Urban Naturalist Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 1 2024 Urban Naturalist 75:1–18 Vertebrate Diversity in Stormwater Sewer Systems of Alachua County, Florida Alan A. Ivory II1*, Matthew T. Hallett1,2, Brett Scheffers1, and Steve A. Johnson1 Abstract –As urbanization continues, animals are increasingly compelled to navigate human-altered environments. Here we investigate wildlife use of stormwater sewer systems (SSS), a widespread, subterranean environment resulting from urbanization. We used camera traps to reveal how wildlife exploit subterranean pathways, shedding light on their presence within this anthropogenic context in Alachua County, Florida. From February to May 2023, we documented a total of 35 species of vertebrates within SSS, including amphibians, reptiles, and birds, although mammals dominated our sample. Raccoons and Southeastern Myotis accounted for more than half of all observations, signifying their prevalence and widespread presence within SSS. Our research offers a comprehensive exploration of vertebrate diversity within an unconventional urban habitat and provides valuable insights into the relationship between SSS and species utilization patterns. Ultimately, our research lays the groundwork for future studies and informs the development of ecologically conscientious urban planning strategies. Introduction As urbanization accelerates, animals are increasingly forced to interact with humanmodified environments (Jokimaki et al. 2011, Messmer 2009). Development of urban centers necessarily focuses on human needs and usually neglects the requirements of wildlife. In addition to direct loss of habitat, urbanization fragments habitats and may create barriers to animal movements, contributing to population declines (Czech et al. 2000, Lesbarreres and Fahrig 2012, Markovchick-Nicholls et al. 2008). Impacts are particularly severe when development and supporting infrastructure bisects or isolates wildlife habitat. For example, roads that isolate wetland breeding sites from important upland habitats can be especially detrimental to small vertebrates such as reptiles and amphibians (Schmidt and Zumbach 2008, van Gelder 1973). Roads may also be a significant source of mortality for mammals and birds (Bond and Jones 2008, Dodd et al. 2004, Husby 2016, O rlowski 2008). To mitigate the impact of roads on vertebrates, wildlife crossings are often built to facilitate the movement of animals under or over roadways (Alexander and Waters 2000, Bond and Jones 2008, Dodd et al. 2004). Historically, wildlife crossings have been constructed primarily to promote the movement of large mammals (Askins 2012, Andis et al. 2017). However, numerous studies have demonstrated the conservation value of facilitating the movement of smaller-bodied vertebrates via the installation of simple culvert-type underpasses (Aresco 2003, 2005; Chen et al. 2021; Dodd et al. 2004). Nonetheless, due to species-specific life history traits, no single underpass design is ideal across species. Factors such as traffic noise, cover, light availability, substrate, water availability, and the dimen- 1Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, University of Florida, 110 Newins-Ziegler Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA. 2Conservation Department, Jacksonville Zoo and Gardens 370 Zoo Parkway, Jacksonville, FL 32218 USA. *Corresponding author: alanivory34428@ufl.edu Associate Editor: Travis Ryan, Butler Univesity Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 2 sions of the culvert influence how likely wildlife are to use an underpass (Glista et al. 2009, Jackson and Griffin 2000). Typically, constructed wildlife crossings demand a large footprint to connect habitats that are divided by a road (Jackson and Griffin 2000). Due to the space and resources required for such structures, they are rarely built in urban environments, even though urban areas are highly fragmented by roads, buildings, and residential areas (Andreu et al. 2017). This forces urban wildlife to regularly cross roads to meet their basic needs, leading to road mortality having a significant impact on urban animal populations (Riley et al. 2014). Despite urban areas not typically being targeted as sites for installing wildlife crossings, conservation actions in Europe have included constructing small-scale, urban passages for mesomammals, such as Lutra lutra Linnaeus (Eurasian Otters) and Meles meles Linnaeus (European Badgers; Philcox et al. 1999, Van der Zee et al. 1992). In the U.S., there has been success with salamander underpass tunnels, which facilitate animal movements between breeding and foraging locations (Aresco 2005, Bain et al. 2017, Hedrick et al. 2019). In these studies, underpasses consisted of straight culverts of varying lengths, ranging in pipe diameter from 25–100 cm. Pipes of this style and size are typical of stormwater sewer systems (SSS) across the U.S. (Tran 2016, UF/IFAS Extension 2012). To avoid flooding, most U.S. cities have SSS that move water from areas with impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, sidewalks, parking lots) to retention ponds, lakes, and streams. This is accomplished by diverting water from rainfall via open ditch systems or in a closed stormwater sewer pipe below ground (Che et al. 2014). Throughout our study area in North Florida, SSS and sanitary sewers are separate and serve distinct purposes. Sanitary sewers transport waste from various sources to wastewater treatment plants, where it undergoes treatment before being discharged into local water bodies. In contrast, stormwater sewers channel rainwater away from roadways and other impervious surfaces via curb inlets and grates and release it untreated into natural and manmade water bodies. Although the wildlife value of stormwater systems has been studied, there is a lack of research on how animals use the subterranean pipes of SSS. Existing studies have predominantly examined animal use of retention ponds typically associated with SSS outflows. For example, amphibians use stormwater retention ponds as breeding sites (Hale et al. 2015, Scheffers and Paszkowski 2013), whereas birds use stormwater retention ponds for foraging and breeding (Frederick and McGehee 1994, Sparling et al. 2007). Additionally, while it is established that many species of wildlife will traverse straight, relatively short culverts as road underpasses (Ascensao and Mira 2007, Bain et al. 2017, Dodd et al. 2004), the propensity of animals to use more complex SSS (with multiple points of entry, nodes, and branches) has received little attention, with the recent exception of Rattus sp. (Guo et al. 2023). Many species that use SSS in urban habitats are generalists and respond positively to urbanization and human influences (Graser et al. 2012, Parsons et al. 2018, Prange et al. 2003). Likewise, population density and abundance of synanthropic species may increase near sources of water and adjacent to roads where resources may be aggregated (Bernasconi et al. 2022, Bissonette and Rosa 2009, Fidino et al. 2016, Jeffress et al. 2011). The use of an underground corridor system has the potential to increase survivorship, dispersal, and population viability of urban wildlife. Additionally, a better understanding of the spatial movement of wildlife through urban areas can help mitigate future human-wildlife conflicts (Markovchick-Nicholls et al. 2008, Villalobos-Hoffman et al. 2022). To better understand the importance of SSS as potential habitat and movement corridors for vertebrates, we deployed wildlife cameras within pipes of SSS at numerous locations in Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 3 Alachua, Co. Florida. Our objectives were to document which species were present (e.g., diversity) in the SSS of our study area as well as their frequency of occurrence (i.e., relative abundance). We also sought to determine how various species were using these subterranean corridors. Based on a literature search, our study is one of few to document wildlife use of complex SSS beyond the use of simple culverts. Since SSS share similarities in materials and pipe diameters with culverts but are more complex, interconnected, and typically found in urban settings; they offer a unique research focus. Exploring SSS is important because they offer enhanced connectivity opportunities to wildlife beyond what simple, straight culverts can provide. Materials and Methods Study area We conducted our study from February 2023 to May 2023 in Alachua County, Florida, specifically targeting the SSS of the City of Gainesville and the campus of the University of Florida. The study area is primarily urban, with intermixed swamp and hardwood upland habitat (Andreu et al. 2017). The University of Florida’s Gainesville campus spans more than 800 hectares and includes approximately 400 stormwater drains. Nearly 60% of the University of Florida campus is covered by the Lake Alice sub-watershed, with about 40% of this area covered by impervious surfaces such as roads and buildings (UF/IFAS Extension 2012). All stormwater from impervious surfaces within our study area drains into an associated stormwater sewer system. Study design We used the Create Random Points tool in ArcGIS Pro (Environmental Systems Research Institute, ESRI 2021) to select random manholes along sewer pipes within the SSS of Alachua County. The SSS shapefiles were sourced from the City of Gainesville and the University of Florida Facilities Services (UFFS). We selected 100 random points, then removed sites if the pipe diameter was <30 cm diameter, an opening too small for a camera trap to function properly (McCleery et al. 2014). If the site was on private property or if the site was not an access point pre-approved by the City of Gainesville or the UFFS, the site was excluded from the study. We also excluded locations with damaged or broken sewer pipes. We deployed 39 camera traps across 33 unique “sewersheds” in Alachua County, FL (Appendix 1, Fig. 1) that were each left in the field for 60 trap nights per camera to ensure sufficient sampling effort to confidently access wildlife diversity within each sewershed (Hallett et al. 2019, Silver 2004). We define a sewershed as independent sewer pipes which may or may not be connected in a network. Sewersheds with only two access points are defined as simple culverts and those with more than two access points are classified as a system (Fig. 2). Access points are where animals might enter or exit a sewershed including pipe openings at the ends of the systems (typically at a body of water), curb inlets often associated with a manhole cover (where runoff water from roads enters SSS), and grated inlets (Fig. 3). These access points may double as light sources and are important as potential ways for wildlife to enter and exit a sewershed. For the systems we studied, pipe openings ranged from 30 to182 cm in diameter (mean = 72 cm). Sewersheds in our study ranged from 11 m to 6912 m (mean = 942 m) in pipe length and consisted of 13 simple culverts and 20 more complex systems. Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 4 Figure 1. Locations of camera sites across Alachua County, Florida. Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 5 Figure 2. Examples of 4 stormwater sewersheds in Alachua County, FL. Sewershed systems with multiple access points denoted as nodes on the line features (A and B) and sewershed culverts with a maximum of two access points (C and D). Linear, white areas indicate roads and darker shapes are buildings and stormwater ponds. Figure 3. Example access points into the SSS of Alachua County. Stormwater grate in a road (A). Pipe openings at a body of water (B and C). Curb inlet on a roadside with a manhole (D). Photo credit: Alan Ivory, UF/IFAS Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 6 Camera-trap surveys We deployed camera traps (Bushnell Care S-4K No Glow #119949C; Prime Combo Low Glow #119932CB Bushnell®, KS, USA; Moultrie M-880 #MCG12594 Moultrie®, AL, USA) at each of the 39 sites (Fig. 1). At sites with metal attachment points (i.e., manhole cover), we used magnetic mounts to secure cameras facing down toward the entrance of Figure 4. Example of camera-trap mount for magnetic attachment points such as manhole covers. Photo credit: Alan Ivory, UF/IFAS Figure 5. Diagram of camera mounting set-up in magnetic attach ment points. Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 7 the pipe (Figs. 4, 5). At sites with pipes constructed of concrete or other materials that were not magnetic, we attached cameras to a tree at the entrance of the pipe. Due to the nature of stormwater sewer construction, the distance from the entrance to the pipe could not be standardized, but, when possible, we set cameras mounted within or outside of SSS within 1 m of a pipe opening (Baker 2015, McCleary et al. 2014, Zeitler et al. 2023). Cameras were active 24 hours a day, recording date and time, capturing a 10-second video upon detecting motion, followed by a 30 second delay before the next recording. We used videos, rather than still images to increase detection probability, due to the proximity of target species to the cameras. When reviewing camera trap videos, we watched the full 10-second video clip to confidently identify vertebrates to species even when an individual’s entire body was not discernable. Videos of the same species that occurred within a period of 30 minutes were excluded to ensure that camera visits were independent (Silver 2004). We used data from the cameras to determine vertebrate diversity within the SSS, and to calculate the number of detections by species, species relative abundance (RA), and naïve occupancy. We calculated relative abundance by dividing the number of observations of a species by the number of trap nights and multiplying by 100. Naïve occupancy was calculated by dividing the number of sites where a species occurred by the total number of sites included in the study. We deployed camera traps from February 2023 to May 2023, which encompasses late winter and spring in north Florida. Camera traps were active for 14–92 trap nights/camera (mean = 58.3 trap nights) for a total of 2273 trap-nights. The variation in trap nights per camera is attributed to heavy rainfall causing flooding, as well as instances of camera theft. Results Of the 39 camera sites, 19 (49%) had more than 50 wildlife observations and 4 sites (10%) did not record any observations. In total, we documented 3798 animal detections and recorded 35 unique vertebrate species, including 12 species of birds, four species of amphibians, seven species of reptiles, and 12 species of mammals (Table 1). The majority of species documented were detected at fewer than five camera sites, with 16 species being detected at just a single site each. Nine species, mostly mammals, were detected at five or more sites (Table 1). Among the 35 species documented, 21 were observed within a stormwater sewer system Table 1. Number of observations (Obs), relative abundance (RA), and naïve occupancy (NO) for each species observed in Alachua County SSS. Relative abundance was calculated by dividing the number of observations of a species by the number of trap nights and multiplying by 100. Naïve occupancy was calculated by dividing the number of sites where a species occurred by the total number of sites in the study. Scientific Name Common Name Authority Obs RA NO Mammal Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded Armadillo Linnaeus, 1758 82 3.61 0.18 Didelphis virginiana Virginia Opossum Kerr, 1792 321 14.12 0.23 Felis catus Domestic Cat Linnaeus, 1758 50 2.20 0.28 Lontra canadensis River Otter von Schreber, 1776 29 1.28 0.05 Lynx rufus* Bobcat von Schreber, 1777 1 0.04 0.03 Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Myotis Rhoads, 1897 694 30.53 0.44 Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 8 Table 1. Number of observations (Obs), relative abundance (RA), and naïve occupancy (NO) for each species observed in Alachua County SSS. Relative abundance was calculated by dividing the number of observations of a species by the number of trap nights and multiplying by 100. Naïve occupancy was calculated by dividing the number of sites where a species occurred by the total number of sites in the study. Scientific Name Common Name Authority Obs RA NO Odocoileus virginianus* White-tailed Deer Zimmermann, 1780 3 0.13 0.03 Procyon lotor Raccoon Linnaeus, 1758 1810 79.63 0.54 Rattus rattus Black Rat Linnaeus, 1758 324 14.25 0.10 Scalopus aquaticus Eastern Mole Linnaeus, 1758 5 0.22 0.05 Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Gray Squirrel J. F. Gmelin, 1788 58 2.55 0.18 Sigmodon hispidus Hispid Cotton Rat Say and Ord, 1825 124 5.46 0.13 Reptile Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator Daudin, 1801 50 2.20 0.13 Anolis sagrei Brown Anole Dumeril and Bibron, 1837 19 0.84 0.05 Coluber constrictor Eastern Racer Linnaeus, 1758 4 0.18 0.08 Nerodia fasciata* Banded Watersnake Linnaeus, 1766 1 0.04 0.03 Plestiodon laticeps* Broad-headed Skink Schneider, 1801 1 0.04 0.03 Storeria dekayi DeKay’s Brownsnake Holbrook, 1839 2 0.09 0.03 Trachemys scripta scripta Yellow-bellied Slider Schoepff, 1792 27 1.19 0.08 Amphibian Anaxyrus terrestris Southern Toad Bonnaterre, 1789 1 0.04 0.03 Osteopilus septentrionalis Cuban Treefrog Duméril and Bibron, 1841 3 0.13 0.03 Rana grylio* Pig Frog Stejneger, 1901 1 0.04 0.03 Scaphiopus holbrooki Eastern Spadefoot Harlan, 1835 127 5.59 0.10 Bird Anhinga anhinga Anhinga Linnaeus, 1766 13 0.57 0.03 Ardea alba* Great Egret Linnaeus, 1758 24 1.06 0.08 Ardea herodias* Great Blue Heron Linnaeus, 1758 2 0.09 0.03 Buteo jamaicensis* Red-tailed Hawk Gmelin, 1788 1 0.04 0.03 Cardinalis cardinalis* Northern Cardinal Linnaeus, 1758 1 0.04 0.03 Corvus brachyrhynchos* American Crow Brehm, 1822 2 0.09 0.05 Dumetella carolinensis* Gray Catbird Linnaeus, 1766 1 0.04 0.03 Egretta thula* Snowy Egret Molina, 1782 1 0.04 0.03 Parkesia noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush Gmelin, 1789 3 0.13 0.03 Thryothorus ludovacianus Carolina Wren Latham, 1790 10 0.44 0.15 Strix varia* Barred Owl Barton, 1799 1 0.04 0.03 Zenaida macroura* Mourning Dove Linnaeus, 1758 2 0.09 0.03 * signifies species was not observed entering the stormwater sewer system, but was observed on the camera trap. Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 9 beyond a pipe access opening. Nine species of birds, one amphibian species, two species of reptiles, and two species of mammals were only detected at the mouth of a stormwater sewer pipe and never within a simple culvert or complex sewershed (Table 1). Bird diversity Of the 12 bird species documented (Table 1), only Thryothorus ludovicianus Latham (Carolina Wren), Anhinga anhinga Linnaeus (Anhinga), and Parkesia noveboracensis Gmelin (Northern Waterthrush) were observed within a sewershed away from a pipe opening. Carolina Wrens were observed at six sites, and occasionally with nesting material, while the other two species were observed at a single location. Amphibian diversity Three of the four species of anuran amphibians we documented were only detected at a single camera site, for a combined five observations (Table 1). One of these, a Rana grylio Stejneger (Pig Frog), was recorded at the entrance to a pipe. Scaphiopus holbrooki Harlan (Eastern Spadefoot Toad) was the most frequently detected amphibian and was observed at four camera sites, though 120 of the total 127 observations cam e from a single site. Reptile diversity Of the 33 sewersheds monitored in our study, only three were inundated with water for the duration of the project. These three sites accounted for all the Trachemys scripta scripta Schoepff (Yellow-bellied Slider) observations. An Alligator mississippiensis Daudin (American Alligator) was also detected at two of the three inundated sites. We also observed American alligators at three more culvert sites linked to either natural or artificial ponds, each retaining water for over half of the study duration. Mammal diversity In addition to being the most species-rich taxon of vertebrates observed among all sites, mammals were also observed most frequently, accounting for 3501 (92.2%) of the 3798 total camera-trap observations. We documented 12 species of mammals, ten of which were observed within a sewershed beyond the entrance of a pipe opening (Table 1). Procyon lotor Linnaeus (Northern Raccoon) was the most commonly observed (1810 occasions) and widespread (detected at 21 of the 39 camera sites) species in our study. While raccoon detections were similar in simple culverts (865 observations) as compared to the complex sewersheds (945 observations), raccoon relative abundance index (RAI) was higher in culverts (RAI = 107.9) than in complex sewersheds (RAI = 64.2). Among the 33 sewersheds, the second most commonly detected species was Myotis austroriparius Rhoads (Southeastern Myotis Bat), with 694 bat observations across 17 camera sites. Eleven of these sites were complex sewersheds and 6 sites were simple culverts, with bat abundance being higher in complex sewersheds (RAI = 46.1) compared to simple culverts (RAI = 2.0). Both Rattus rattus Linnaeus (Black Rat) and Sigmodon hispidus Say and Ord (Hispid Cotton Rat) were commonly observed, with 324 and 124 observations, respectively. Of the four sites where we found Black Rats, 223 of the 324 observations came from one camera. While we observed Lontra canadensis von Schreber (North American River Otter) on 29 occasions, otters were only detected at two of our sites, both of which were simple culverts. The only mammals observed at pipe openings, and not within SSS, were Odocoileus virginianus Zimmermann (White-tailed Deer) and Lynx rufus von Schreber (Bobcat). Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 10 Discussion Our study is one of the first to quantify the use of urban SSS by wildlife. We detected at least one species at 90% of our camera trap sites, and nearly half of the camera traps recorded at least 50 observations. While each of the classes of terrestrial vertebrates was found in the SSS of Alachua County, Florida, mammals dominated our camera trap detections, accounting for 92% of all observations. Birds, amphibians, and reptiles may not regularly use the SSS, they nonetheless are able to take advantage of the resources the systems provide as well as their associated wetlands. We expected to detect rodents and mesomammals, such as raccoons, Didelphis virginiana Kerr (Virginia Possums), and Dasypus novemcinctus Linnaeus (Nine-banded Armadillo), based on previous corridor studies (Bond and Jones 2008, Chen et al. 2021). As there is little evidence to suggest that SSS are frequented by birds, we did not expect to observe many birds in our sites. Predators such as bobcats are known to use culvert crossings, and we expected to document more than one observation (Ascensao and Mira 2007). Additionally, foxes are common in suburban settings in Florida (Brown 1997), and we were surprised that we did not detect them during our study. Birds Although we documented 12 species of birds across our study area, most of the observations were dominated by just three species: Anhinga, Ardea alba Linnaeus (Great Egret), and Carolina Wren. Additionally, only three species of birds were detected within SSS pipes, away from a pipe opening (Anhinga, Northern Waterthrush, and Carolina Wren). The others were detected at a pipe entrance, but apparently did not enter the sewer system. Although retention ponds associated with SSS can provide foraging opportunities for birds (Fidorra et al. 2016), the subterranean sewer pipes of the culverts and complex sewersheds that we studied were apparently of little value to birds, with the possible exception of Carolina Wrens. Anhingas were observed numerous times within a single culvert that was inundated with water throughout our study period. Anhingas appeared to be using this culvert as a thoroughfare to move between two permanent water bodies connected by this culvert. Our cameras also documented wading birds at pipe openings of several sewersheds. The birds appeared to be foraging, and it’s likely they were attracted to pipe openings because such areas may concentrate prey (Frederick and McGehee 1994). Carolina Wrens were detected at more unique camera locations (6) than any other bird in our study. Additionally, they were the only species observed carrying nest materials within a sewershed, suggesting they use SSS as nesting sites. Carolina Wrens are well known for their habit of constructing nests in man-made structures like carports and mailboxes (Laskey 1948, Nice and Thomas 1948). While their motivations for constructing nests in such locations are poorly understood, similar to carports and mailboxes, SSS likely provide sheltered areas with protection from inclement weather and nest predators, as well as a favorable microclimate for thermoregulation (Labisky and Arnett 2006). Amphibians It seems unlikely that the 120 detections of Eastern Spadefoot Toads at a single cameratrap location are indicative of a breeding aggregation within the sewershed, as the camera was located at a curb inlet near a retention pond within a suburban neighborhood. We suspect the toads were making terrestrial movements (possibly for breeding) and were directed to the inlet by the curb and simply fell into the storm drain and subsequently detected by the camera. Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 11 Although the sewer pipes themselves may not be important habitat for amphibians, it is well documented that stormwater ponds and wetlands directly associated with SSS are important breeding habitat (Scheffers and Paszkowski 2013, Hale et al. 2015). Reptiles We detected seven species of reptiles overall (3 species were only observed at a single site), and documented reptiles more often at sites that held water for more than half of the study period. The most frequently observed reptile (Alligator mississippiensis) was also documented across the greatest number of sites (5). The most commonly observed reptiles were aquatic and able to take advantage of the water bodies associated with the SSS (Aresco 2009). Two of the three sites that were inundated with water for the duration of our study are complex sewershed systems, suggesting the Yellow-bellied Slider that was observed there had the opportunity to navigate the pipes further than a single road crossing. In all 3 sites that documented sliders, the SSS connected 2 or more bodies of water, so the sliders are likely using the pipes as corridors between ponds. Of the 5 sites, 4 of the sites where alligators were observed were simple culverts, and for this reason most of the alligator observations were of animals swimming from one pond to another (35 of 50 observations), thereby avoiding crossing busy roads. Mammals Mammals were the most frequently and widely observed taxonomic group. Eleven of the 12 mammal species were recorded more than once, and 10 of 12 species were documented at more than 1 site. Species such as raccoons, Virginia opossums, Nine-banded Armadillos, rats, and Felis catus Linnaeus (Domestic Cat), which dominated our observations, do well in urban environments (DeGregorio et al. 2021, Fidino et al. 2016, Graser et al. 2012, Parsons et al. 2018, Prange et al. 2003, 2004). This association with urban areas is due in part to their use of human resources, such as trash and artificial structures urban areas often provide (Feng and Himsworth 2014, Webb et al. 2021). We mainly observed Black Rats at sites nearest to downtown Gainesville and the University of Florida campus, suggesting a positive relationship with human presence. Black Rats are excellent climbers that can easily access SSS via curb inlets and open pipes, and are known for their opportunistic foraging behavior and tolerance of human presence (Feng and Himsworth 2014). Given their climbing ability and affinity for manmade structures, it was not surprising that this introduced rodent was regularly detected by our cameras within several sewersheds. We also documented 124 observations of native Cotton Rats across several sewersheds. However, unlike Black rats, the locations of these observations were primarily at the periphery of our study area, away from heavier human presence. Although Cotton Rats are known pests of agricultural crops in rural settings and are one of the most common mammals in Florida (Brown 1997), our data indicate that they apparently do not occur in abundance in suburban and urban centers within our study area. Many species of bats are known to inhabit urban areas (Lehrer et al. 2021, Webb et al. 2021), and it is well established that bats commonly roost in culverts and under bridges (Keeley and Tuttle 1999, Leivers et al. 2019). Culverts can provide a similar thermal regime as natural caves and are therefore attractive to bats as roosting sites (Leivers et al. 2019). However, few studies have evaluated bats in SSS. For example, Goehring (1957) documented Eptesicus fuscus Beauvois (Big Brown Bat) using a storm sewer in Minnesota, U.S. as a winter roost site, and Wojtaszyn et al. (2013) documented 6 species of bats (including 4 species of Myotis) inhabiting storm drains in Poland as winter hibernacula. Additionally, Myotis grisescens A. H. Howell Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 12 (Gray Bats) have been documented using storm sewers as maternity sites in Kansas (Hays and Bingham 1964) and Arkansas, U.S. (Timmerman and McDaniel 1992). We detected Southeastern Myotis at almost half of our camera sites, including simple culverts (6 sites) and complex sewersheds (11 sites). However, based on the number of bats documented per trap-night, they appear to prefer complex sewersheds over simple culverts consisting of a single pipe open at each end. The conditions in more complex sewersheds likely provide a microclimate (e.g., light, temperature, humidity) similar to natural caves, which bats find attractive. Ten of the sites where we detected bats were in suburban neighborhoods, and an additional 2 sites were in natural areas on the University of Florida campus. Both types of sites (79.6% of total bat-occupied sites) have small roads with limited traffic. This finding reinforces previous findings (Kerth and Melber 2009), which indicated that bat activity is more common near roads with limited traffic as compared to wider, more heavilytrafficked roads. We documented bats throughout the duration of our study, but the frequency of observations declined over time, suggesting the bats were using the SSS as winter roosts, like other species of Myotis (Wojtaszyn et al. 2013). Southeastern Myotis in north Florida give birth in mid-May (Elizabeth Braun de Torrez, Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Gainesville, FL; Pers. Comm.), which is when our study ended, thus precluding our ability to make any definitive statement about the utility of the sewer systems to serve as breeding sites. In addition to roosting, the bats may have also been opportunistically foraging on insects within the SSS. While their foraging behavior is typically associated with capturing flying insects, we also observed instances of Southeastern Myotis landing on the floor of the sewer pipe to capture insects. This behavior could potentially be interpreted as a substrate-gleaning foraging strategy suitable for confined environments like SSS (Razak 2018). Clearly, additional monitoring is required to better understand the importance of SSS to bats, many species of which are declining across their range. Raccoons were observed at most sites in our study. On several occasions our cameras documented raccoons within SSS feeding on invertebrates (i.e., crayfish) and accompanied by their young. This suggests that raccoons regularly use SSS as denning sites, to forage, and possibly to avoid crossing roads. We also documented raccoons entering and exiting SSS by climbing manhole ladder rungs as well as using curb inlets as access points for some sewersheds. Domestic cats and Sciurus carolinensis J.F. Gmelin (Gray Squirrels) also used curb inlets as access points. These species, like raccoons, are excellent climbers, so with the aid of ladder rungs and/or sewer wall texture they are able to move freely between SSS and the urban habitat above ground (Haigh et al. 2017, McClearn 1992, Moseby and Read 2006). Considering these behaviors as well as the number and geographic breadth of raccoon observations, it appears raccoon use of SSS of Alachua County is not by chance. Rather, our data suggest that SSS provide habitat for raccoons in suburban areas. That said, the frequency of movement between subterranean SSS and above ground habitats by raccoons is unknown and needs to be studied to assess the relative importance of SSS for this common mesocarnivore. The SSS we studied likely mimic natural habitats, such as caves and dens, used for roosting and reproduction. For some species, the sewer systems likely provide protection from predators as well as foraging opportunities. Raccoons and opossums had a naïve occupancy of 0.54 and 0.23, respectfully; rates similar to those of other urban camera trap studies (Soultan et al. 2021). Similarly, Black Rats, opossums, raccoons, and Southeastern Myotis all have a relative abundance greater than 10 (Table 1), suggesting frequent use of SSS. Our data strongly suggest that the SSS in our study are regularly used by some mammals, namely raccoons and bats, and to a lesser extent by opossums and invasive Black Rats. However, further Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 13 study is needed to determine how often these species enter stormwater sewers and the extent of their movements within the systems. SSS management for wildlife While it is well established that some species, including raccoons, Southeastern Myotis, alligators, and aquatic turtles, intentionally enter SSS, smaller species of herpetofauna may enter a stormwater sewer system inadvertently. For example, we documented a Storeria dekayi Holbrook (DeKay’s Brownsnake) after a storm carried large amounts of water into the system, possibly washing this small snake into the system. Additionally, curbs and their inlets may act as a drift fence with pitfall traps for small reptiles and amphibians. Small individuals may follow curbs until they fall into SSS via curb inlets. This would explain the numerous observations of Eastern Spadefoot Toads at one of our sites. A better understanding of how amphibians and small reptiles enter SSS could help in preventing them from becoming trapped. If amphibians are falling in from the curb, and are unable to exit, exclusion devices and climbing aids could be implemented to prevent such wildlife from being trapped within SSS. In shallow curb inlets, ramps could be used to bridge the elevation gap, while in deeper locations, ropes might act as climbing vines. Amphibians and, potentially, small reptiles are likely underrepresented due to our sampling methods and the camera traps reliance on an animal being warmer than its surroundings to trigger image capture (Meek et al. 2012, Rovero et al. 2013). Aside from the American Alligator and Yellow-bellied Slider, the remaining amphibian and reptile species likely did not trigger the camera trap themselves, but instead their presence were only documented as a byproduct of a mammal also being in the field of view. For this reason, the detection probabilities of amphibian and reptile species are likely lower than the detection of the endothermic species (mainly mammals, Hobbs and Brehme 2017)), which comprised the majority of our observations. For example, Osteopilus septentrionalis Duméril and Bibron (Cuban Treefrogs) are often heard calling from storm drains, and there is anecdotal evidence they will breed in SSS under certain situations (Steve A. Johnson, personal observation). This invasive frog in Florida is common in Gainesville, but we only documented three observations during our study. We suspect this underrepresents their abundance in SSS as a result of camera trap bias. To address the issue of underrepresentation of these ectothermic species, future studies could include camera traps using time lapse image capture, where regardless of animal temperature or motion, the camera records a video on a repeating interval for the duration of the study. Our study focused on a small region in northern Florida, and future studies in other regions should be conducted to determine if our findings are an anomaly or if SSS are in fact important habitat for some species of urban wildlife. Alachua County, the UF campus, and the city of Gainesville have numerous natural areas and an extensive tree canopy, so our findings may differ from other cities where wildlife habitat is sparser. Moreover, our results are based on four months of sampling, so seasonality is an important factor to explore further in determining when and how wildlife use SSS. Nonetheless, our research appears to be among the first of its kind to evaluate the uses of SSS by vertebrates, and therefore serves as a baseline for similar studies elsewhere. Additional research is needed to better understand the role of SSS in regions experiencing variable levels of urbanization. Wildlife may be less likely to use these subterranean corridors in less developed areas because preferred resources are available aboveground. However, in more urbanized areas, artificial roosts are beneficial in promoting urban bat populations. Bats seem to make use of SSS for roosting, but through the use of radio tracking, we could better understand bat movement through SSS. Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 14 Species from various taxonomic groups appear to use SSS as corridors to avoid roads, potentially navigating through a network of pipes that link separated patches of habitat. While we did not collect metrics related to road mortality or track movements of individuals, SSS have the potential to increase connectivity of highly fragmented environments. Alternatively, there is also the possibility that these confined corridors may lead to increased predation of some species, such as raccoons preying on bats (Wojtaszyn et al. 2013). Regardless, a diversity of vertebrates was found in the SSS of our study area, underscoring the need to consider these subterranean systems in land-use planning and their potential to help mitigate potential human-wildlife conflicts. Acknowledgments We thank the City of Gainesville, Florida Department of Transportation, City of Alachua, University of Florida Facilities Services, Celebration Pointe, and Turkey Creek for access to sampling sites. Thanks to our numerous volunteers who aided in our field samplin g efforts. Literature Cited Alexander, S.M., and N.M. Waters. 2000. The effects of highway transportation corridors on wildlife: A case study of Banff National Park. Transportation Research Part C-Emerging Technologies 8:307–320. Andis, A.Z., M.P. Huijser, and L. Broberg. 2017. Performance of arch-style road crossing structures from relative movement rates of large mammals. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 5:1–13. Andreu, M., D. Fox, S. Landry, R. Northrop, and C. Hament. 2017. Urban Forest Ecological Analysis. Report to the City of Gainesville, Gainesville, FL, USA. 52 pp. Aresco, M.J. 2003. Highway mortality of turtles and other herpetofauna at Lake Jackson, Florida, USA, and the efficacy of a temporary fence/culvert system to reduce roadkills. Pp. 433–449, In C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett, and K.P. McDermott (Eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. 688 pp. Aresco, M.J. 2005. Mitigation measures to reduce highway mortality of turtles and other herpetofauna at a north Florida lake. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:549–560. Aresco, M.J. 2009. Environmental correlates of the abundances of three species of freshwater turtles in lakes of Northern Florida. Copeia 2009:545–555. Ascensao, F., and A. Mira. 2007. Factors affecting culvert use by vertebrates along two stretches of road in southern Portugal. Ecological Research 22:57–66. Askins, R. 2012. Tying a wildlife bridge into the ecological landscape. Ecological Restoration 30:345–362. Bain, T.K., D.G. Cook, and D.J. Girman. 2017. Evaluating the effects of abiotic and biotic factors on movement through wildlife crossing tunnels during migration of the California Tiger Salamander, Ambystoma californiense. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 12:192–201. Baker, G.M. 2015. Quantifying wildlife use of cave entrances using remote camera traps. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 77:200–210. Bernasconi, D.A., W.C. Dixon, M.T. Hamilton, J.L. Helton, R.B. Chipman, A.T. Gilbert, J.C. Beasley, O.E. Rhodes, and G. Dharmarajan. 2022. Influence of landscape attributes on Virginia opossum density. Journal of Wildlife Management 86:e22280. Bissonette, J.A., and S.A. Rosa. 2009. Road zone effects in small-mammal communities. Ecology and Society 14(1):27. Bond, A.R., and D.N. Jones. 2008. Temporal trends in use of fauna-friendly underpasses and overpasses. Wildlife Research 35:103–112. Brown, L.N. 1997. Mammals of Florida. Windward Publishing, Miami, FL, USA. 224 pp. Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 15 Che, W., Y. Zhao, Z. Yang, J.Q. Li, and M. Shi. 2014. Integral stormwater management master plan and design in an ecological community. Journal of Environmental Sciences 26:1818–1823. Chen, H.L., E.E. Posthumus, and J.L. Koprowski. 2021. Potential of small culverts as wildlife passages on forest roads. Sustainability 13:7224. Czech, B., P.R. Krausman, and P.K. Devers. 2000. Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States. Bioscience 50:593–601. DeGregorio, B.A., C. Gale, E.V. Lassiter, A. Massey, C.P. Roberts, and J.T. Veon. 2021. Nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) activity patterns are influenced by human activity. Ecology and Evolution 11:15874–15881. Dodd, C.K., Jr., W.J. Barichivich, and L.L. Smith. 2004. Effectiveness of a barrier wall and culverts in reducing wildlife mortality on a heavily traveled highway in Florida. Biological Conservation 118:619–631. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2021. ArcGIS Pro 2.8.0. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA. Feng, A.Y.T., and C.G. Himsworth. 2014. The secret life of the city rat: A review of the ecology of urban Norway and Black Rats (Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus). Urban Ecosystems 17:149–162. Fidino, M.A., E.W. Lehrer, and S.B. Magle. 2016. Habitat dynamics of the Virginia Opossum in a highly urban landscape. American Midland Naturalist 175:155–167. Fidorra, J.C., P.C. Fredrick, D.C. Evers, and K.D. Meyer. 2016. Selection of human-influenced and natural wetlands by Great Egrets at multiple scales in the southeastern USA. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 118:46–56. Frederick, P.C., and S.M. McGehee. 1994. Wading birds use of waste-water treatment wetlands in Central Florida, USA. Colonial Waterbirds 17:50–59. Glista, D.J., T.L. DeVault, and J.A. DeWoody. 2009. A review of mitigation measures for reducing wildlife mortality on roadways. Landscape and Urban Planning 91 :1–7. Goehring, H.H. 1957. A six year study of Big Brown Bat survival. Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 25:222–224. Graser, W.H., S.D. Gehrt, L.L. Hungerford, and C. Anchor. 2012. Variation in demographic patterns and population structure of raccoons across an urban landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:976–986. Guo, X.C., C.G. Himsworth, M.J. Lee, and K.A. Byers. 2023. A systematic review of rat ecology in urban sewer systems. Urban Ecosystems 26:223–232. Haigh, A., F. Butler, R. O’Riordan, and R. Palme. 2017. Managed parks as a refuge for the threatened Red Squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in light of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 211:29–36. Hale, R., R. Coleman, V. Pettigrove, and S.E. Swearer. 2015. Identifying, preventing and mitigating ecological traps to improve the management of urban aquatic ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 52:928–939. Hallett, M., A. Kinahan, R. McGregor, T. Baggallay, T. Babb, H. Barnabus, A. Wilson, F. Li, W. Boone, and B. Bankovich. 2019. Impact of low-intensity hunting on game species in and around the Kanuku Mountains Protected Area, Guyana. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7:412. Hays, H.A., and D.C. Bingman. 1964. A colony of Gray Bats in Southeastern Kansas. Journal of Mammalogy 45:150. Hedrick, B.P., A. Vander Linden, S.A. Cordero, E. Watt, P.M. O’Roark, S.L. Cox, and C. Sutherland. 2019. Keeping salamanders off the street: Evaluating one of the first US amphibian road tunnels 30 years later. Journal of Urban Ecology 5:1. Hobbs, M.T., and C.S. Brehme. 2017. An improved camera trap for amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and large invertebrates. Plos One 12:e0185026. Husby, M. 2016. Factors affecting road mortality in birds. Ornis Fennica 93:212–224. Jackson, S.D., and C.R. Griffin. 2000. A strategy for mitigating highway impacts on wildlife. Pp. 143–159, In T.A. Messmer, and B. West (Eds.). Wildlife and Highways: Seeking Solutions to an Ecological and Socio-economic Dilemma. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD, USA. 178 pp. Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 16 Jeffress, M.R., C.P. Paukert, J.B. Whittier, B.K. Sandercock, and P.S. Gipson. 2011. Scale-dependent factors affecting North American River Otter distribution in the Midwest. American Midland Naturalist 166:177–193. Jokimaki, J., M.L. Kaisanlahti-Jokimaki, J. Suhonen, P. Clergeau, M. Pautasso, and E. Fernandez- Juricic. 2011. Merging wildlife community ecology with animal behavioral ecology for a better urban landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 100:383– 385. Keeley, B., and M. Tuttle. 1999. Bats in American bridges. Resource publication no. 4. Bat Conservation International Incorporated, Austin, TX, USA. 41 pp. Kerth, G., and M. Melber. 2009. Species-specific barrier effects of a motorway on the habitat use of two threatened forest-living bat species. Biological Conservati on 142:270–279. Labisky, R.F., and J.E. Arnett. 2006. Pair roosting of nesting Carolina Wrens (Thryothorus ludovicianus). Wilson Journal of Ornithology 118:566–569. Laskey, A.R. 1948. Some nesting data on the Carolina Wren at Nashville, TN. Bird-Banding 19:101–121. Lehrer, E.W., T. Gallo, M. Fidino, R.J. Kilgour, P.J. Wolff, and S.B. Magle. 2021. Urban bat occupancy is highly influenced by noise and the location of water: Considerations for nature-based urban planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 210:104063. Leivers, S.J., M.B. Meierhofer, B.L. Pierce, J.W. Evans, and M.L. Morrison. 2019. External temperature and distance from nearest entrance influence microclimates of cave and culvert-roosting Tri-colored Bats (Perimyotis subflavus). Ecology and Evolution 9:14042–14052. Lesbarreres, D., and L. Fahrig. 2012. Measures to reduce population fragmentation by roads: What has worked and how do we know? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27:374–380. Markovchick-Nicholls, L., H.M. Regan, D.H. Deutschman, A. Widyanata, B. Martin, L. Noreke, and T.A. Hunt. 2008. Relationships between human disturbance and wildlife land use in urban habitat fragments. Conservation Biology 22:99–109. McClearn, D. 1992. Locomotion, posture, and feeding-behavior of kinkajous, coatis, and raccoons. Journal of Mammalogy 73:245–261. McCleery, R., C. Zweig, M. Desa, R. Hunt, W. Kitchens, and F. Percival. 2014. A novel method for camera-trapping small mammals. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38:887–891. Meek, P., G. Ballard, and P. Fleming. 2012. An introduction to camera trapping for wildlife surveys in Australia. PestSmart Toolkit publication. Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, Australia. 94 pp. Messmer, T.A. 2009. Human-wildlife conflicts: Emerging challenges and opportunities. Human- Wildlife Interactions 3:10–17. Moseby, K.E., and J.L. Read. 2006. The efficacy of feral cat, fox and rabbit exclusion fence designs for threatened species protection. Biological Conservation 127: 429–437. Nice, M., and R. Thomas. 1948. A nesting of the Carolina Wren. The Wilson Bulletin 60:139–158. Orlowski, G. 2008. Roadside hedgerows and trees as factors increasing road mortality of birds: Implications for management of roadside vegetation in rural landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 86:153–161. Parsons, M.H., P.B. Banks, M.A. Deutsch, and J. Munshi-South. 2018. Temporal and space-use changes by rats in response to predation by feral cats in an urban ecosystem. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 6:409816. Philcox, C.K., A.L. Grogan, and D.W. MacDonald. 1999. Patterns of otter Lutra lutra road mortality in Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:748–762. Prange, S., S.D. Gehrt, and E.P. Wiggers. 2003. Demographic factors contributing to high raccoon densities in urban landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:324–333. Prange, S., S.D. Gehrt, and E.P. Wiggers. 2004. Influences of anthropogenic resources on raccoon (Procyon lotor) movements and spatial distribution. Journal of Mammalogy 85:4 83–490. Razak, K.A. 2018. Adaptations for substrate gleaning in bats: The Pallid Bat as a case study. Brain Behavior and Evolution 91:97–108. Riley, S., J. Brown, J. Sikich, C. Schoonmaker, and E. Boydston. 2014. Wildlife Friendly W ildlife in urban areas and potential remedies. Pp. 323–360, In R.A. McCleery, C.E. Moorman, and M.N. Peterson. Urban Wildlife Conservation: Theory and Practice. Springer, Boston, MA, USA. 408 pp. Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 75 17 Rovero, F., F. Zimmermann, D. Berzi, and P. Meek. 2013. “Which camera trap type and how many do I need?” A review of camera features and study designs for a range of wildlife research applications. Hystrix-Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24:148–156. Scheffers, B.R., and C.A. Paszkowski. 2013. Amphibian use of urban stormwater wetlands: The role of natural habitat features. Landscape and Urban Planning 1 13:139–149. Schmidt, B., and S. Zumbach. 2008. Amphibian road mortality and how to prevent it: A review. Pp.157–167, In J. Mitchell, R.E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartolomew. Urban Herpetology, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. 608 pp. Silver, S. 2004. Assessing jaguar abundance using remotely triggered cameras. Wildlife Conservation Society 38:148–154. Soultan, A., O. Attum, and W. Lahue. 2021. The relationship between landscape features and domestic species on the occupancy of native mammals in urban forests. Urban Ecosystems 24(6):1117–1128. Sparling, D., J. Eisemann, and W. Kuenzel. 2007. Nesting and foraging behavior of Red-winged Blackbirds in stormwater wetlands. Urban Ecosystems 10:1–15. Timmerman, L., and R.V. McDaniel. 1992. Maternity colony of Gray Bats in a non-cave site. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 46:108–109. Tran, H.D. 2016. Markov-based reliability assessment for hydraulic design of concrete stormwater pipes. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 142:1–5. UF/IFAS Extension. 2012. UF Clean Water Campaign. Available online at https://soils.ifas.ufl.edu/ campuswaterquality Accessed 28 Nov 2022. Van der Zee, F.F., J. Wiertz, C.J.F. Ter Braak, and R.C. van Apeldoorn. 1992. Landscape change as a possible cause of the Badger Meles meles L. decline in the Netherlands. Biological Conservation 61:17–22. Van Gelder, J.J. 1973. Quantitative approach to mortality resulting from traffic in a population of Bufo bufo L. Oecologia 13:93–95. Villalobos-Hoffman, R., J.E. Ewing, and M.S. Mooring. 2022. Do wildlife crossings mitigate the roadkill mortality of tropical mammals? A case study from Costa Rica. Diversity 14:665. Webb, E.N., H.K. Ober, E.C. Braun de Torrez, J.A. Gore, and R. Zambrano. 2021. Urban roosts: Use of buildings by Florida Bonneted Bats. Urban Naturalist 42:1–1 1. Wojtaszyn, G., T. Rutkowski, W. Stephan, and L. Kozirog. 2013. Urban drainage systems as important bat hibernacula in Poland. Fragmenta Faunistica 56:83–88. Zeitler, E.F., M.A. Lashley, A. Blanc, L.R. Davis, S.E. Dill, O.H. McGehee, B.A. McLean, and E.C. Smith. 2023. Remote cameras capture dung burial by Burrowing Cr icket. Food Webs 36:e00301. Urban Naturalist A.A. Ivory II, M.T. Hallett, B. Scheffers, and S.A. Johnson 2024 No. 76 18 Appendix 1. Camera-trap site identification and locations. SiteID Lat Long Sewershed Type Deployment Type 13 29.6711 −82.3363 System Manhole 16 29.7136 −82.3589 System Open Pipe 17 29.7118 −82.3591 Culvert Grate 21 29.6612 −82.3433 System Manhole 23 29.6540 −82.3384 System Manhole 24 29.6881 −82.3822 System Manhole 25 29.6533 −82.3293 System Manhole 48 29.6486 −82.3412 System Grate 51 29.6462 −82.3514 System Open Pipe 52 29.7595 −82.4124 System Grate 53 29.7504 −82.4099 Culvert Grate 54 29.7580 −82.4167 System Grate 57 29.6349 −82.3688 System Grate 59 29.7108 −82.3586 Culvert Manhole 60 29.6845 −82.3806 System Manhole 64 29.5954 −82.3957 System Manhole 66 29.5957 −82.3946 System Manhole 67 29.5957 −82.3946 System Manhole 68 29.6386 −82.3525 System Grate 71 29.6629 −82.3581 System Manhole 72 29.6283 −82.3969 System Grate 75 29.6451 −82.3475 System Grate 76 29.6440 −82.3453 System Manhole 77 29.6880 −82.3822 System Manhole 78 29.6629 −82.3582 System Manhole 79 29.6236 −82.3977 Culvert Grate 81 29.6613 −82.3433 System Manhole 82 29.6351 −82.3616 Culvert Grate 83 29.6463 −82.3514 System Open Pipe 84 29.6414 −82.3461 Culvert Grate 85 29.6443 −82.3509 Culvert Open Pipe 86 29.6427 −82.3529 Culvert Open Pipe 89 29.6215 −82.3398 Culvert Grate 90 29.5278 −82.3077 Culvert Open Pipe 91 29.6247 −82.2584 Culvert Open Pipe 92 29.6688 −82.3353 System Manhole 93 29.6688 −82.3352 System Manhole 94 29.7627 −82.4187 Culvert Open Pipe 95 29.6307 −82.3662 Culvert Open Pipe