observed year round within the Preserve, and they often move from forest interiors to forest edges and or disturbed areas with dead trees to breed (Frei et al. 2020). Wood thrush are forest interior species that migrate from Central America to the Midwest and eastern US in spring to breed and return in the fall (Evans et al. 2020). In the spring and summer, twentyfive wood thrush observations were recorded. Kentucky warblers and chimney swifts were also observed in the spring and summer. The Kentucky warbler overwinters in Central America and breeds in the southeastern US from spring to summer, and the chimney swift is a long distance migrant that breeds in chimneys, caves, cliff sides, and hollow trees in urban and rural habitats (Steeves et al. 2020).

Additionally, two observed species likely using the Preserve on their migration, the lesser yellowlegs and black throated green warbler, were observed in spring and fall, respectively. The black throated green warbler breeds in the northeastern US and eastern Canada, and migrates through eastern North America to their overwintering habitats in Central America (Morse and Poole 2020). Lesser yellowlegs are a long-distance migrant that breeds in northern Canada and Alaska in the summer, migrates through the continental US in the spring and fall, and spends the nonbreeding season in Central and South America (eBird 2021b).

Populations of these birds of conservation concern face declines due to multiple factors including habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation, anthropogenic disturbances, pollution, and predation by domestic and feral cats (IDNR 2015). Additionally, migratory species face added threats including collisions with buildings during migration, and loss of habitat and food sources in both their breeding and non-breeding ranges (Robinson [no date], Kirby et al. 2008). The forests and Griffy Lake within the Preserve provide important breeding and migration habitat for these sensitive species.

Species not detected from previous surveys Breeding bird surveys conducted in 2008 (Peel) detected eight state listed or BCC listed species (cerulean warbler, sharp shinned hawk [Accipiter striatus], black-and-white warbler [Mniotilta varia], worm-eating warbler [Helmitheros vermivorum], hooded warbler [Setophaga citrina], prothonotary warbler [Protonotaria citrea], field sparrow [Spizella pusilla], and Louisiana waterthrush [Parkesia motacilla]) that were not observed during the 2020-2021 surveys. These species occupy forest, scrub, or riparian habitats (Bildstein et al. 2020, Buehler et al. 2020, Chiver et al. 2020, Kricher 2020, Petit 2020, Vitz et al. 2020). The sharp shinned hawk, cerulean warbler, black-and-white warbler, worm-eating warbler, hooded warbler, and prothonotary warbler are all forest dwelling species (Bildstein et al. 2020, Buehler et al. 2020, Chiver et al. 2020, Kricher 2020, Petit 2020, Vitz et al. 2020). Forest dwelling species, particularly the worm-eating warbler, and prothonotary warbler, are sensitive to habitat fragmentation, and often require large, continuous forests to successfully breed (Vitz et al. 2020, Petit 2020). Field sparrows occupy scrub habitats, such as abandoned agricultural fields and forest edges, and tend to avoid areas of human

WEST

18

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

disturbances (Carey et al. 2020). The Louisiana waterthrush breeds along perennial streams flowing through mature forests, and the majority of its diet consists of freshwater insects and small vertebrates (Mattsson et al. 2020).

Differences in the number of species recorded may also result from differences in sampling methodology and sampling locations. For example, surveys in 2008 followed the Breeding Bird Atlas protocol (IDNR 2007) and consisted of informal meandering throughout the Preserve to record bird observations and calls. These surveys targeted efforts in the spring and fall when bird species breed. Whereas our surveys were fixed point counts, conducted at specific locations twice per month for one year.

Furthermore, the Preserve is neighbored by several forest—Yellowwood Forest, Morgan Monroe State Forest, and Hoosier National Forest—which are all areas designated as IBA. There is a possibility these forest-dwelling species were not observed because they inhabited these neighboring suitable habitats instead of the Preserve, or that a sample location did not happen to be near enough to a breeding territory to detect these species during this study. Additionally, these species are state listed or BCC listed birds due, in part, to population declines. Therefore, these species may not have been detected in recent surveys as a result of smaller populations.

DISCUSSION Overall, inventory surveys at the Preserve recorded 26 unique amphibian and reptile species, and 103 unique bird species. Additionally, six state species of special concern and six birds of conservation concern were recorded. The diversity of habitat within the Preserve provides important breeding, nesting, and migration habitat for reptiles, amphibians, and birds, and the Preserve supports a heterogeneity of species within these groups. The Preserve is uniquely situated as an urban nature preserve, which presents its own set of challenges and benefits to wildlife and humans, alike. The following discussion topics seek to address the main threats facing reptiles, amphibians, and birds in the Preserve, and provide management recommendations to promote continued biodiversity.

Threats to Reptile and Amphibian Diversity Global declines in reptile and amphibian populations over the recent decades have alarmed biologists worldwide, and it has become clear that these species are particularly susceptible to anthropogenic disturbance. According to the Partners for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC), there are six categories of concern that contribute to known or suspected declines in reptiles and amphibians: habitat loss and degradation, introduced invasive species, environmental pollution, disease and parasitism, unsustainable use, and global climate change (Gibbons and Stangel 1999, Gibbons et al. 2000). Although the Preserve is insulated from habitat loss, habitat degradation in the form of invasive species, fragmentation from roads and trails, and disease are some of the main threats to reptiles and amphibians in the Preserve and are discussed below.

WEST

19

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

Habitat fragmentation: Impacts of road and trails Roads, trails, fences, and other barriers can isolate habitat and populations of reptiles and amphibians, and this fragmentation can lead to inbreeding, increased mortality, and isolated population extinctions (Williams et al. 2017). Roads can contribute pollutants to adjacent streams and wetlands, and roads and trails may provide corridors for invasive species (Kingsbury and Gibson 2012). Eastern box turtles and most amphibians are particularly susceptible to road mortality. One 17-month study in Celery Bog near West Lafayette, Indiana recorded nearly 8,000 amphibian road mortalities along a 1.5 mi (km) stretch of road (Glitsa et al. 2007).

There are two main, paved roads that bisect and border the Preserve, N. Headley Rd. and N. Dunn St. Habitat is located adjacent to these roads, including Griffy Lake, seasonal mudflats, and emergent marsh near Headley Rd., and the wet old field near Dunn St. We observed a dead eastern milk snake and a dead broad-headed skink on N. Headley Rd that appeared to be hit by vehicles. We also observed Cope’s gray tree frogs breeding in the puddles and pools of the parking area north of the dam. These frogs likely cross Dunn St from nearby woodland to reach these pools.

In order to mitigate risk of road mortality in the Preserve, temporary measures such as reduced speed limits and cautionary signage alerting motorists to reptile and amphibian migration during the breeding season may result in decreased mortality and encourage motorists to avoid hitting wildlife (Kingsbury and Gibson 2012). More permanent measures such as installing speed bumps or a combination of fencing and underpasses can be used to funnel wildlife safely across roads.

There is one culvert under N Headley Rd that likely allows aquatic species like turtles to cross under the road, but this conduit is dependent on water levels and debris within the pipe that could block passage. Monitoring of the pipe and its ability to allow unobstructed passage may be useful in gauging the effectiveness of an existing underpass.

The Preserve is proposing construction of 5.7 mi (9.2 km) of a new loop trail around the Preserve, which may pose some risk to reptiles and amphibians. Risks include increased erosion, sedimentation, and habitat fragmentation. Erosion and sedimentation can result from trail construction on ridges, and may damage or fill in vital habitat for amphibians downhill. Ephemeral pools are particularly vital for salamander populations most as larvae cannot survive in wetlands with established fish populations.

In order to mitigate this risk we recommend that the new trail is located away from sensitive habitats. Additionally, care should be taken when deciding the path of trails to avoid habitat fragmentation. We recommend trail construction happen in small phases, silt fencing or filter socks are used during the construction process, and exposed soil is seeded as soon as construction is complete. Using best management practices and adequate buffers to prevent sediment or pollution from flowing downhill will protect sensitive sites. Planting native forbs and grasses, and mulching can minimize soil erosion and invasive species encroachment as well.

Wildlife friendly soil stabilization measures, rather than traditional mesh, is safer for reptiles and amphibians because larger holes can allow passage instead of entrapment and death (Kingsbury and Gibson 2012).

WEST

20

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

Habitat degradation: Impacts of invasive species Invasive species are a major threat to global biodiversity and habitat degradation is one of the primary contributors to population declines. In the Preserve, the most abundant invasive species of concern are Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), privet (Ligustrum vulgare), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum; Tungesvick 2019). These are wide spread invasive species that are frequently found in eastern deciduous forests, and are well known to outcompete native plants for resources. These plants alter community composition of both plants and microbes, which impact the pool of resources available in terrestrial systems, ultimately influencing amphibian and arthropod communities (McNeish and McEwan 2016).

For amphibians and reptiles, invasive plants have been linked directly to reduced diversity by changing the structural habitat in which it invades (Watling et al. 2011a). Additionally, thick stands of invasive plants, most notably honeysuckle, have been shown to reduce the abundance, biomass, and richness of invertebrates, a prominent food source for many reptiles and amphibians (Love 2006). Studies have also shown that honeysuckle can alter water chemistry and increase the risk of predation and mortality of tadpoles (Watling et al. 2011b; Hickman and Watling 2014).

Management and removal of invasive stands can be difficult and labor intensive if it is not detected early. Several collective studies have found that best management practices for established stands is an application a chemical herbicide immediately after stump cutting and repeating the process on an annual or semiannual basis (Hartman and McCarthy 2004, Rathfon and Ruble 2007, Loeb et al. 2010, Schulz et al. 2012). Herbicide application should follow manufacturer directions, only used in areas where needed, and never over-applied (Kingsbury and Gibson 2012). Currently, the Preserve treats invasive species including include lesser celandine (Ficaria verna), garlic mustard, aquatic milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), Japanese siltgrass, and other invasive woody vegetation with herbicide. The dates, chemical used, and species targeted is available to the public on the Bloomington Parks and Recreation website (Bloomington Parks and Recreation 2017).

Disease: Chytrid, Ranavirus, and Snake Fungal Disease Emerging infectious diseases have rapidly increased in the past two decades and now pose a major threat to maintaining biodiversity on a global scale (McCallum 2012). Due to behavior and physiology, reptiles and amphibians are particularly susceptible to a wide range of diseases. Here we briefly examine and provide recommendations to reduce transmission for three relevant diseases: chytridiomycosis, ranavirus, and snake fungal disease.

Chytrid Chytridiomycosis, commonly referred to as chytrid, is a fungal disease caused by Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) that can infect amphibians of any order (Gower et al. 2013; Berger et al. 2016). Bd is most commonly found in permanent water sources (e.g. lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and swamps). The fungal spores penetrate the outer layer of amphibian’s semi-

WEST

21

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

permeable skin, causing it to thicken. This then leads to the death of the infected individuals because those individuals cannot take in the proper nutrients, release toxins, or, in some cases, breathe. First discovered in its epizootic form in Australia in 1993, chytrid has spread globally and is a major cause of amphibian decline (O’Hanlon et al. 2018, Scheele et al. 2019).

A study examining chytrid infection rates in the Midwest by Crawford et al. (2017) detected Bd at all sites sampled in 2009 and again in 2011. Three of these sampling sites were located in Indiana all less than 50 miles (80 kilometer) from the Preserve. Worryingly, Bd was detected at all sampling locations and prevalence of chytrid is increasing over time in the Midwest (Crawford et al. 2017, Sonn et al. 2019). The pervasiveness of Bd is not ubiquitous throughout the year. Like most fungi, Bd is sensitive to temperature and grows optimally between 17-25°C (63-77°F; Piotrowski et al. 2004, Kriger and Hero 2008). As such, highest loads of Bd have been found in the spring and fall in the Midwest.

Unfortunately, there are no proven methods to control chytrid in the wild, to date. For amphibian species currently listed as endangered, emergency measures are needed to increase population sizes via reintroductions, translocation, and the establishment of captive disease-free assurance colonies. However, monitoring and surveillance will play a vital role in detection of outbreaks and management.

Ranavirus Ranaviruses are large viruses with double-stranded DNA genomes that infect cold-blooded vertebrates in both captive and wild populations. Results of infection include hemorrhages in the skin, lethargy, weak/erratic swimming, buoyancy problems, gasping for air, and fluid accumulation under the skin of the abdomen or hind legs. In turtles, clinical signs include weakness, swollen eyelids, discharge from the nose and mouth, ulcers on the feet, and dull white or thick yellow plaque on the tongue, palate, pharynx, and esophagus (Gray et al. 2009; Miller et al. 2011). These drastic behavioral changes can leave individuals more susceptible to predation, which compounds the risk of mortality in infected individuals. Additionally, due to high virulence and multiple routes of transmission (e.g. water, brief direct contact, and ingestion), ranaviruses have caused mass die off events (Gray et al, 2009, Brunner et al. 2015, Davis and Kerby 2016).

Ranavirus was first identified in the Midwestern US in the 1960’s (Granoff et al. 1966). Since then, ranavirus has been detected in reptiles in Indiana and surrounding states. Recently, Currylow et al. (2014) found wild ranavirus-infected larval amphibians (Ambystoma spp and unidentified larval frog species) and eastern box turtles in south-central Indiana (Brown and Morgan counties), but positivity rates were below 5%. A separate outbreak was documented in eastern box turtles in Indiana (Kimble et al. 2015), and in captive wild caught box-turtles (Kimble et al. 2017). However, to date, no ranavirus infection has been detected in amphibian populations in the state (Winzeler et al. 2016) even though it has been detected in neighboring states (Homan et al. 2013, Richter et al. 2013).

Because there is no treatment for ranavirus, management is focused on biosecurity, quarantine and decontamination to prevent the spread of the virus to other animals and new environments.

WEST

22

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

Per the American College of Veterinary Pathologist, any infected animals should be quarantined to prevent infection of other animals. Wildlife biologists, veterinarians, rehabilitators, and anyone else involved in amphibian or reptile fieldwork should employ strict protocols and clean and disinfect all equipment and clothes before and after working at a field site. The northeast PARC chapter have a robust protocol to prevent the spread of pathogens to herpetofauna, and suggest use of a 3% bleach solution to clean and disinfect most sampling gear (NEPARC 2014).

Snake Fungal Disease/Ophidiomycosis Snake Fungal Disease (SFD), also known as ophidiomycosis, is an emerging infectious disease caused by the fungus Ophidiomyces ophidiicola. It was first described in 2006 in New Hampshire in relation to declines in Timber Rattlesnake populations (Clark et al, 2011). Symptoms include localized thickening or crusting of the skin, ulcerated skin, abnormal bumps/nodules under the skin, abnormal molting, white opaque cloudiness of the eyes, and facial disfiguration. Recent studies have shown that SFD has a 40% mortality rate and individuals can test positive without showing any visible signs of infection (Allender et al. 2015). The host range for this fungus is incredibly wide and has been detected in 15+ genera of wild and captive snake populations. Since its initial discovery, SFD has been detected in 38 states including and appears to be continually spreading potentially due to climatic changes, habitat destruction and fragmentation, increasing average temperatures, and cooler, wetter springs (Lorch and et al. 2016).

In Indiana, SFD has been detected in three counties (Brown, Harrison, and Monroe), but can likely be found state-wide with proper sampling. A two-year project in 2017 – 2018 was the first targeted sample of snakes for SFD in Indiana, and detected the disease in 13 individual snakes of four species in the above mentioned counties (Allender et al. 2017). Species that tested positive include northern water snakes (Nerodia sipedon), racers (Coluber constrictor), milk snakes (Lampropeltis triangulum) and queen snakes (Regina septemvittata). Even though detection has only occurred in these species, many snake species are at risk for infection.

As is the case with most emerging wildlife diseases, there are few established management protocols for SFD. From a preventive standpoint, individuals handling wild snakes should observe appropriate procedures and refer to the Northeast PARC protocols, including frequent disinfection of hands, tools and working surfaces, and dedication of gear and work spaces for wild versus captive reptiles. For highly endangered populations where the survival of each individual snake is vital, rehabilitation might represent a feasible option.

Threats to Avian Diversity Avian diversity is threatened by multiple human-caused sources. Habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from human activity is potentially the top threat to bird populations (USFWS 2016); however, measuring these declines is not as readily quantifiable as those from direct mortality.

Research complied by the USFWS (2021) identifies predation by domestic cats, poisonings, and collisions with building windows, cars, and electrical lines as the major human-caused threats to bird populations. In the Preserve, the main threats to bird species result from habitat fragmentation and anthropogenic use.

WEST

23

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

Habitat fragmentation: Edge effects Edge effects describe the impacts flora and fauna experience when sudden, artificial edges are developed, resulting in fragmentation of previously continuous stands of habitat. Edge effects can be created by roads, trails, and other artificial linear corridors. Paradoxically, edge habitats have been observed to attract breeding songbird populations, but have higher nest predation rates than interior habitats (Gates and Gysel 1978). Increased nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) is one factor implicated in decreased nest success along edge habitats (Gates and Gysel 1978). The impact of edge effects varies with bird species. Habitat fragmentation and edge effects are possible factors in the decline of forest interior species such as the wood thrush (Hoover et al. 1995, Evans et al 2020) and black-throated green warblers (Morse and Poole 2020), whereas brood parasites, such as the brown-headed cowbird may benefit from edge effects (Evans et al. 2020, Morse and Poole 2020, Chance et al. 2003). While a hiking trail may not be perceived as an edge to forest canopy nesting birds, the impacts of wider disturbances, such as roads, can extend far into a forest, making management of edge effects difficult (Pockock and Lawrence 2005). Measures such as avoidance of further road development in the Preserve, and preventing residential encroachment could help to mitigate edge effects. Providing educational opportunities aimed at encouraging neighboring landowners to plant native species in their yards also may increase suitable habitat outside of the Preserve.

Predation by domestic cats and dogs Domestic cats (Felis catus) and dogs (Canis familiaris) have a nearly global distribution and are considered one of the most common agents of disturbance to wildlife in urban and recreational areas (Hughes and McDonald, 2013). Even when fed by humans, domestic cats remain opportunistic hunters with a high prey drive, and small mammals and birds are among their primary predation targets (Loyd et al. 2013). The Preserve is adjoined by residential communities on its western and southern borders, making it likely susceptible to disturbance by free-roaming domestic cats. Currently, the Preserve allows dogs on the premises, and they must remain on a leash at all times. Domestic cats and dogs can negatively impact wildlife through direct predation (Loss et al. 2013), fear effects, competition with native predators, disease, and harassment (Loss et al. 2013, Weston and Stankowich 2013, Trouwborst et al 2019).

Predation by domestic cats is one of the leading causes of human-related mortality among birds.

Approximately 87 bird species worldwide have gone extinct due to domestic cat predation (Doherty et al. 2016). In the US, free-roaming domestic cats kill an estimated 1.3 - 4.0 billion birds annually, with un-owned cats causing the majority of these mortalities (Loss et al. 2013). Domestic cats pose additional threats to wildlife populations, through non-lethal and indirect effects.

Eurasian blackbirds (Turdus merula) nesting in an urban setting were found to increase energetically taxing and risky behaviors such as parental alarm call rates, aggression, and decrease provisioning rates when exposed to domestic cats. Furthermore, the presence of domestic cats was found to indirectly impact avian breeding success by increasing nest predation by other predators, such as corvid species (Bonnington et al. 2013).

Dog predation has contributed to the extinction of six bird species to date, more than any other class (Doherty et al. 2017). Non-lethal encounters can result in a variety of behavioral alterations WEST

24

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

such as fleeing, increased vigilance, aggression, absences from nests or young, distraction, and reductions in or cessation of foraging. It is generally unknown how the rate or intensity of these responses impact population viability; however, these behaviors result in less time for fitnessenhancing behaviors (e.g. foraging, parental care, and mating), and therefore have a negative impact on individual fitness.

Given the high likelihood of cat and dog-induced disturbances in an area such as the Preserve, management strategies to mitigate negative impacts will play an important role in conservation and biodiversity. Here we recommend three such strategies.

1. Discourage Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR). Free-ranging cat populations arise from the mismanagement of companion cat populations. Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) is a common management practice, wherein feral cats are trapped, spayed or neutered, and then released back into the environment. The aim of this practice is to slowly reduce feral cat populations; however, in practice, this strategy is ineffective, and may lead to increased populations of free-roaming cats (Castillo and Clarke 2003). Trap-vasectomyhysterectomy-release (TVHR) may be a better method for decreasing free ranging cat population size, though the practice still returns free-ranging cats to the landscape (McCarthy et al. 2013). Providing education to the public that encourages cat owners to continue caring for their pets or transfer them to a licensed animal shelter, rather than releasing cats into the wild, is another possibility (Illinois DNR 2021).

2. Increase education to keep cats indoors and dogs on leash. In addition to feral cat populations, domestic cats kept as companions that are allowed access to the outdoors pose threats to wildlife communities (Loyd et al. 2013). Signage on trails or in parking areas educating the public on cat-induced disturbances could encourage cat owners to keep pets indoors, increase awareness of Preserve wildlife, and promote stewardship.

Signage educating the public on dog-induced disturbances could increase public compliance of leashing. In addition, social media campaigns promoting responsible cat and dog ownership and conservation of local species can help increase public awareness.

3. Off-limit areas/Seasonal restrictions for dogs. Banning dogs from some areas can provide valuable refuge for wildlife. If permanent bans are not possible, then providing spatial restrictions such as buffers during critical periods such as peak breeding, nesting, and migration can reduce the impact of dogs on wildlife populations. However, like leashing, compliance is crucial to success and often difficult, but providing designated dog areas (leashed or unleashed) has been shown to improve compliance (Williams et al.

2009). Visitors to the Preserve should be encouraged to use the nearby Ferguson Dog Park to let their dogs run off leash.

4. Mitigation. If it is not possible to fully eliminate domestic cat/dog disturbances, then mitigating the impacts of those disturbances may be an option, especially in nesting areas adjacent to high-traffic portions of the Preserve or where domestic animals threaten wildlife. Predator exclusion using nesting cages/shelters for young can increase survival

WEST

25

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

of birds (Maguire et al., 2011) and reptiles, such as turtles (Bougie et al., 2020). Cat-proof fencing could be installed around nesting areas to prevent cat predation on birds (BBC 2018).

Noise Anthropogenic noise is omnipresent in urban landscapes and has been demonstrated to negatively affect bird populations (Slabbekoorn and Ripmeester 2007). The ability for birds to send and receive auditory signals is crucial for mating success, parental care, territory defenses, and predator avoidance (Catchpole and Slater 1995). Urban birds in areas with increased anthropogenic noise have been found to sing earlier, louder, and at higher frequencies than their rural counterparts, which can be more energetically costly for bird species (Hunter and Krebs 1979). Furthermore, anthropogenic noise has been associated with reduced species richness, abundance, and density, decreased time spent on courtship and parenting behaviors, and increased stress in bird communities (Nemeth et al 2013). Mitigation measures such as decreasing speed limits in the Preserve, limiting the use of small engines (e.g. gas-powered mowers, and leaf blowers), and using hand tools or electric equipment, when possible, could decrease noise pollution generated by the Preserve. Encouraging visitors to recreate quietly and prohibiting loud music may also decrease noise pollution and increase visitor satisfaction.

REFERENCES Allender, M. C., Baker, S., Wylie, D., Loper, D., Dreslik, M. J., Phillips, C. A., Driskell, E. A. 2015.

Development of snake fungal disease after experimental challenge with Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola in cottonmouths (Agkistrodon piscivorous). PLoS One, 10(10): e0140193.

Allender, M., S. Baker, E. Haynes, M. Britton, S. LaGrange. 2017. Wildlife Science Report–Snake Fungal Disease Testing. Prepared for State Wildlife Grant Program. Prepared by University of Illinois and Illinois Natural History Survey.

BBC. 2018. Australian cat-proof fence protects endangered species. BBC News. 24 May 2018. Information online: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44235185 Berger, L., Roberts, A. A., Voyles, J., Longcore, J. E., Murray, K. A., and Skerratt, L. F. 2016. History and recent progress on chytridiomycosis in amphibians. Fungal Ecology 19:89-99.

Bierregaard, R. O., A. F. Poole, M. S. Martell, P. Pyle, and M. A. Patten. 2020. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Version 1.0. P. G. Rodewald, ed. In: Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.osprey.01.

Bildstein, K. L., K. D. Meyer, C. M. White, J. S. Marks, and G. M. Kirwan. 2020. Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), Version 1.0. S. M. Billerman, B. K. Keeney, P. G. Rodewald, and T. S. Schulenberg, eds. In: Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.shshaw.01.

Bloomington Parks and Recreation. 2017. Bloomington Parks and Recreation Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Plan. Approved by the Board of Park Commissioners. December 16, 2017. Available online: https://bloomington.in.gov/sites/default/files/201709/Bloomington%20Parks%20and%20Recreation%20Integrated%20Pest%20Management%20P lan.pdf

WEST

26

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

Bonnington, C., K. J. Gaston, and K. L. Evans. 2013. Fearing the feline: domestic cats reduce avian fecundity through trait-mediated indirect effects that increase nest predation by other species.

Journal of Applied Ecology. 50(1):15-24.

Borgmann, K. L., and Rodewald, A. D. 2004. Nest predation in an urbanizing landscape: the role of exotic shrubs. Ecological Applications 14(6):1757-1765.

Bougie, T. A., Byer, N. W., Lapin, C. N., Peery, M. Z., Woodford, J. E., and Pauli, J. N. 2020. Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) nest protection reduces depredation and increases success, but annual variation influences its effectiveness. Canadian Journal of Zoology 98(11):715-724.

Brunner, J. L., Storfer, A., Gray, M. J., and Hoverman, J. T. 2015. Ranavirus ecology and evolution: from epidemiology to extinction. In Gray M, and Chinchar V., eds. Ranaviruses, pp. 71-104. Springer, Cham.

Buehler, D. A. 2020. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Version 1.0. A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, eds.

In: Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.baleag.01.

Buehler, D. A., P. B. Hamel, and T. Boves. 2020. Cerulean Warbler (Setophaga cerulea), Version 1.0. A. F. Poole, ed. In: Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.cerwar.01.

Carey, M., D. E. Burhans, and D. A. Nelson. 2020. Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla), Version 1.0. A. F. Poole, ed.

In: Birds of the World.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.fiespa.01.

Castillo, D. and A. L. Clarke. 2003. Trap/Neuter/Release Methods Ineffective in Controlling Domestic Cat “Colonies” on Public Lands. Natural Areas Journal. 23(3):247-253.

Catchpole, C. K., Slater P. J. B. 1995. Bird Song: Biological Themes and Variations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Chace, J.F., J. J. Walsh, A. Cruz, J. W. Prather, and H. M. Swanson. 2003. Spatial and temporal activity patterns of the brood parasitic brown-headed cowbird at an urban/wildland interface. Landscape and Urban Planning.

64 (3): 179-190.

Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204602002207 Chiver, I., L. J. Evans Ogden, and B. J. Stutchbury. 2020. Hooded Warbler (Setophaga citrina), Version 1.0. P. G. Rodewald, ed. In: Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.hoowar.01.

Clark, R. W., Marchand, M. N., Clifford, B. J., Stechert, R., and Stephens, S. 2011. Decline of an isolated timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) population: interactions between climate change, disease, and loss of genetic diversity. Biological Conservation 144(2):886-891.

Crawford, J. A., Phillips, C. A., Peterman, W. E., MacAllister, I. E., Wesslund, N. A., Kuhns, A. R., and Dreslik, M. J. 2017. Chytrid infection dynamics in cricket frogs on military and public lands in the midwestern United States. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 8(2), 344-352.

Currylow, A. F., Johnson, A. J., and Williams, R. N. 2014. Evidence of ranavirus infections among sympatric larval amphibians and box turtles. Journal of Herpetology 48(1):117-121.

Davis, D. R., and Kerby, J. L. 2016. First detection of ranavirus in amphibians from Nebraska.

Herpetological Review 47(1):46-50.

WEST

27

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

Doherty, T. S., A. S. Glen, D. G. Nimmo, E. G. Ritchie, and C. R. Dickman. 2016. Invasive predators and global biodiversity loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 113(40):11261-11265.

Doherty, T. S., Dickman, C. R., Glen, A. S., Newsome, T. M., Nimmo, D. G., Ritchie, E. G., and Wirsing, A. J. 2017. The global impacts of domestic dogs on threatened vertebrates. Biological Conservation 210:56-59. eBird. 2021a. eBird: An Online Database of Bird Distribution and Abundance. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.

Accessed November 2021.

Available online: http://ebird.org/content/ebird/ eBird 2021b. Explore all status and Trends Species. All Species Range Map. Available online: https://ebird.org/science/status-and-trends/species Elphick, C. S. and T. L. Tibbitts. 2020. Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), version 1.0. A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, eds. In Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.greyel.01 Evans, M., E. Gow, R. R. Roth, M. S. Johnson, and T. J. Underwood. 2020. Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), Version 1.0. A. F. Poole, ed. In: Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.woothr.01.

Frei, B., K. G. Smith, J. H. Withgott, P. G. Rodewald, P. Pyle, and M. A. Patten. 2020. Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), Version 1.0. P. G. Rodewald, ed. In: Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.rehwoo.01.

Gates, J. E., and L. W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest dispersion and fledging success in field–forest ecotones.

Ecology 59:871–883 Gibbons, J. W., Stangel, P. W., eds. 1999. Conserving Amphibians and Reptiles in the New Millenium.

Proceedings of the Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) Conference; 2–4 June 1999; Atlanta, Georgia. Aiken South Carolina: Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Herp Outreach Publication #2.

Gibbons, J. W., D. E. Scott, T. J. Ryan, K. A. Buhlmann, T. D. Tuberville, B. S. Metts, J. L. Greene, T. Mills, Y. Leiden, S. Poppy, C. T. Winne. 2000. The Global Decline of Reptiles, Déjà vu Amphibians: Reptile species are declining on a global scale. Six significant threats to reptile populations are habitat loss and degradation, introduced invasive species, environmental pollution, disease, unsustainable use, and global climate change. BioScience 50(8):653-666.

Glista, D. J., T. L. DeVault, J. A. DeWoody. 2007. Vertebrate Road Mortality Predominantly Impacts Amphibians. Herpetologial Conservation and Biology 3(1):77-87 Gower, D. J., Doherty-Bone, T., Loader, S. P., Wilkinson, M., Kouete, M. T., Tapley, B., Garner, T. W. 2013.

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis infection and lethal chytridiomycosis in caecilian amphibians (Gymnophiona). EcoHealth 10(2):173-183.

Granoff, A., Came P. E., and Breeze D. C. 1966. Viruses and renal carcinoma of Rana pipiens: I. The isolation and properties of virus from normal and tumor tissues. Virology 29:133–148.

Gray, M. J., Miller, D. L., and Hoverman, J. T. 2009. Ecology and pathology of amphibian ranaviruses.

Diseases of aquatic organisms, 87(3):243-266.

Hartman, K. M., and McCarthy, B. C. 2004. Restoration of a forest understory after the removal of an invasive shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii). Restoration Ecology 12(2):154-165.

WEST

28

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

Hickman, C. R., and Watling, J. I. 2014. Leachates from an invasive shrub causes risk-prone behavior in a larval amphibian. Behavioral Ecology 25(2):300-305.

Homan, R. N., Bartling, J. R., Stenger, R. J., and Brunner, J. L. 2013. Detection of ranavirus in Ohio.

Herpetological Review 44: 615-618.

Homoya, M. A., D. B. Abrell, J. R. Aldrich, and T. W. Post. 1985. The Natural Regions of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science Vol. 94 (1985). Indiana Natural Heritage Program, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Hoover, J. P., Brittingham, M. C., and Goodrich, L. J. 1995. Effects of Forest Patch Size on Nesting Success of Wood Thrushes. The Auk 112(1):146-155.

Hughes, J., and Macdonald, D. W. 2013. A review of the interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs and wildlife. Biological Conservation, 157:341-351.

Hunter, M. L., and Krebs, J. R. 1979. Geographical Variation in the Song of the Great Tit (Parus major) in Relation to Ecological Factors.

Journal of Animal Ecology 48(3):759–785. https://doi.org/10.2307/4194 Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2021. Feral and Free Ranging Cats on IDNR Owned or Managed Properties.

Wildlife Conservation.

Available online: https://www2.illinois.gov/dnr/conservation/wildlife/Pages/FeralCats.aspx Indiana Audubon Society. 2021. Birds. Birding Indiana. Accessed December 2021. Available online: https://indianaaudubon.org/birds/#link_tab-2b8565d8-c200-9 Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2007. Breeding Bird Atlas. Accessed: December 2021. Available online: https://www.in.gov/dnr/fish-and-wildlife/nongame-and-endangered-wildlife/breeding-birdatlas/ Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2015 Indiana’s State Wildlife Action Plan. Division of Fish and Wildlife. Available online: https://www.in.gov/dnr/fish-and-wildlife/files/swap/fw-SWAP_2015.pdf Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2021a. Bald Eagle. Available online: https://www.in.gov/dnr/fishand-wildlife/wildlife-resources/animals/bald-eagle/ Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2021b. Osprey. Available online: https://www.in.gov/dnr/fishand-wildlife/wildlife-resources/animals/osprey/ Kimble, S. J., Williams, R., and Hoverman, J. T. 2015. Ranavirus Detected in Lithobates clamitans and L. catesbeianus in Indiana. Herpetological Review 46(4):532-534.

Kimble, S. J., Johnson, A. J., Williams, R. N., and Hoverman, J. T. 2017. A severe ranavirus outbreak in captive, wild-caught box turtles. EcoHealth 14(4):810-815.

Kingsbury, B. A.and Gibson, J., eds. 2012. Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles of the Midwestern United States. Technical Publication HMG-1. Prepared by Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation.

Available online: https://www.landcan.org/pdfs/MWherpmgmtguidelinesreview.pdf Kirby, J. S., A. J. Statterfield, S. H. M. Butchart, M. I Evans, R. F. A. Grimmett, V. R. Jones, J. O’Sullivan, G. M. Tucker, and I. Newton. 2008. Key conservation issues for migratory land- and waterbird species on the world’s major flyways. Bird Conservation International. 18: S49-S73.

Kricher, J. C. 2020. Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia), Version 1.0. A. F. Poole, ed. In: Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.bawwar.01.

WEST

29

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

Kriger, K. M., and Hero, J. M. 2008. Altitudinal distribution of chytrid (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) infection in subtropical Australian frogs. Austral Ecology 33(8):1022-1032.

Loeb, R. E., Germeraad, J., Treece, T., Wakefield, D., and Ward, S. 2010. Effects of 1-year vs. annual treatment of Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) in forests. Invasive Plant Science and Management 3(3):334-339.

Lorch, J. M., S. Knowles, J. S. Lankton, K. Michell, J. L. Edwards, J. M. Kapfer, R. A. Staffen, E. R. Wild, K. Z. Schmidt, A. E. Ballmann, D. Blodgett, T. M. Farrell, B. M. Glorioso, and L. A. Last. 2016.

Snake fungal disease: an emerging threat to wild snakes. The Royal Society Publishing.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences 371(1709).

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2012. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications. doi:10:10/38ncomms2380 Love, J. P. 2006. Effects of Morrow’s Honeysuckle Control and the Impact of the Shrub on Invertebrates at Fort Necessity National Battlefield, Pennsylvania. Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 2362. West Virginia University. Morgantown, West Virginia.

Loyd, K. A. T., Hernandez S. M., Carroll J. P., Abernathy K. J., Marshall G. J. 2013. Quantifying freeroaming domestic cat predation using animal-borne video cameras. Biological. Conservation.

160:183–189. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.01.008.

MacGowan, B., and B. Kingsbury. Snakes of Indiana. 2001. Indiana Department of Natural Resources and Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife. Purdue University, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

MacGowan, B., B. Kingsbury and R. Williams. Turtles of Indiana. 2005. Purdue University and Purdue University - Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Maguire, G. S., Duivenvoorden, A. K., Weston, M. A., and Adams, R. 2011. Provision of artificial shelter on beaches is associated with improved shorebird fledging success. Bird Conservation International 21(2):172-185.

Mallord, J. W., Dolman, P. M., Brown, A. F., and Sutherland, W. J. 2007. Linking recreational disturbance to population size in a ground‐nesting passerine. Journal of Applied Ecology 44(1):185-195.

Mattsson, B. J., T. L. Master, R. S. Mulvihill, and W. D. Robinson 2020. Louisiana Waterthrush (Parkesia motacilla), Version 1.0. A. F. Poole, ed. In: Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.louwat.01.

McCallum, H. 2012. Disease and the dynamics of extinction. The Royal Society Publishing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences 367(1604).

McCarthy, R. J., S. H. Levine, J. M. Reed. 2013. Estimation of effectiveness of three methods of feral cat population control by use of a simulation model. Journal of Veterinary Medicine 243(4):502-511.

McNeish, R. E., and McEwan, R. W. 2016. A review on the invasion ecology of Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii, Caprifoliaceae) a case study of ecological impacts at multiple scales. The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 143(4):367-385.

Miller, D., Gray, M., and Storfer, A. 2011. Ecopathology of ranaviruses infecting amphibians. Viruses 3(11):2351-2373.

Minton, A. Jr. 2001. Amphibians and Reptiles of Indiana. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis Indiana, 2nd revised edition.

WEST

30

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

Morse, D. H. and A. F. Poole. 2020. Black-throated Green Warbler (Setophaga virens), Version 1.0. P. G. Rodewald, ed. In: Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.btnwar.01.

Moskoff, W. 2020. Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria), Version 1.0. A. F. Poole, ed. In: Birds of the World.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.solsan.01.

Nemeth, E., N. Pieretti, S. A. Zollinger, N. Geberzahn, J. Partecke, A. C. Miranda, and H. Brumm. 2013.

Bird song and anthropogenic noise: vocal constraints may explain why birds sing higher-frequency songs in cities. Proceeding of the Royal Society B 280:20122798.

North American Datum (NAD). 1983. Nad83 Geodetic Datum.

Northeast Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (NEPARC). 2014. Disinfection of Field Equipment to Minimize Risk of Spread of Chytridiomycosis and Ranavirus. NEPARC Publication 2014-02.

O’Hanlon, S. J., Rieux, A., Farrer, R. A., Rosa, G. M., Waldman, B., Bataille, A., and Fisher, M. C. 2018.

Recent Asian origin of chytrid fungi causing global amphibian declines. Science 360(6389):621627.

Peel S. 2008. Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Master Plan, Monroe County, Indiana. Summer 2008. Prepared for Bloomington Parks and Recreation, Bloomington, Indiana. Prepared by JFNew, Walkerton, Indiana. August 13, 2008 Petit, L. J. 2020. Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria citrea), Version 1.0. A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, eds. In: Birds of the World.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.prowar.01.

Piotrowski, J. S., Annis, S. L., and Longcore, J. E. 2004. Physiology of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, a chytrid pathogen of amphibians. Mycologia 96(1):9-15.

Pocock, Z. and R. E. Lawrence. 2005. How far into a forest does the effect of a road extend? Defining road edge effect in eucalypt forests of Southeastern Australia. Road Ecology Center. University of California, Davis. Davis, California.

Rathfon, R., and Ruble K. 2007. Herbicide treatments for controlling invasive Bush honeysuckle in a mature hardwood forest in West-Central Indiana, pp 187–197. In Buckley, D. S. and W. K. Clatterbuck, eds. Proceedings of the 15th Central Hardwood Forest Conference, February 27–March 1, 2006, Knoxville, TN. General Technical Report SRS101. Southern Research Station, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Asheville, North Carolina Reynolds, R. T., J. M. Scott, and R. A. Nussbaum. 1980. A Variable Circular-Plot Method for Estimating Bird Numbers. Condor 82(3): 309-313.

Richter, S. C., Drayer, A. N., Strong, J. R., Kross, C. S., Miller, D. L., and Gray, M. J. 2013. High prevalence of ranavirus infection in permanent constructed wetlands in eastern Kentucky. Herpetological Review, 44(3):464-466.

Ritchie, E. G., Dickman, C. R., Letnic, M., and Vanak, A. T. 2014. Dogs as predators and trophic regulators.

In M. E. Gompper, ed. Free-ranging dogs and wildlife conservation. Chapter two, pp: 55-68. Oxford University Press.

Robinson, S. K., nd. Threats to Breeding Neotropical Migratory Birds in the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey. Champaign, Illinois.

WEST

31

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

Rodewald, A. D., Shustack, D. P., & Hitchcock, L. E. 2010. Exotic shrubs as ephemeral ecological traps for nesting birds. Biological Invasions 12(1):33-39.

Rodríguez-Prieto, I., and Fernández-Juricic, E. 2005. Effects of direct human disturbance on the endemic Iberian frog, Rana iberica, at individual and population levels. Biological Conservation 123(1):1-9.

Scheele, B. C., Pasmans, F., Skerratt, L. F., Berger, L., Martel, A. N., Beukema, W., and Canessa, S. 2019.

Amphibian fungal panzootic causes catastrophic and ongoing loss of biodiversity. Science 363(6434):1459-1463.

Schulz, K. E., Wright, J., and Ashbaker, S. 2012. Comparison of invasive shrub honeysuckle eradication tactics for amateurs: stump treatment versus regrowth spraying of Lonicera maackii. Restoration Ecology 20(6):788-793.

Slabbekoorn, H. and E. A. Ripmeester. 2007. Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation. Molecular Ecology. Invited Review. doi: 10.1111/j.1365294X.2007.03487.x Sonn, J. M., Utz, R. M., and Richards‐Zawacki, C. L. 2019. Effects of latitudinal, seasonal, and daily temperature variations on chytrid fungal infections in a North American frog. Ecosphere, 10(11).

Steeves, T. K., S. B. Kearney-McGee, M. A. Rubega, C. L. Cink, and C. T. Collins. 2020. Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), Version 1.0. A. F. Poole, ed. In: Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.chiswi.01.

Trouwborst, A., P. C. McCormack, E. M. Camacho. 2019. Domestic cats and their impacts on biodiversity: A blind spot in the application of nature conservation law. People and Nature. doe: 10.1002/pan3.10073 Tungesvick, K. 2019. The Plant Communities and Flora of Griffy Lake Nature Preserve. Prepared for Bloomington Parks and Recreation. Prepared by Eco Logic, Bloomington, Indiana. November 20, 2019.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2019. Imagery Programs - National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). USDA, Farm Service Agency (FSA), Aerial Photography Field Office (APFO), Salt Lake City, Utah. Accessed November 2021. Available online: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-andservices/aerial-photography/imagery-programs/index US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Habitat Impacts. USFWS Migratory Bird Program Conserving America’s Birds. Available online: https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-tobirds/habitat-impacts.php US

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Flyways. https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/flyways.php

Administrative.

Available

online:

US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. Threats to Birds. Migratory Bird Mortality – Questions and Answers. USFWS Migratory Bird Program Conserving America’s Birds. Available online: https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds.php US Geological Survey. 2016. North American Amphibian Monitoring Program. Eastern Ecological Science Center. Available online: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eesc/science/north-american-amphibianmonitoring-program US North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). 2021. Bird Conservation Regions Map. Bird Conservation Region 24 – Central Hardwoods. Accessed: December 2021. Available online: https://nabci-us.org/resources/bird-conservation-regions-map/#bcr24

WEST

32

December 2021

Griffy Lake Master Plan Update

Vanak, A. T., Dickman, C. R., Silva-Rodriguez, E. A., Butler, J. R., and Ritchie, E. G. 2013. Top-dogs and under-dogs: competition between dogs and sympatric carnivores. In M. E. Gompper, ed. Freeranging dogs and wildlife conservation. pp: 69-93. Oxford University Press.

Vitz, A. C., L. A. Hanners, and S. R. Patton. 2020. Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivorum), Version 1.0. A. F. Poole, editor. In: Birds of the World. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.woewar1.01.

Watling, J. I., Hickman, C. R., and Orrock, J. L. 2011a. Invasive shrub alters native forest amphibian communities. Biological Conservation 144(11):2597-2601.

Watling, J. I., Hickman, C. R., Lee, E., Wang, K., and Orrock, J. L. 2011b. Extracts of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii, increase mortality and alter behavior of amphibian larvae. Oecologia 165(1):153159.

Weston, M. A., McLeod, E. M., Blumstein, D. T., and Guay, P. J. 2012. A review of flight-initiation distances and their application to managing disturbance to Australian birds. Emu-Austral Ornithology 112(4), 269-286.

Weston, M. A., and Stankowich, T. 2013. Dogs as agents of disturbance. In M. E. Gompper, ed. Freeranging dogs and wildlife conservation. pp: 94-113. Oxford University Press.

Williams, R., B. MacGowan, B. Kingsbury and Z. Walker. Salamanders of Indiana. 2006. Purdue University and Purdue University - Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Williams, K. J., Weston, M. A., Henry, S., and Maguire, G. S. 2009. Birds and beaches, dogs and leashes: Dog owners' sense of obligation to leash dogs on beaches in Victoria, Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14(2):89-101.

Williams, R., B. MacGowan, Z. Walker, J. Hoverman and N. Burgmeier. 2017. Frogs and Toads of Indiana.

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

Winzeler, M. E., Williams, R. N., and Kimble, S. J. 2016. Surveying for ranavirus in green frogs (Lithopbates clamitans) at five locations in Indiana. Journal of North American Herpetology.Pp 23-26.

Zapata-Ríos, G., and Branch, L. C. 2016. Altered activity patterns and reduced abundance of native mammals in sites with feral dogs in the high Andes. Biological Conservation 193:9-16.

WEST

33

December 2021

Appendix A. Permits Obtained to Conduct Reptile and Amphibian Surveys within the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve.

INDIANA SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES LICENSE State Form 12111 (R6/ 12-05) Approved by State Board of Accounts, 2005 Fee: $10.00

Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife 402 W. Washington St., Rm. W273 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 233-6527 Fax: (317) 232-8150

Name of License Holder: Emily Stulik Business Name: WEST, Inc. Address: 408 W. 6th Street City, State, ZIP: Bloomington, IN 47404 Telephone Number: (307) 286-6384 License Number: 3183

Date Issued: 03/01/2021

Expiration Date: 12/31/2021

Conditions and Authorizations: 1. All activities authorized herein must be carried out in accordance with and for the purposes described in the application submitted. Continued validity of this license is subject to complete and timely compliance with all applicable conditions, including the filling of all required information and reports. The license holder is subject to all provisions of the law and the regulations and restrictions imposed by the Director according to law, including those regulations and restrictions attached to this license or incorporated herein.

2. The license holder must have permission of the property manager (or their designee) of any public (local, state or federal) property to gain access to land, road, or water; or to conduct activities covered by this license.

3. This license must be on the person of the license holder when engaged in the respective pursuit for which the license is granted and be produced upon request of any authorized law enforcement officer. This license is nontransferable and non-refundable.

4. This license may be revoked by the director at any time, without refund, for failure to comply with, or a violation of, the regulations or restrictions on or attached to this license, or for a violation of any provision of the Fish and Wildlife Code.

NOTE: This license is valid only for the license holder and those under the direct and on-site supervision of the license holder. You must obtain approval from the property manager before doing any work on public land.

Restrictions: Valid in Monroe County only.

Fish: May capture by dip net; seine; minnow trap; or fyke net; examine, and release at capture site an unlimited number of specimens. Minnow traps must be checked at least once a day and marked with your name, address, and license number. No specimens may be retained.

Reptiles and Amphibians: May capture by hand, dip net, seine, cover board, hoop net, or minnow trap; examine; and release the same day at the capture site an unlimited number of reptiles and amphibians. Minnow traps and floats used with hoop nets must be checked at least once a day and marked with your name, address, and license number.

Traps must be checked at least one a day to reduce trap mortality and all specimens must be removed when checked.

Hoop nets must be set with a minimum of 2 inches of the net above the water at all times. Field equipment (e.g. nets, buckets, boots) must be disinfected in accordance with the Northeast PARC guidelines.

Report all reptiles and amphibians captured on the “Indiana DFW SPL Reptile and Amphibian Reporting Spreadsheet 2021” by March 1, 2022 to Linnea Petercheff. Report any endangered species encountered to Linnea Petercheff at 317-233-6527 or at lpetercheff@dnr.in.gov (providing UTMs) within 3 working days.

__________________________ Linnea Petercheff Licensing and Permit Supervisor Division of Fish and Wildlife

March 1, 2021 Date: ________________________

_____________________________

Signature of License Holder

March 2, 2021 Date: ________________________

INDIANA SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES LICENSE State Form 12111 (R6/ 12-05) Approved by State Board of Accounts, 2005 Fee: $10.00

Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish and Wildlife 402 W. Washington St., Rm. W273 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 233-6527 Fax: (317) 232-8150

Name of License Holder: Emily Stulik Business Name: WEST, Inc. Address: 408 W. 6th Street City, State, ZIP: Bloomington, IN 47404 Telephone Number: (307) 286-6384 License Number: 3121

Date Issued: 08/06/2020

Expiration Date: 12/31/2020

Conditions and Authorizations: 1. All activities authorized herein must be carried out in accordance with and for the purposes described in the application submitted. Continued validity of this license is subject to complete and timely compliance with all applicable conditions, including the filling of all required information and reports. The license holder is subject to all provisions of the law and the regulations and restrictions imposed by the Director according to law, including those regulations and restrictions attached to this license or incorporated herein.

2. The license holder must have permission of the property manager (or their designee) of any public (local, state or federal) property to gain access to land, road, or water; or to conduct activities covered by this license.

3. This license must be on the person of the license holder when engaged in the respective pursuit for which the license is granted and be produced upon request of any authorized law enforcement officer. This license is nontransferable and non-refundable.

4. This license may be revoked by the director at any time, without refund, for failure to comply with, or a violation of, the regulations or restrictions on or attached to this license, or for a violation of any provision of the Fish and Wildlife Code.

NOTE: This license is valid only for the license holder and those under the direct and on-site supervision of the license holder. You must obtain approval from the property manager before doing any work on public land.

Restrictions: Valid in Monroe County only.

Fish: May capture by dip net; seine; minnow trap; or fyke net; examine, and release at capture site an unlimited number of specimens. Minnow traps must be checked at least once a day and marked with your name, address, and license number. No specimens may be retained.

Reptiles and Amphibians: May capture by hand, dip net, seine, cover boards, or minnow traps; examine; and release the same day at the capture site an unlimited number of amphibians. Minnow traps must be checked at least once a day and marked with your name, address, and license number. Field equipment (e.g. nets, buckets, boots) must be disinfected in accordance with the Northeast PARC guidelines.

Report all reptiles and amphibians captured on the “Indiana DFW SPL Reptile and Amphibian Reporting Spreadsheet 2020” by March 1, 2021 to Linnea Petercheff. Report any endangered species encountered to Linnea Petercheff at 317-233-6527 or at lpetercheff@dnr.in.gov (providing UTMs) within 3 working days.

_____________________________

_____________________________

August 6, 2020 Date: ________________________

August 7, 2020 Date: ________________________

Linnea Petercheff Licensing and Permit Supervisor Division of Fish and Wildlife

Signature of License Holder

Eric Holcomb, Governor Daniel W. Bortner, Director Division of Fish and Wildlife 402 W. Washington St., Rm W273

August 6, 2020

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Travis Brown WEST, Inc. 408 W. 6th Street Bloomington, IN 47404 Dear Travis: Subject: Amendment to Scientific Purposes License Number 3088 This letter is to serve as an amendment to Scientific Purposes License No. 3088. The following amendment is made in addition to the restrictions listed on the original license. All other restrictions and conditions listed on the original license remain in effect.

1.) Restrictions: Valid also in Monroe County only.

2.) Fish: May capture by dip net; seine; minnow trap; or fyke net; examine, and release at capture site an unlimited number of specimens. Minnow traps must be checked at least once a day and marked with your name, address, and license number. No specimens may be retained.

3.) Reptiles and Amphibians: May capture by hand, dip net, seine, cover boards, or minnow traps; examine; and release the same day at the capture site an unlimited number of amphibians. Minnow traps must be checked at least once a day and marked with your name, address, and license number. Field equipment (e.g. nets, buckets, boots) must be disinfected in accordance with the Northeast PARC guidelines.

If you have additional questions or need further amendments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (317) 233-6527 or at lpetercheff@dnr.in.gov.

Sincerely,

Linnea Petercheff Licensing and Permit Supervisor

The DNR mission: Protect, enhance, preserve and wisely use natural, cultural and recreational resources for the benefit of Indiana’s citizens through professional leadership, management and education.

www.DNR.IN.gov

An Equal Opportunity Employer

Appendix B. Detailed Results of Reptile and Amphibian Species Observations within the Griffy Lake Nature Preserve

Indiana DNR Scientific Purposes License Report Form (Reptiles and Amphibians) Observer

County

Emily Stulik, Julia Wilson, Wes Conway Monroe Emily Stulik, Julia Wilson, Wes Conway Monroe Emily Stulik, Julia Wilson, Wes Conway Monroe Emily Stulik Monroe Emily Stulik Monroe Emily Stulik Monroe Emily Stulik Monroe Emily Stulik Monroe Emily Stulik Monroe Emily Stulik Monroe Emily Stulik Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Steve Cotter, Rebecca Swift Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Steve Cotter, Rebecca Swift Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Steve Cotter, Rebecca Swift Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Aaron McAlexander Monroe Emily Stulik Monroe Emily Stulik Monroe

Site_Location

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve

Date

Time

Weather

Temp_Air_°F

12-Mar-21 8:08 PM cloudy, no rain, humidity 51.6% 54.6 12-Mar-21 8:30 PM no rain or wind, 60% RH 54.1 12-Mar-21 9:34 no PMrain or wind, cloudy, 66% RH 51.6 7-Apr-21 9:05 no rain, PMslight wind, cloudy, humidity 56% 60 7-Apr-21 10:17 PMno wind, no rain, RH 58% 59 18-May-21 9:31no PMwind or rain, cloudy, RH 88.8% 67.6 18-May-21 9:48no PMrain or wind, cloudy, 87.5% RH 68 18-May-21 10:19 no rain, PM slight wind, cloudy, RH 85.5%66.8 18-May-21 11:03 PMcloudy, no wind, RH 100% 70.2 21-Jun-21 9:57 mostly PM clear, no rain or wind, RH 87%66.5 21-Jun-21 10:14 mostly PMclear, no rain or wind, RH 94.3% 64.3 19-May-21 4:30 PM Partly Cloudy 80 19-May-21 Partly Cloudy 80 19-May-21 Partly Cloudy 80 19-May-21 5:18 PM Partly Cloudy 80 19-May-21 6:07 PM Fair 80 19-May-21 6:30 PM Fair 79 17-Jun-21 4:15 PM Fair 86 17-Jun-21 4:30 PM Fair 86 17-Jun-21 4:45 PM Fair 86 3-Aug-21 9:00 AM Fair 67 3-Aug-21 Fair 68 3-Aug-21 Fair 3-Aug-21 Fair 3-Aug-21 Fair 3-Aug-21 11:30 AM Fair 75 4-Aug-21 9:00 AM Fair 68 4-Aug-21 Fair 4-Aug-21 Fair 4-Aug-21 Fair 4-Aug-21 Fair 4-Aug-21 Fair 5-Aug-21 8:30 AM Fair 65 5-Aug-21 5-Aug-21 1-Oct-21 2:04 PM 1-Oct-21 1:30 PM

Method_Type

Species

Number Observed/HandledSpecies Marked (Y/N)

Audible LISY, PSCR, PSTR, LISP N/A Audible LISY, PSCR, LICL N/A Audible PSCR, PSTR N/A Audible PSCR, LISP, ANAM N/A Audible PSCR, PSTR, ANAM N/A Audible LISP, ANAM, HYCH , LICL, LICA, ACBLN/A Audible PSCR, ANAM, HYCH N/A Audible PSCR, LISP, ANAM, HYCH, LICL, LICA, ACBL N/A Audible PSCR, ANAM, HYCH N/A Audible LICL, LICA, ACBL N/A Audible LICL, LICA, ACBL N/A PLFA or PLLA Visual 1 Visual LATR 1 Visual SCUN 1 Visual PLLA 1 THSI Coverboard 1 THSI Coverboard 2 THSI Coverboard 2 THSI Coverboard 1 THSI Coverboard 3 Trap CHPI 1 STOD Trap 1 Trap STOD 1 Trap CHPI 1 Trap STOD 3 Trap CHPI 1 Trap CHSE 2 Trap STOD 1 Trap STOD 1 Trap CHPI 1 Trap STOD 6 Trap CHPI 5 Trap CHPI 1 Trap TRSE 1 Trap CHPI 5 Coverboard DIPU 1 Visual PLCI 1

No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

Species_Category

Age

Frog Frog Frog Frog Frog Frog Frog Frog Frog Frog Frog Lizard Snake Lizard Lizard Snake Snake Snake Snake Snake Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Snake Salamander

Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Juvenile Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile

Adult Adult Juvenile Juvenile

Juvenile Juvenile

Sex

Long_X

39.197681° 39.197128° 39.207023° 39.197833° 39.207023° 39.197833° 39.197681° 39.197947° 39.207023° 39.197947° 39.197833° 39.199193°

Unknown

Unknown

39.207809° 39.207041° 39.206556° 39.206980° 39.207809° 39.203014° 39.206311° 39.206311° 39.206311° 39.200048° 39.200048° 39.203014° 39.206311° 39.206311° 39.206311° 39.206311° 39.206311° 39.203014° 39.203014° 39.200048° 39.201560°

Lat_Y

Comments

-86.508412° -86.504039° -86.530204° -86.509933° -86.530204° -86.509933° -86.508412° -86.510272° -86.530204° -86.510272° -86.509933°

Call Survey Point 1 Call Survey Point 2 Call Survey Point 3 CS1a, lake edge point CS Point 3 CS1a, lake edge point CS1 trail dock CS Point 3 trail dock CS1a, lake edge point

-86.513617°

observed dead on N. Headley Rd., slightly north of boat ramp parking area

-86.529929° -86.529506° -86.529822° -86.529889° -86.529929° -86.518485° -86.522400° -86.522400° -86.522400° -86.513947° -86.513947° -86.518485° -86.522400° -86.522400° -86.522400° -86.522400° -86.522400° -86.518485° -86.518485° -86.513947° 86.518091°

Coverboard #12 Two adult THSI under CB 7 Two THSI under CB 4 Coverboard #8 3 THSI at CB #12 Trap 1 Trap 2, turtle 4-5 in carapace length Trap 2, turtle 2-3 in carapace length Trap 2 Trap 3 Trap 3 Trap 1 Trap 2 Trap 2 Trap 2 Trap 2 Trap 2, largest CHPI 6-8 in length carapace Trap 1 Trap 1 Trap 3 under Coverboad 13 near boat ramp nature trails, under log close to lake shore. Both lead morph and red morph observed.

Indiana DNR Scientific Purposes License Report Form (Reptiles and Amphibians) Observer

County

Site_Location

Date

Emily Stulik Emily Stulik Emily Stulik Emily Stulik Emily Stulik Emily Stulik Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Steve Cotter Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Steve Cotter Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Steve Cotter Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Steve Cotter Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Steve Cotter Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Steve Cotter Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Steve Cotter Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown, Steve Cotter Emily Stulik, T. Travis Brown Emily Stulik, Steve Cotter, Rebecca Swift Emily Stulik, Steve Cotter, Rebecca Swift Emily Stulik, Steve Cotter, Rebecca Swift Emily Stulik, Steve Cotter, Rebecca Swift Emily Stulik

Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe Monroe

Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve Griffy Lake Nature Preserve

20-Sep-20 20-Sep-20 20-Sep-20 20-Sep-20 20-Sep-20 20-Sep-20 21-Sep-20 21-Sep-20 21-Sep-20 21-Sep-20 21-Sep-20 21-Sep-20 21-Sep-20 21-Sep-20 21-Sep-20 22-Oct-20 22-Oct-20 22-Oct-20 22-Oct-20 22-Oct-20

Time

Weather

Temp_Air_°F

3:48 PM 5% cloud cover, sunny 73 3:51 PM 5% cloud cover, sunny 73 4:32 PM 5% cloud cover, sunny 73 4:39 PM 5% cloud cover, sunny 73 4:40 PM 5% cloud cover, sunny 73 5:12 PM 5% cloud cover, sunny 73 2:00 PM20% clouds, mostly sunny 74 2:10 PM20% clouds, mostly sunny 74 2:25 PM20% clouds, mostly sunny 74 2:40 PM20% clouds, mostly sunny 74 2:43 PM20% clouds, mostly sunny 74 2:55 AM20% clouds, mostly sunny 74 3:00 PM20% clouds, mostly sunny 74 3:15 PM20% clouds, mostly sunny 74 3:50 PM20% clouds, mostly sunny 74 15% 1:00clouds, PM mostly sunny, 15 mph avg.

77 wind 15% 1:30clouds, PM mostly sunny, 15 mph avg.

77 wind 15% 1:45clouds, PM mostly sunny, 15 mph avg.

77 wind 15% 1:45clouds, PM mostly sunny, 15 mph avg.

77 wind 15% 2:20clouds, PM mostly sunny, 15 mph avg.

77 wind

Method_Type

Species Number Observed/Handled Species Marked (Y/N)

Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Audible Coverboard Visual Visual Visual Visual Coverboard

NESI LISP ACBL LISP TECA EUCI EULO EUCI NESI SCUN SCUN ACBL NESI LISP THSI TRSC TRSC CHPI TRSC THSI

1 1 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 4 1

No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

Species_Category

Age

Sex

Snake Frog Frog Frog Turtle Salamander Salamander Salamander Snake Lizard Lizard Frog Snake Frog Snake Turtle Turtle Turtle Turtle Snake

Adult Adult Adult Juvenile Adult Adult Adult Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile Adult Adult Adult Adult Juvenile Adult Mixed Mixed Adult

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Male Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

Long_X

Lat_Y

39.202307 39.202307 39.202307

-86.517597 -86.517597 -86.517597

39.206556 39.199776 39.199776

-86.529822 -86.51356 -86.51356

39.207809

-86.529929

Comments

Swimming in Griffy creek, NW of dam observed on grass and mud creek bank or Griffy Creek, NW of Dam observed on Griffy Lake edge east of boat house Wetland fringe of Griffy lake edge, east of boat house Wetland fringe of Griffy lake edge east of, indent on marginal scute Under log in forest, off trail C Under rocks of dry, inlet creek bed of Griffy Lake, off of trail NC Under rocks of dry, inlet creek bed of Griffy Lake, off of trail NC Under rocks of dry, inlet creek bed of Griffy Lake, off of trail NC Lake edge, basking on rocks/logs off trail NC Lake edge, basking on rocks/logs off trail NC Griffy lake edge Griffy Lake edge, basking Auditory only under Coverboard #4, grassy, emergent/scrub-shrub wetland Basking on log Basking on log 8 turtles basking on log, mix of painted and sliders, 4 count of each species is estimate 8 turtles basking on log, mix of painted and sliders, 4 count of each species is estimate Coverboard #12