Alachua County Ecological Inventory Project

A Landscape Evaluation Decision Support System
Alachua County, Florida

ALACHUACOUNTY

ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY PROJECT

Prepared For:

Alachua County Department of Growth Management

Office of Planning & Development

10 SW Second Avenue, Third Floor

Gainesville, Florida 32601

Prepared By:

KBN, A Golder Associates Company

6241 NW 23rd Street, Suite 500

Gainesville, Florida 32653-1500

___________________________________________________________________________

	TABLE OF CONTENTS

	EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	ES-1
	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1.0	INTRODUCTION	1-1
2.0	SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY	2-1
	2.1 SPECIFIC SCOPE OF WORK	2-1
	2.2 SPECIFIC METHODOLOGIES	2-1
	2.2.1 SITE IDENTIFICATION	2-3
	2.2.2 BOUNDARY IDENTIFICATION	2-3
	2.2.3 LISTED SPECIES IDENTIFICATION	2-4
	2.2.4 INVENTORYING	2-4
	2.2.5 COMPILING SITE SUMMARY DATA	2-5
	2.2.6 ECOLOGICAL MAPPING	2-7
	2.2.7 MAP DIGITIZATION	2-8
	2.2.8 SITE RANKING	2-8
3.0	NATURAL AREAS DESCRIPTIONS	3-1
4.0	RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS	4-1
	4.1 SITE RANKINGS	4-1
	4.2 SITE SUMMARIES	4-5
5.0	SUMMARY OF FINDINGS	5-1
	LITERATURE REVIEW	REF-1
	APPENDICES
A	LIST OF USGS QUADRANGLE MAPS OF THE INVENTORIES SITES	A-1
B	BIOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY TO RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY	B-1
C	ALACHUA COUNTY RESOURCE AREAS THAT WERE NOT INVENTORIED	C-1
D	MINUTES OF THE PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS	D-1
E	EXAMPLES OF FIELD DATA SHEETS	E-1

	LIST OF TABLES

2-1	List of Parameters/Subparameters and Scoring Used for Site Rankings	2-9
4-1	Summary of Individual Subparameter Scores for Each Site	4-2
4-2	Site Rankings Based on Subparameter Scores	4-3
4-3	Site Rankings Based on Parameter Scores	4-4

	LIST OF FIGURES
1-1	Location of Alachua County	1-2
1-2	Alachua County Ecological Inventories Site Boundaries	1-3

_________________________________________________________________________________

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this ecological inventory is to identify, inventory, map, describe, and evaluate the most significant natural biological communities, both upland and wetland, that remain in private ownership in Alachua County and make recommendations for protecting these natural resources. This study does not focus on the public water bodies and publicly owned lands in the county, as stated in our agreed-upon contract.

Guidance for identifying the sites to inventory was obtained from the upland inventory of Alachua County that was prepared by KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. (KBN) in 1987, interviews with regional experts, and published and unpublished reports. However, most sites were selected through reviews of aerial photographs of the entire County. Three sets of aerial photographs were used: a 1986 set of infrared photographs (provided by the Alachua County Department of Environmental Services), a 1994 set of black and white photographs which included ownership information (located at the Alachua County Property Appraiser's Office), and a 1995 set of infrared photographs (located at the St. Johns River Water Management District Office). The information obtained for each site was drawn on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps, including existing public conservation lands. Additional sites were identified to connect the larger areas and provide corridors for wildlife species that need large territories to maintain viable populations. In order to allow wildlife and surface water connections, site boundaries were drawn to include streams and drainage systems. A total of 47 sites were identified and mapped.

Property ownership information sufficient to obtain permission for access and for boundary delineation was obtained from the Property Appraiser's Office.

Field work on the sites was initiated as soon as access permission was obtained. In cases where access permission was not obtained, these areas were inventoried by sampling and observing the area from outer boundaries or from roads that crossed the area, and by the use of the aerial photographs. Some stream and river sites were accessed by canoe. Standardized forms were used to record information on the ecological communities present and their quality, the species of plants and animals present in these communities, the presence of endangered species or habitat for endangered species, the presence of exotic species, and the condition of the wildlife habitats.

Definitions of ecological communities from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) 1990 publication were supplemented so that all of the biological communities of Alachua County, whether natural or human created, could be placed in a category that accurately described them.

Mapping of all of the biological communities on each site was done using field generated information, the sets of aerial photographs, and additional field checks as needed. Once completed, the total acreage of the site and the total acreage of each community on each site were calculated and added to the reports.

A numerical scoring and ranking system was developed to determine the relative importance of all the sites based on their ecological, hydrological, and management characteristics. Each site was evaluated and ranked for six parameters by consensus of three scientists familiar with the site. Sites were ranked by comparing their total scores (see Section 2.2.8 and Table 2-1).

The quality of the communities was found to be quite variable. Wetlands and hardwood forests were most often of good quality, whereas the fire-adapted communities such as sandhill and pine flatwoods were mostly of only fair or poor quality. This was usually due to two factors. The fire-adapted communities were usually not burned with prescribed fires often enough to maintain the native flora and fauna of the community or to maintain good-quality wildlife habitat, and these communities were often intentionally cleared of most native flora and fauna during the establishment of pine plantations.

Lists of species found on each site can be found in KBN's field reports (provided under separate cover to Alachua County). Information on the quality of the hydrological and wildlife connections between sites and/or public conservation lands was obtained from both the aerial photographs and from field observations. Most connections between sites were impacted negatively by paved roads. The type of stream crossing used when building roads and the amount of clearing at stream crossings could be altered to greatly improve the connectivity for wildlife.

A brief description of the geologic and hydrologic features of each site was prepared based on various published reports, maps, and personal knowledge. A type of hydrologic alteration frequently noticed was small ditches constructed throughout most of the pine flatwoods areas of the County to enhance the drainage of isolated wetlands.

Information on rare, threatened, and endangered species was obtained from Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) publications, maps, and personnel. Information on wildlife habitat was obtained from the field visits and field reports, from personal knowledge based on previous field visits, from interviews with regional experts, and from published reports. The information was summarized in the individual reports for each site.

Information on exotic species was obtained during the field inventories and from interviews. Exotic species of plants are reported in the site reports. Exotic plants are rapidly becoming a much greater threat to the biological resources of this and all other counties in North Florida.

Exotic animals are not generally mentioned, except where they are especially common or are causing a unique problem. Unlike plants, the exotic animals are not in discrete, stationary patches. Exotic animals are often highly mobile and tend to be spread throughout the county. Exotic animals already are well established in Alachua County. Examples of exotic animals already well established in Alachua County are armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), Asian tiger mosquitoes, and South American fire ants.

An evaluation of the restoration and management potential of each site was made. This often involved evaluating the feasibility of increasing the use of prescribed fire. Significant damage is being caused by the lack of prescribed burning. A public assistance program is recommended to aid and promote prescribed burning in fire-adapted ecological communities on private lands.

Threats to the continued existence of the natural resources of each site were reported, and conservation strategies were recommended. These strategies included purchase, purchase of conservation easements, cooperative efforts and programs, enforcement of dredge and fill regulations and wetlands regulations, use of planning and zoning strategies and regulations, adherence to the Forestry Best Management Practices, and public education. Some loss of the resources found in this inventory is inevitable with the continued growth in human population that is projected to occur. However, the use of these strategies on some of the sites can greatly affect the resulting condition of the natural resources of Alachua County.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people and agencies aided in the preparation of this study and report. We would particularly like to thank Alice Reuman, Cathrin Smith, Kenneth Berk, and Michael Drummond for the long hours they spent and the constructive criticism they provided while serving on the steering committee. Michael Drummond was especially helpful in supplying aerial photographs, maps, and his own personal knowledge of Alachua County. We also want especially to thank the many private and corporate landowners who graciously allowed us to come onto their property. We owe special thanks to both Susan Swiers and Mary Ann Sikes at the Property Appraisers Office for their many offers of help while we worked to map the projects. We also owe a debt of gratitude to Greg Dambek at the St. Johns River Water Management District for supplying the 1995 infrared aerial photographs and the space and equipment for viewing them. We thank Steve Nesbitt, Paul Moler, and John Wooding of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, who spent several hours providing essential information. Other people who freely gave of their time and knowledge to provide information and who deserve thanks are Barbara Muschlitz, Don Jouvenaz, Richard Franz, Steve Humphrey, and John Hintermister.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this project is to obtain information about all the significant areas of natural and semi-natural lands that remain in Alachua County, both upland and wetland, and to evaluate, rank, and make recommendations on conservation strategies. A map showing the location of Alachua County is provided in Figure 1-1, and a map of the sites is provided in Figure 1-2. An inventory of the significant natural uplands was prepared in 1987 by KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc. (KBN). The current study is more comprehensive and more inclusive, covers a much larger area, evaluates wetlands as well as uplands, and includes mapping of ecological connections and biological communities.

This report includes the following appendices:

Appendix ACList of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps of the sites inventories for this project.

Appendix BCBiological Sensitivity to Recreational Activity

Appendix CCAlachua Countyresource areas that were not inventoried.

Appendix DCMinutes of the Project Steering Committee meetings.

Appendix ECExamples of Field Data Sheets.

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK AND METHODOLOGY

The overall objective of this project was evaluate and mark the natural areas which occur in Alachua County. The following is a detailed description of the scope of work which was implemented to meet this objective.

2.1 SPECIFIC SCOPE OF WORK

Task I. Define Natural Ecological Communities

1. Review Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) natural community/plant community classification system.

2. Evaluate previous KBN (1987) natural ecological communities report to determine if the current status for retaining the designation as a resource conservation area is still valid.

3. Establish an FNAI-compatible classification/descriptive system to be applied to both upland and wetland areas in Alachua County.

Task II. Develop Ranking Criteria

1. Develop quantifiable ranking criteria and a system to rank natural ecological communities in Alachua County in terms of significance and ability to maintain current or historic biodiversity. Multiple criteria weightings may be proposed; at least one will emphasize maximum water resource protection.

2. Submit the proposed quantifiable ranking criteria and system to the County, SJRWMD, and SRWMD for review and approval, based in part on evaluation of consistency of the proposed system with FNAI, state, regional, and local goals, objectives, policies, and regulations and incorporate requested modification as necessary.

Task III. Prepare Comprehensive Inventory

1. Identify and review existing data sources.

2. Conduct inventory on a county-wide basis.

a. Include incorporated and unincorporated areas,

b. Exclude areas held in public ownership for conservation purposes, except for consideration of relevance in the context of lands previously identified or land adjacent or connected to areas identified pursuant to the current inventory.

3. Review most current available color infra-red aerial photography of the County at a scale of 1:24,000. Review most current available aerial photography of the County at a scale of 1:3,600.

4. Conduct aerial truthing as necessary to confirm initial findings.

5. Conduct ground truthing as directed by the Project Steering Committee.

6. Conduct other reviews and studies, as appropriate.

7. Prioritize for evaluation areas that were preliminarily identified as significant natural ecological communities and which appear to be candidates for retention as resource conservation areas.

8. Apply the approved ranking criteria and system to preliminarily identified natural ecological communities in Alachua County utilizing best available existing data supplemented by additional data collection.

Task IV. Comprehensive Mapping and Digitization

1. Map initially using the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map series or other map series.

2. Complete final mapping using current rectified County digital line graph (DLG) township maps in State Plane coordinates, North Florida zone, 1983 data, overlaid on aerials on a scale of 1 inch = 1,000 ft.

3. Provide mapping electronically in a .DLG3 file format.

4. Convert to other desired coordinate systems and storage media, if possible.

Task V. Site Summaries

1. Produce site summary reports for each natural area and include the following:

a. Description, including total acres of site and acres per community within each site;

b. Viability of the community or communities of primary concern within each site, with emphasis on ecosystem management considerations;

c. Analysis of known or projected adverse impacts on each community and recommended strategies for addressing the impacts;

d. Identification of documented occurrences of rare, threatened, and endangered species and species of special concern as contained on current lists; and

e. Discussion of how the community relates to regional conservation priorities.

Task VI. County-Wide Ranking/Resource Protection Evaluation

1. Provide a priority listing of all sites inventoried, based on quantifiable ranking criteria.

2. Identify and provide a strategy for those areas for which a purchase mechanism is the only available method to preserve community viability.

3. Identify natural, viable landscape linkages between the identified areas.

4. Recommend appropriate strategies to maintain identified linkages.

2.2 SPECIFIC METHODOLOGIES

The following is a discussion of specific methods that were employed in carrying out the scope of work outlined in the previous section.

2.2.1 SITE IDENTIFICATION

Because the 1994 aerial photographs at the Property Appraiser's Office were not available when the project began, the 1986 infrared aerial photographs were used to initially identify potential study areas. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps were marked to indicate all the land in the county that was cleared of vegetation and/or developed. Some of the USGS maps had been updated as of 1993, showing new clearing and development. Potential sites were defined as those areas that were uncleared and undeveloped.

2.2.2 BOUNDARY IDENTIFICATION

Temporary BoundariesCTemporary boundaries were drawn around the sites. Consideration was given to the major floodplain and drainage features of the county, attempting to include all of them within sites. Boundary maps were obtained for all the public conservation lands in the county. These boundaries were added to the quad maps.

Connector BoundariesCBased on the natural lands patterns that emerged, boundaries for connectors between sites and/or public lands were added, primarily using streams and their floodplains and adjacent strips of upland for these connectors. Specifications in the contract required that these boundaries be delineated because the combined wetland and adjacent strip of upland along these streams would provide the best connectors for a broad spectrum of wildlife species (Noss, 1983) and because they are essential watershed connectors. The mapping of connectors necessitated that they be made part of sites or sites in their own right which then necessitated inventory and evaluation.

Boundary FinalizationCBased on the 1994 tax assessor photographs, boundaries were finalized and ownerships determined. Boundaries are characterized as regular in shape or irregular in shape. Examples of regular shape are rectangles and other straight boundaries without multiple incursions. Boundaries are also characterized as conforming or not conforming to existing property boundaries, roads, section lines, or other surveyed lines.

2.2.3 LISTED SPECIES IDENTIFICATION

Consultations occurred with a number of local experts about the occurrence of listed species and important natural features of the sites. Steven Nesbitt, Paul Moler, and John Wooding of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission provided locations, estimated population sizes, and population trends for most of the listed mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Steve Nesbitt provided up to date information on the location of every active bald eagle nest in the county, on every nesting area for Florida sandhill cranes, and on the two wood stork rookeries. He also provided information on other wading bird rookeries. Paul Moler provided similar information for reptiles and amphibians, and John Wooding provided information on Sherman's fox squirrels and Florida black bears. Other people providing information are listed in the bibliography. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission's Habitat Distribution Maps (Arnold, 1995) for selected listed species were also used as a source of information in the endangered species evaluations.

2.2.4 INVENTORY

The inventories were done by David Clayton and Bob Simons, working separately. Landowners were contacted where access was necessary for the survey work, and those lands where access was denied were inventoried using aerial photographs, outside sources of information, and whatever information could be obtained by observations from the property boundary. Initially, a review was made of the USGS topographic quadrangle maps (various dates) and aerial photographs (Alachua County Department of Environmental Services, 1986; Alachua County Property Appraisers Office, 1994; St. Johns River Water Management District, 1995) to determine access, location of communities, drainage features, and karst features. Next, vehicle or pedestrian surveys of all accessible areas were used to get an overall view; to discern as many biocommunities as possible; to look for exotic species, listed species, or signs or habitat for listed species; and to evaluate the overall wildlife habitat and the condition of the communities. Specific sites were chosen to inventory in more detail.

Limitations for this survey were the large number of sites, the vast acreage, and the restricted time available. Thousands of acres on 47 sites were surveyed within 8 weeks, necessitating limited survey time on the larger sites. Terrestrial species were emphasized because 90 percent of the area surveyed is terrestrial.

2.2.5 COMPILING SITE SUMMARY DATA

Definition of Community Quality Designations

The biological communities on each site were evaluated for overall ecosystem quality. While the scope of the project precluded certain statistical analyses, the approach taken combined limited site visits and judgment based on other sources of information. Some decisions were made on the basis of aerial photography combined with a judgment based on the general condition of such ecosystems throughout Alachua County. Most communities were visited in the field at least once. Evaluations of quality are based primarily on the biodiversity and functional integrity of the community as reported in the field data sheets or by the evaluators.

Community quality was determined to be excellent if:

1. It had all the functional components it would normally have in a natural situation (canopy habitat, cavities, structural diversity, micro-habitat diversity, and healthy and diverse ground cover are examples) and appeared to have nearly the full set of species it would normally have;

2. It was not being seriously invaded by exotic species; and

3. It had not been seriously altered by human impacts other than those that have impacted the entire county.

Community quality was determined to be good if:

1. It is still functioning as it should, for the most part;

2. It had a good representation of the plant and animal species it would have under natural conditions;

3. It had the potential to return to excellent condition in a few decades given adaquate protection or if it was managed with commonly used management techniques such as prescribed burning, but without special and expensive restoration techniques such as the reintroduction of ground cover species.

Typical examples are second growth forests, old pine plantations on pine flatwoods sites with good ground cover and micro-site diversity, and little drainage of wetlands.

Community quality was determined to be fair if it had serious problems (i.e., heavily damaged ground cover, young pine plantation, bedded soil, or extensively drained wetlands) but could be returned to good condition in a few decades with a combination of commonly used management techniques and some restoration work.

Community quality was determined to be poor if it had been impacted by human activities to the point that it seemed unlikely that it could be returned to good condition without a full-scale restoration effort. An area that was sandhill or pine flatwoods, but that now has almost no native ground cover or native fauna would be an example.

Connections Definitions

In evaluating the quality of connections, a rating system was developed. The connections were rated as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Sometimes, a connection was rated as intermediate between two of these categories and was given a rating such as fair/poor or good/fair. In order to be rated at all, the connection had to be short, generally less than 1/4 of a mile. Longer connections that are significant functional corridors were included in the report as separate sites and inventoried and evaluated as such.

An excellent connection is one that is not bisected by a paved road or has a bridge at the point of connection, is forested, and has a broad and continuous corridor with a stream and associated stream floodplain and also a continuous band or area of upland habitat.

A good connection may be bisected by a road or may lack one of the other attributes of an excellent connection, but is forested and has a functional corridor for aquatic, wetland, and upland species.

A fair connection is one that lacks some significant qualities but is still a functional corridor to some degree for many species. It may lack a stream, or it may lack a band of upland habitat, or it may be very narrow in part, or it may have such a large highway bisecting it that the corridor values are significantly reduced.

A poor connection is one that lacks most of the qualities of a good connection and would require restoration to be a functional corridor for most terrestrial, wetland, and aquatic species. A frequent condition of poor connections is that a major highway bisects the connection without there being a stream with a large culvert that would allow some animals to cross. Another example is a stream passing through an area that has been completely cleared of native habitat.

2.2.6 ECOLOGICAL MAPPING

After the sites were inventoried, the ecological mapping was begun. Three sets of aerial photographs (Alachua County Environmental Services, 1986; Alachua County Property Appraiser, 1994; St. Johns River Water Management District, 1995) were used in this effort, together with the inventory data. Wetlands vegetation maps obtained from the St. John's River Water Management District were used to check the field findings, and aerial photographs were used for all mapping.

The categories of communities used were based on the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) categories. Most of the FNAI categories were not modified. However, it was necessary to add a few new categories, either because communities in the field did not fit any of the existing FNAI categories or because it was necessary to subdivide a category to give more complete and detailed information. For example, human-altered ecosystems are not covered by the FNAI system but exist on most sites and needed to be mapped. In addition, some natural communities categories were added because some biocommunities were obviously distinctly different from any of the FNAI categories. For example, the forests of black willow and river birch along the Santa Fe River are different from the descriptions of any FNAI category. Similarly, the shrub swamp at Bird Island and several other shrub swamps in other parts of the county do not fit any FNAI category. Categories were added only to provide a more accurate and more detailed descriptions of the natural resources of the sites. Most of the designations are unaltered FNAI categories. All changes are noted and explained in the biological community descriptions. All non-FNAI categories are noted by an asterisk in the site descriptions.

2.2.7 MAP DIGITIZATION

A set of Geographic Information System (GIS) digitized maps of all sites including all of the biological communities that were mapped was constructed. The GIS provides the ability to accurately assess the acreage of each site, the acreage of each biocommunity type on each site, and the overall acreage of wetlands on each site.

2.2.8 SITE RANKING

A numerical scoring and ranking system was developed to determine the relative importance of the sites based on their ecological, hydrological, and management characteristics. Each site was evaluated and ranked by three project scientists for six ecological, hydrological, and management parameters. In some cases, a parameter was subdivided into subparameters to better define the relationship. Definitions were developed for each parameter and subparameter. Table 2-1 provides a list of these parameters and subparameters and their definitions. Based on these definitions, a score of 1 (low) to 5 (high) was assigned by consensus to each site based on the characteristics it exhibited. These scores were summed to obtain a total site score. Sites were ranked by comparing their total scores.

Since the number of parameters and subparameters have a built-in weighting, several types of summing were done to examine built-in parameter bias in the final rankings. A total score for each site based on all parameters and subparameters was calculated. In this scenario, each subparameter is of equal weight to any other subparameter. Subparameters are also of equal weight to parameters with no subparameters. For example, the parameter Endangered Species Habitat Value is equal in weight to Species Diversity, a subparameter of the Vegetation Value parameter. A second ranking was done where parameters were of given equal weight (average values were calculated for parameters with subparameters).

Table 2-1. List of Parameters/Subparameters and Scoring Used for Site Rankings

I. VEGETATION VALUE

A. Species Diversity

Based on relative numbers of species of vegetation recorded or estimated at site.

1. Very low.

2. Low.

3. Moderate.

4. High.

5. Very high.

B. Exotics

1. Area has extensive invasive exotics and extensive control required.

2. Area has some invasive exotics, control is required and can be successful.

3. Some exotics present and landscape is conducive for introduction of exotic plants and/or animals.

4. Exotics not present but landscape is conducive for introduction of exotic plants and /or animals.

5. Exotics not present and not easily introduced.

II. ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT VALUE (PLANTS AND ANIMALS)

A. Habitat not conducive for listed species, or no species likely.

B. Habitat potential for listed species low, or not good habitat for any listed species, but occasional use or occurrence possible.

C. Habitat potential for some listed species moderate, or good habitat for one or more species.

D. Habitat potential for some listed species high, or very good habitat for one or more listed species.

1. Habitat potential for many listed species excellent, or the best habitat for one or more listed species.

III. WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUE

A. Sparse cover, high edge to area ratio and poor breeding, nesting and foraging habitat for game and non-game species.

B. Moderate cover, high edge to area ratio, nesting and foraging habitat, transient use by game and non-game animals.

C. Moderate cover, medium edge to area ratio, commonly used by game and non-game animals.

D. Moderate cover, with low edge to cover ratio, good foraging habitat.

E. High cover, low edge to area ratio, high cover and forage value, area used for breeding and feeding by game and non-game animals.

IV. HYDROLOGY

A. Floridan Aquifer Groundwater

Measure this value primarily by using water management district Floridan Aquifer recharge maps (SJRMD, 1993; SRWMD, 1995) combined with percent of ultimate stream destination which flows into the Floridan Aquifer. Evaluation will range from little value for the confined zone to great importance for the unconfined zone.

1. Little value for aquifer recharge.

2. Good value for aquifer recharge.

3. Significant importance for most values for aquifer recharge.

4. Great importance for aquifer recharge, some karst features.

5. Karst watershed, stream to sink system.

B. Surface Water and Surficial Aquifer Resource Protection and Flood Protection

Measure this value by estimating the amount of wetlands, the amount of area within the 100-year floodplain of streams, and the volume of water that can be stored.

Value = water storage ability of the particular property;

Protection of surface water = size of property.

1. Little value for water storage or protection of surface water quality.

2. Some value for water storage or protection of surface water quality.

3. Significant value for water storage or protection of surface water quality.

4. Significant importance for most values for water storage or protection of surface water quality.

5. Great importance for water storage or protection of surface water, especially if as a part of a karst watershed.

C. Vulnerability of Floridan Aquifer

Measure this value by assessment of possible contamination and use the Florida Geological Open File Report No. 21 (Macesich, 1988) for additional data.

1. Very low.

2. Low.

3. Moderate.

4. High.

5. Very High.

V. LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY

A. Community Diversity

1. One to three communities of good quality.

2. Four to seven communities of good quality.

3. Eight to eleven communities of good quality.

4. Twelve to fifteen communities of good quality.

5. Sixteen or more communities of good quality.

B. Ecological Quality

This value is based on the evaluations of community quality as defined in Section 2.2.8.

List any significant endemics and note maturity of community.

1. Community types in poor condition.

2. Community types in fair condition.

3. Community types in good condition.

4. Community types in excellent condition.

5. Extraordinary example due either to rarity or quality.

C. Community Rarity (see definition in Section 2.2.8)

1. Habitat secure, quite common in Florida.

2. Habitat frequent in Florida.

3. Habitat local, but not rare.

4. Habitat rare, 6 to 20 occurrences.

5. Habitat critically imperiled, less than 5 occurrences.

D. Functional Connectedness

Riparian corridor given slightly greater weight.

1. Isolated, no functional connections.

2. Connected to other natural areas, but connections narrow.

3. Connected to two or more other natural areas.

4. Connected to other natural areas, with wide connections (contiguous).

5. Provides important connection between two or more public natural lands.

VI. MANAGEMENT POTENTIAL

A. Too small and/or degraded for maintenance or reestablishment of normal ecosystem processes, such as periodic burning or flooding. Highly vulnerable to uncontrollable external impacts. Probably beyond hope.

B. Location and/or extent of degradation would make management difficult and expensive. Questionable whether protection/restoration programs would be successful.

C. Could be maintained in or restored to good condition, but would require vigilant management. Location and/or historic use suggests chronic problems with trespassers and/or neighbors. Special programs such as exotic plant removal or hydrological restoration required. Difficult location for management.

D. Habitats in good condition, but requiring regular attention, such as prescribed burning. Effective buffering from most external impacts possible. Location and surrounding land uses reasonably convenient for management.

E. Low-maintenance habitat types in excellent condition. Inherently well buffered from most external impacts. Location minimizes problems with trespassers and neighbors and facilitates management access.

The following are more detailed discussions regarding some specific methods employed or assumptions used in scoring for these parameters.

Vegetation Value/Species DiversityCThis was evaluated based on an estimate of the total number of plant species inhabiting the area. The species lists made during field visits were used as a guide, but were not the only guide, since some sites were inventoried more thoroughly than others due to access differences, size differences, etc. In other words, this value was assigned on the basis of a qualitative judgment rather than on a strictly numerical basis as originally planned. The most diverse sites got 5 points, the least diverse sites got 1 point, and the others fell in between.

ExoticsCThis was evaluated strictly according to the scoring system. Most of the data came from site visits and are reported in the site summaries, but information from knowledgeable people was also used. The evaluation is based almost entirely on exotic plants with one exception. There are exotic animals such as armadillos and fire ants on all the sites, and they have a dramatic effect on populations of native animals, but since they are already fully distributed throughout the County, there is no need to evaluate each area (Carr, 1971-1987; Jouvenaz, 1994). The one unique site is Bird Island. It has no habitat for armadillos or fire ants, which are on virtually all other sites, but is impacted significantly by cattle egrets.

Endangered Species Habitat ValueCThis evaluation was done strictly according to the ranking system. Most of the information used was obtained from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Steven Nesbitt, Paul Moler, and John Wooding provided detailed, up-to-date information. In addition, the habitat distribution maps from this agency were consulted for each site (Arnold, 1995). However, some information was also gathered in the field, especially with regard to gopher tortoises and listed plants. The resulting evaluation for almost all the sites was determined by the listed animals, but listed plants did play a part on several and were the determining factor on at least two sites.

Wildlife Habitat ValueCThis was a qualitative evaluation based on multiple factors, including availability of cover, water, tree cavities, and burrows; production of mast and browse; diversity of habitats; the health of the ground cover, the ratio of edge to interior habitat; and the amount and diversity of wildlife seen using the area. The scoring system was intended to be qualitative, and was followed closely, adding some additional information such as the actual observed wildlife use. (Mast is defined as nuts and fruits used as food by wildlife. Browse is defined as leaves, twigs, and buds used as food by wildlife.)

Hydrology/Floridan Aquifer RechargeCThis was based on an estimate of the percentage of the water of the area that ultimately recharges the Floridan aquifer combined with a determination of whether or not there is a concentrated karst recharge point at the end of some percentage of the streams that drain the area. The ranking system was followed without alteration.

HydrologyCSurface water and surficial aquifer protection and flood protection. This evaluation was based on a combined evaluation of the size and number and storage capacity of wetlands, and the size and number and length of streams. Karst watersheds were given higher ratings. The ranking system was followed without alteration.

Hydrology/Vulnerability of Floridan AquiferCThis was based on the combinations of whether or not the area is underlain by the Hawthorn formation, whether (and what fraction of) the down stream flow from the area enters a recharge point to the Floridan aquifer, and whether there is a direct karst opening to the aquifer on the site. This closely follows the intent of the ranking system.

Landscape Ecology/Community DiversityCThis was based on a direct count of the native ecological communities in good condition on the site. This is the most quantitative of the scores. A change made was to increase the number of communities needed to achieve each score. The categories were changed from evaluation by twos to evaluation by threes.

Ecological QualityCThis was based primarily on field evaluations of the quality of each community combined with photointerpretation of the current condition of the communities throughout the full expanse of the site. It was found that the upland pine, sandhill, mesic flatwoods, wet flatwoods, and wet prairie communities were generally highly altered by human uses, whereas the hardwood forests, most wetlands, and most aquatic communities were in relatively good condition. This is a qualitative evaluation that averages conditions for large areas. The scoring system was followed closely. Poor communities were those which were highly altered, and, for example, had little or no original ground cover, and altered soils. Fair communities were those with some original ground cover and little soil alteration. Good sites had most of the original ground cover and species present. Excellent communities had little disturbance and all of the original species present. Extraordinary sites had virtually no disturbance and the original species present.

Community RarityCThis was scored as to whether or not a relatively rare community existed on the site. The highest score, 5 points for a globally critically imperiled habitat, was not awarded to any community. Four points for a Florida rare habitat were awarded only three times, once for the limerock outcrop fern habitat at Buzzards Roost, once for the first magnitude spring, major spring run, and major river at Hornsby Spring, and once for the major river at the Santa Fe River. Three points for local habitat that is not rare statewide were given to the following communities: slope forest, caves (either dry or aquatic, including swallow holes), uvalas, large seepage slopes, small springs, slough, swale, and strand swamp. Two points for communities common in Florida but not secure in Alachua County habitats were given to the following habitats: wading bird rookeries, scrub, scrubby flatwoods, restorable upland pine forest, calcarious mesic hammock, wet prairie, and sinkhole ponds. All other communities received one point. The score for the site as a whole was the highest score achieved by any one community.

Functional ConnectednessCThis was evaluated based on how well the area was connected to other areas, how many other areas to which it was connected, and whether or not the connected areas are protected in public ownership. The ranking system was followed exactly. Slightly greater weight was assigned if a riparian corridor was present.

Management PotentialCThis was an evaluation of how possible it would be to manage the area for protection of the natural resources. The instructions in the scoring system were followed.

3.0 NATURAL AREAS DESCRIPTIONS

The following community descriptions conform to those used by FNAI. Some adjustments have been made to more closely align the communities with the associations found in Alachua County (see Section 2.3.5, Specific Methodologies). Typical species have been listed for each community as found in Alachua County.

Occurrence of fires is highly variable. The terms used to describe fire frequency regardless of season in this report are:

1. Frequent = 1 to 3 years

2. Occasional = 3 to 8 years

3. Rare = 8 or more years (often much longer, e.g. 100 years).

UPLAND/TERRESTRIAL

XERIC UPLANDS

Very well-drained sands with poor water and nutrient holding capacity supporting xeric-adapted vegetation.

Sandhill

When managed with fire, this is a very open, sunny forest of pine and deciduous oak with a grass and wild flower ground cover. The low intensity ground fires occurred naturally every 1 to 3 years before the advent of fire suppression.

Characteristic plants are longleaf pine, turkey oak, wire grass, sandhill dropseed, blazing star, and bracken fern. There are several hundred other plant species that can occur in the ground cover of this community.

Characteristic animals are Sherman's fox squirrel, pocket gopher, gray fox, bobwhite quail, Southwestern kestrel (sparrow hawk), red-headed woodpecker, Bachman's sparrow, gopher tortoise, Florida pine snake, and Florida gopher frog.

Typical condition in Alachua County now is conversion to a slash pine plantation with remnants of sandhill ground cover flora, a few turkey oaks, and a few gopher tortoises.

Former Sandhill

This sandhill habitat is almost identical to sandhill. It is very open and has most of the same plant species, but has been invaded with water oak, sand live oak, upland laurel oak, and loblolly pine. When properly managed with fire, this former sandhill habitat will return to the open, sunny sandhill forest of longleaf pine and turkey oak with a grass and wild flower ground cover. Low intensity ground fires occurred naturally every 1 to 3 years before the advent of fire suppression.

Characteristic plants are similar to sandhill with the addition of water oak, sand live oak, upland laurel oak, and loblolly pine.

Characteristic animals are the same as those found in sandhills.

Scrub

This is a thicket of evergreen shrubs and small trees. It often has an overstory of sand pine in other places, but not in Alachua County, and has little in the way of ground cover except for lichens. Fires necessary to maintain this habitat often develop as very severe crown fires that occur on an erratic and variable cycle ranging from 5 to 100 years.

Characteristic plants include sand pine, sand live oak, myrtle oak, chapman oak, crookedwood, Florida rosemary, saw palmetto, scrub palmetto, and deermoss (terrestrial lichens). There are about 50 plant species that only grow in this habitat, but most of these do not occur in Alachua County.

Characteristic animals: spotted skunk, oldfield mouse, Florida scrub jay, rufous-sided towhee, coachwhip, mole skink, and scrub lizard. Other listed animals that occur here are gopher tortoise, Eastern indigo snake, and Florida mouse.

Xeric Hammock

This is a closed canopy forest with only moderate shade and an understory containing the characteristic shrubs listed below. Fire is infrequent or rare. Characteristic plants include sand live oak, saw palmetto, crooked- wood, sparkleberry, beautyberry, scrub beakrush, and bracken fern. Other plants often present include live oak, laurel oak, pignut hickory, magnolia, huckleberry, and deerberry.

Characteristic animals include spadefoot toad and southern hognosed snake. Other animals usually common here include gray squirrel, white-tailed deer, armadillo, Carolina wren, blue jay, and cardinal.

MESIC UPLANDS

These areas are well drained and have soils with moderate to good fertility and moisture holding capacity due to varying amounts of clay, phosphatic rock, and/or limerock in the subsoil and usually a fair amount of organic matter in the topsoil. Depending on both fire history and soil type, the forest may be a pine forest similar to sandhill or may be a tall, dense hardwood forest.

SlopeForest

This is a densely shaded hardwood/pine forest type that occurs on moderate to steep slopes with a clay subsoil underneath and adjacent to uplands with a clay layer underneath such that a continuous supply of water seeps down hill within reach of the plant roots. sand/clay substrate. Fire is very rare and never intense.

Characteristic plants are magnolia, beech, spruce pine, shumard oak, water oak, Florida maple, sweetgum and basswood.

Common animals are white-tailed deer, gray squirrel, pileated woodpecker, parula warbler, red-eyed vireo, red-shouldered hawk, and yellow rat snake.

UplandMixed Forest

Usually called mesic hammock in this area, this is a tall, dense, closed canopy hardwood forest on level to moderately sloping fertile soil. Drainage may range from rather poor to excellent, but there is no flooding. Fire is rare and never intense.

Characteristic plants are pignut hickory, laurel oak, water oak, sweetgum, swamp chestnut oak, white ash, basswood and spruce pine in the overstory and hop-hornbeam in the understory. Many other plant species are usually present including many kinds of vines such as wild grape, poison-ivy, and Virginia creeper and many shade tolerant herbaceous plants such as violets, spike grass, woods grass, and partridge berry in the ground cover.

Common animals include white-tailed deer, armadillo, gray squirrel, wild turkey, pileated woodpecker, red-bellied woodpecker, red-eyed vireo, summer tanager, parula warbler, box turtle, and yellow rat snake.

Calcarious Mesic Hammock

This comes under the heading of upland mixed forest in the FNAI classification, but is distinct enough in north central Florida to warrant a separate category. The soils are moderately to well drained, sandy with varying amounts of organic matter and sometimes clay, overlying limerock that is near the surface. The forest is a densely shaded hardwood forest of high diversity and usually has a dense and diverse ground cover of herbaceous plants.

Characteristic plants are the same as for upland mixed forest except that laurel oak and water oak are not common and sugarberry, winged elm, shumard oak, and especially redbay are common. Some plants that are largely restricted to this habitat are soapberry, bluff oak, Florida maple, climbing buckthorn, Godfrey's privet, Carolina buckthorn, silver buckthorn, virgin's bower, and rouge berry.

UplandPine Forest

When managed with fire, this is an open forest of pine and deciduous oaks and hickory with a ground cover of grasses and wild flowers. It is very similar in appearance and ecology to sandhill. However, the soil is more fertile, with some clay at least in the subsoil and sometimes throughout the soil profile and often with some limerock near the surface. The natural fire frequency and intensity is the same as in sandhill or slightly more frequent and hotter due to the greater fuel loads produced by the more fertile soil.

Characteristic plants are longleaf pine, southern red oak, post oak, mockernut hickory, chinquapin, sassafras, New Jersey tea, yellow hawthorn, rusty blackhaw, and wire grass.

Other common plants include bluejack oak, sand post oak, and a great many herbaceous plants. With protection from fire, this community quickly becomes invaded by laurel oak, live oak, water oak, sweetgum, loblolly pine, and many other hammock species.

Characteristic animals are the same as for sandhill. Indeed, these two habitats have historically been placed together in one main category called high pine.

ROCKLANDS

Biological communities having limerock exposed at the surface.

Sinkhole

This category includes all sinkholes that do not hold water up to the rim or near to it for most of the year. Those that hold water to the rim are in the sinkhole lake category. Those that hold water permanently, but have significant slope above the water fit in both this and the sinkhole lake category. Some sinkholes do not have exposed limerock, but may have special habitat features, such as a different community of plants than the surrounding landscape or different microclimate. The plant community is often upland mixed forest. Those with steep limestone walls often have a very distinct flora of liverworts, mosses, ferns, herbs, shrubs, and hardwood trees.

FLATWOODS

Pine forests with dense herbaceous or dense evergreen shrub ground covers on flat poorly drained sandy soils with an admixture of organic material and often with a hard pan within three feet of the surface. The soil pH is often very low. Typical animals here include black bear, white-tailed deer, cottontail, cotton rat, towhee, yellowthroat, pine warbler, brown-headed nuthatch, black racer, diamondback rattlesnake, and pinewoods tree frog.

The typical conditions of all three kinds of pine flatwoods in Alachua County is slash pine plantations on sites that have been bedded.

Wet Flatwoods

Pine forest on seasonally flooded, sandy soil. Fires of low to moderate intensity every 2 to 5 years.

Characteristic plants are slash pine, pond pine, loblolly bay, gallberry, fetterbush, wax-myrtle, redroot, Virginia chain fern.

Mesic Flatwoods

Pine forest on land that rarely floods, but has saturated soil during wet periods and low soil moisture throughout the root zone during droughts. The natural fire cycle of moderate intensity fires is every 1 to 4 years.

Characteristic plants are longleaf pine, saw palmetto, gallberry, dwarf blueberry, dwarf huckleberry, and wire grass. Slash pine has become the most common tree on most areas of this community due to fire protection and planting.

Scrubby Flatwoods

Pine forest above a dense woody shrub thicket growing on a layer of well drained sand that is on top of poorly drained, flat subsoil. The fire cycle of moderate to intense fires varies from every 2 to perhaps every 10 years.

Characteristic plants are longleaf pine, slash pine, (and sometimes pond pine here in Alachua County), sand live oak, myrtle oak, chapman oak, saw palmetto, fetterbush, huckleberry, crookedwood, tarflower, flatwoods pawpaw, scrub hedge-hyssop, and pennyroyal.

PALUSTRINE

Prairie Hammock

This is hammock forest occurring next to or surrounded by wet prairie on large, flat basins that are usually of karst origin. It is usually slightly elevated above the rest of the basin on sandy or organic soil over a marl or limestone substrate and its species composition is shaped in part by rare to occasional prolonged flooding and occasional fire.

Characteristic plants are live oak and cabbage palm.

Characteristic animals are bobcat, raccoon, barred owl, great horned owl, barn owl, red-shouldered hawk, yellow rat snake, and diamondback rattlesnake, all of which hunt the rodent population of the prairie and use the forest for cover, roosting, and nesting. King snakes, scarlet king snakes, scarlet snakes, coral snakes, Eastern indigo snakes, and corn snakes may also be common.

Hydric Hammock

These are mixed forests of hardwoods, pine, red cedar, and/or cabbage palm on low, flat land with sand or clay or organic soil, often over limestone. Conditions are mesic to mildly hydric with some occasional flooding. Fire is infrequent and generally mild, although hammocks dominated by cabbage palm can produce and withstand very hot fires.

Characteristic plants are live oak, water oak, swamp laurel oak, cabbage palm, southern red cedar, loblolly pine, Florida elm, sweetgum, red maple, sugarberry, sweetbay, persimmon, hornbeam, walter viburnum, green haw, rattan vine, greenbriar, and trumpet creeper.

Characteristic animals include white-tailed deer, gray squirrel, raccoon, wild hog, wild turkey, swallow-tailed kite, red-shouldered hawk, barred owl, acadian flycatcher, and box turtle.

Wet Prairie

These are small to vast expanses of grassland or shallow marsh occupying flat basins on sandy soils that often have a substantial clay or organic component. The main areas of this community in Alachua County are on the drier parts of karst prairies like Paynes Prairie and Kanapaha Prairie. However, flat, shallow wetlands of herbaceous vegetation in pine flatwoods areas are also included in this category. Under natural conditions, both fire and flooding are frequent.

The most characteristic plant is maidencane, but most karst prairies have been so altered by drainage, fire protection, cattle grazing, mowing, fertilizing, sewage effluent, etc. that a large assortment of native and exotic weedy plants often dominate. Karst prairies usually surround a basin marsh that occupies the center of the basin, whereas flatwoods prairies may or may not have deeper areas of marsh.

Characteristic animals of the prairie include marsh rabbit, round-tailed muskrat, cotton rat, sandhill crane, harrier (marsh hawk).

SEEPAGE WETLANDS

These are sloped or flat sands or peat with very stable, constant high moisture levels maintained by downslope or lateral seepage combined with good outlet drainage. Vegetation can be dominated by either forest, shrubs, or herbs, depending on fire history and the volume per unit area of seepage.

Bog

Bogs occur on deep peat kept saturated by lateral seepage and capillary action. There is little fluctuation in water levels, and the plant growth is floating on the surface, so that it goes up and down to some extent with the water level. Fire is quite variable, from none to occasional, and can be severe.

Characteristic plants are sphagnum moss, fetterbush, bamboo-vine, loblolly bay, and sometimes slash pine.

Other plants often present are pond-cypress, swamp tupelo, hooded pitcher plant, and tall blackberry.

Bogs are great escape cover for black bears and support some alligators, frogs, crayfish, etc.

Baygall

Usually called bayheads, these seepage wetlands may be on the side or base of a slope on either inorganic or organic soil. They are usually at the head of or beside a stream or tributary that provides good outflow drainage. The soil is kept saturated by downslope or lateral seepage. Flooding does not occur or is very mild and fire is rare or infrequent.

Characteristic plants are swamp tupelo, loblolly bay, sweetbay, and swamp bay, with evergreen shrubs and several kinds of ferns common in the understory.

Seepage Slope

Another name for this community is shrub bog. It occurs where massive downslope or lateral seepage continually comes to the surface on the side of a hill or at the head of a small stream. The soil is almost always very wet but never floods above the normal level. Fire is frequent, occasional, or rare.

Characteristic plants include sphagnum moss, fetterbush, gallberry, titi, poison sumac, white wild azalea, highbush blueberry, maleberry, Virginia willow, chokeberry, elderberry, tall blackberry, and bamboo-vine. Many other interesting plant species occur in this habitat in Clay County and in the Florida panhandle, but these do not occur in Alachua County.

SeepageSlope Forest

Seepage slope forests are wetlands characterized by forested slopes with moisture maintained by downslope seepage such that the ground is usually saturated but rarely inundated. They generally occur where water percolating down through the sand hits an impermeable layer. Instead of being in discrete pockets like baygalls, these forests often occur along the entire slope of a stream.

Characteristic plants include swamp tupelo, water oak, sweetgum, red maple, sweetbay, wax-myrtle, pond pine, large gallberry, dahoon holly, cinnamon fern, Virginia chain fern, yellow-eyed-grass, and various other grasses and sedges.

FLOODPLAIN WETLANDS

These are flat, sand, silt, clay, or muck soils associated with flowing water courses and subjected to flooding but not permanent inundation. Floodplain wetlands support wetland or mesic woody and herbaceous vegetation.

BottomlandForest

This is a tall, dense floodplain forest adjacent to a stream that has a defined channel. The stream rarely floods then never for very long. The soil is always moist due to a high water table, lateral seepage, and abundant organic matter in the soil. Fire rarely if ever occurs.

Characteristic plants are water oak, swamp laurel oak, spruce pine, loblolly pine, red maple, magnolia, sweetgum, sweetbay, swamp tupelo, Florida elm, swamp dogwood, and hornbeam.

FloodplainForest

These are tall, majestic hardwood forests on river floodplains with either alluvial soil or fertile soil over limerock or fertile soil adjacent to a spring fed river. Flooding is occasional with varying hydroperiods depending on location and topography. Fire is rare or absent.

Characteristic trees are water hickory, water locust, overcup oak, live oak, water oak, swamp laurel oak, swamp chestnut oak, river birch, and swamp privet.

Characteristic animals include beaver, gray squirrel, raccoon, white-tailed deer, prothonotory warbler, acadian flycatcher, barred owl, red-shouldered hawk, pileated woodpecker, yellow rat snake, brown water snake, and red-bellied water snake.

Floodplain Marsh

This is a fresh water marsh that occurs in the floodplain of a river. Fire may be frequent to rare.

Characteristic plants are maidencane, saw-grass, pickerel-weed, arrowhead, buttonbush, and sand cord grass.

FloodplainSwamp

This is a bald-cypress, tupelo, ash, maple swamp located in the floodplain of a stream. Flooding duration is usually longer than six months. Fire occurs rarely or never.

Characteristic plants are bald-cypress, swamp tupelo, water tupelo, pumpkin ash, green ash, cabbage palm, and red maple.

Characteristic animals include beaver, wood duck, barred owl, red-shouldered hawk, and cottonmouth.

Willow/Birch Swamp

A pioneer association of coastal plain willow and river birch beside major rivers on alluvial deposits.

Slough

This is a low, open forest of short, crooked, stout-trunked deciduous trees growing in a broad, shallow channel in the center of a linear wetland that has flowing water except during the dry seasons. At the beginning of a dry season, the water may be stagnant for a month or more before evaporating completely. This same association sometimes occupies sinkhole ponds located at the downstream end of creeks that have widely fluctuating water levels.

Characteristic plants are pop ash, water-elm, ogeechee tupelo, buttonbush, greenfly orchid, Bartram's airplant, and water-lily. Other plants sometimes present are overcup oak, swamp privet, Carolina willow, duckweed, and floating ferns.

Characteristic animals include river otter, barred owl, red-shouldered hawk, prothonotory warbler, and cottonmouth.

StrandSwamp

This is a linear cypress/hardwood swamp in an elongated depression that has flowing water most of the year, but no definite channel.

Characteristic plants are bald-cypress or pond-cypress, swamp tupelo, green ash, pumpkin ash, red maple, sweetbay, swamp laurel oak, coastal plain willow, buttonbush, swamp dogwood, and wax-myrtle.

Characteristic animals are raccoon, river otter, white ibis, barred owl, wood duck, cottonmouth.

Swale

This is a fresh water marsh occupying a broad, shallow channel flooded seasonally with flowing water. Fire is frequent or occasional or rare.

Characteristic plants include saw-grass, sagittaria, maidencane, pickerel-weed, and wax-myrtle.

Characteristic animals are those listed for basin marsh.

BASIN WETLANDS

These are shallow, closed basin wetlands with outlet usually only in time of high water; peat or sand substrate, usually inundated; wetland woody and/or herbaceous vegetation.

Basin Marsh

This is a large fresh water marsh in a large basin such as Paynes Prairie with peat on top of sand or clay. Inundation is for the greater part of the year. Fire is occasional but can be intense and is an important part of the ecology.

Characteristic plants are maidencane, pickerel-weed, saw-grass, cat-tail, primrose-willow, lotus, water-lily, spatter-dock, etc.

Characteristic animals include river otter, raccoon, round tailed muskrat, wood stork, sandhill crane, white ibis, herons and egrets, rails, mottled duck, blue-winged teal, harrier (marsh hawk), snipe, moorhen, purple gallinule, red-winged blackbird, boat-tailed grackle, alligator, stripped mud turtle, stinkpot, chicken turtle, green water snake, mud snake, stripped swamp snake, pig frog, Florida cricket frog, and a whole host of small fish species such as the mosquito fish, golden top minnow, pirate perch,

Depression Marsh

This is a fresh water marsh in a small rounded depression in sandy soil with peat accumulating toward the center. It is seasonally inundated with still water, but usually goes completely dry every year or at least periodically, and has frequent to occasional fire.

Characteristic plants are Virginia chain fern, redroot, maidencane, pickerel-weed, spatter-dock, St. John's-wort, and yellow-eyed-grass.

Characteristic animals include wading birds, softshell turtle, chicken turtle, stripped newt, and a host of salamanders, toads, frogs, and tree frogs that use these wetlands for breeding.

BasinSwamp

This is a hardwood/pond cypress swamp in a large basin with peat substrate that is seasonally inundated with still water. Fire is occasional to rare. Characteristic plants are pond-cypress, swamp tupelo, and fetterbush. Basin swamps strongly dominated by swamp tupelo are often called gum swamps. Green ash and red maple may also be present, and slash pine and bay trees often occur in shallow areas or on the edge. Characteristic animals are raccoon, white ibis, barred owl, prothonotory warbler, and cottonmouth.

ShrubSwamp

This is a swamp in a basin with peat substrate that is seasonally inundated with still water and vegetated with shrubs that can withstand an extended hydroperiod. Fire is occasional to rare.

Characteristic plants are elderberry, wax-myrtle, buttonbush, and/or coastal plain willow.

Characteristic animals are raccoon, white ibis, and cottonmouth.

LakeShore Swamp

Lake shores of built-up peat deposits often form distinct swamps dominated by pond or bald cypress. Fires seldom extend into these deposits.

Characteristic plants include pond and bald cypress, pennywort, soft rush, wax-myrtle, buttonbush, low panicums, and spikerushes.

Typical animals are various frogs, snakes, and turtles, barred owl, songbirds, gray squirrel, and white-tailed deer.

DomeSwamp

Usually called cypress domes, these small, somewhat rounded depressions within pine flatwoods forests often occupy 20 to 30 percent of the pine flatwoods region. These swamps are dominated by pond-cypress trees. The tallest trees are often in the center of the dome and tree height decreases gradually toward the edge. There is usually a well developed understory of shrubs or a herbaceous ground cover of depression marsh plants or both. The soil is usually sand underlain with a clay lens, and usually has some peat accumulating toward the center. These depressions remain inundated with still, soft, acidic water for several months to most of the year. Fire varies from rare to frequent.

Characteristic trees are pond-cypress, blackgum, and slash pine, with some sweet bay, swamp bay, and/or loblolly bay around the edge. Fetterbush is usually the dominant shrub, and Virginia chain fern, redroot, and maidencane are characteristic ground cover.

Characteristic animals include raccoon, green-backed heron, white ibis, yellow-rumped warbler, banded water snake, glossy crayfish snake, black swamp snake, pine woods snake, dwarf siren, striped newt, southern dusky salamander, and little grass frog.

LACUSTRINE

ClasticUpland Lake

Generally irregular basin in clay uplands; predominantly with inflows, frequently without surface outflow; clay or organic substrate; colored, acidic, soft water with low mineral content (sodium, chloride, sulfate); oligo-mesotrophic to eutrophic.

Farm Pond

This is a pond formed by damming a stream or digging.

Flatwoods/ Prairie Lake

Generally shallow basin in flatlands with high water table; frequently with a broad littoral zone; still water or flow-through; sand or peat substrate; variable water chemistry, but characteristically colored to clear, acidic to slightly alkaline, soft to moderately hard water with moderate mineral content (sodium, chloride, sulfate); oligo-mesotrophic to eutrophic.

MarshLake

Generally shallow, open water area with wide expanses of fresh water marsh; still water or flow-through; peat, sand or clay substrate; variable water chemistry, but characteristically highly colored, acidic, soft water with moderate mineral content (sodium, chloride, sulfate); oligo-mesotrophic to eutrophic.

FloodplainLake

Meander scar, backwater, or larger flow-through body within major river floodplains; sand, alluvial or organic substrate; colored, alkaline or slightly acidic, hard or moderately hard water with high mineral content (sulfate, sodium, chloride, calcium, magnesium); mesotrophic eutrophic.

SandhillUpland Lake

Generally rounded solution depression in deep sandy uplands or sandy uplands shallowly underlain by limestone; predominantly without surface inflows/outflows; typically sand substrate with organic accumulations toward middle; clear, acidic moderately soft water with varying mineral content; ultra-oligotrophic to mesotrophic.

SinkholeLake

Typically deep, funnel-shaped depression in limestone base; predominantly without surface inflows/outflows, but frequently with connection to the aquifer, clear, alkaline, hard water with; high mineral content (calcium, bicarbonate, magnesium).

MinePit Lake

A pond or lake in a mine pit.

SwampLake

Generally shallow, open water area within basin swamps; still water or flow-through; peat, sand or clay substrate; occurs in most physiographic regions; variable water chemistry, but characteristically highly colored, acidic, soft water with moderate mineral content (sodium, chloride, sulfate); oligo-mesotrophic eutrophic.

RIVERINE

Alluvial Stream

Lower perennial or intermittent/seasonal water course characterized by turbid water with suspended silt, clay, sand and small gravel; generally with a distinct, sediment-derived (alluvial) floodplain and a sandy, elevated natural levee just inland from the bank.

Blackwater Stream

Perennial or intermittent/seasonal water course characterized by tea-colored water with a high content of particulate and dissolved organic matter derived from drainage through swamps and marshes; generally lacking an alluvial floodplain.

Seepage Stream

Upper perennial or intermittent/seasonal water course characterized by clear to lightly colored water derived from shallow groundwater seepage.

Spring-Run Stream

Perennial water course with deep aquifer headwaters and characterized by clear water, circumneutral pH and, frequently, a solid limestone bottom.

Spring-FedRiver

Combination of water from blackwater streams and springs and spring runs in a major river.

SUBTERRANEAN

The cave systems in this karst region are numerous and provide very vulnerable openings to the drinking water aquifers and to very fragile and critical habitat for specialized endemic species of invertebrates. The known cave passages are but a very small fraction of the total.

TerrestrialCave

These are limerock caves above water, often beginning at the bottom at a sink hole, and sometimes leading to aquatic caves. Caves provide specialized and often critical habitat for bats and some specialized invertebrates.

AquaticCave

These are the cave systems that are submerged in aquifer waters. Where the surface of a

terrestrial cave meets an aquatic cave system, there are often populations of highly specialized cave dwelling invertebrates.

Old Field Pine Plantation

Old fields which have been planted with any species of pine.

Old Field Succession Pine

Old fields which have been invaded by volunteer pine or have a mature plantation of pine.

Site Conversion Pine Plantation

Upland habitat such as a hammock or wetlands such as a basin swamp which have been cleared and then planted with pine.

Rough Pasture

This habitat is a pasture which retains some of its native ground cover or which has numerous scattered trees or both.

Improved Pasture

Improved pastures are those which are almost completely covered by exotic grasses and lack significant tree cover.

Cropland

This habitat consists of row crops, freshly cleared land, or fallow fields.

Active Mining

Any area with active mining.

Low Impact Development

Homes or camp sites which have been allowed to remain wooded are designated low impact.

High Impact Development

Any major alteration or construction.

_____________________________________________________________________

4.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 SITE RANKINGS

Based on the inventory, 47 sites were identified for evaluation and ranking. These sites include the sites that were evaluated in 1988 as well as additional sites reflecting the expanded scope to include wetland as well as upland sites.

Based in the site characteristics, the 47 sites were ranked according to the methods described in Section 2.2.8 and shown in Table 2-1. Table 4-1 presents a summary of the individual subparameter score for each site. Table 4-2 presents a ranking of each site with equal weight given to each of the six parameters:

Vegetation Value

Endangered Species Value

Wildlife Habitat Value

Hydrological Characteristics

Landscape Ecology Characteristics

Management Potential

Table 4-3 presents a ranking of each site with equal weight given to each of the subparameters within each major parameter. Several conclusions can be drawn from these rankings. Overall, the highest ranked sites (e.g., Santa Fe River, Hornsby Spring, Hogtown Prairie, etc.) are ranked high regardless of the weighting, and the lowest ranked sites (e.g., Buda Sandhills, Beech Valley, Morans Prairie, Hasan Flatwoods, etc.) ranked low regardless of the weighting. There are shifts in individual ranks, but the relative relationships of high- and low-ranked sites remain unchanged, allowing for confidence based on this methodology. As discussed in the methods section, this type of ranking shows a continuum of high- versus low-ranked sites. Significant differences exist between the highest and lowest ranked sites, but these differences are less important between any two sites or among groups of sites with similar ranks.

The conservation strategy discussion in the individual site descriptions provides the best guide to the results of this study. The overall result is that there are many large areas in Alachua County that have great value as watershed and wildlife resources, and that conservation strategies can be used to protect these resources. The sites are mostly connected by stream systems, but many of the connections need improving and protecting.

________________________________________________________________________________

	Table 4-2. Site Rankings Based on Subparameter Scores
Rank	Site	Total Score
1	Santa Fe River	50
2	Hornsby Springs	46
3	Hogtown Prairie (Sugarfoot Hammock)	44
4	Lochloosa Forest West	43
5	Fox Pond	41
6	Prairie Creek	40
6	Levy Lake (Barr Hammock)	40
8	Gum Root Swamp	39
9	Lochloosa Creek Headwaters Flatwoods	38
9	Lochloosa Forest Additions	38
9	Mill Creek	38
9	Kanapaha Prairie	38
13	East Side Newnans Lake	37
14	East Side Greenway	36
15	Chacala Pond	35
15	Austin Cary Flatwoods	35
15	Lochloosa Slough	35
15	Northeast Flatwoods	35
15	Watermelon Pond	35
20	Buck Bay Flatwoods	34
20	Lochloosa Creek	34
20	Buzzards Roost	34
23	North San Felasco Hammock	33
23	Millhopper Flatwoods	33
23	Hague Flatwoods	33
26	East Lochloosa Forest	32
26	Domino Hammock	32
28	Bird Island	31
28	Serenola Forest	31
28	East San Felasco Hammock	31
31	Hatchet Creek	30
31	Lake Alto Swamp	30
31	Paynes Prairie West	30
31	South Melrose Flatwoods	30
31	Rocky Creek	30
36	Hickory Sink	29
36	Saluda Swamp	29
36	Pine Hill Forest	29
39	Monteocha Creek	28
39	South LaCrosse Forest	28
39	Little Orange Creek	28
39	Fred Bear Hammock	28
43	Santa Fe Creek	26
44	Hasan Flatwoods	25
45	Morans Prairie	24
46	Buda Sandhills	22
47	Beech Valley	20

	Table 4-3. Site Rankings Based on Parameter Scores
Rank	Site	Total Score
1	Santa Fe River	31
2	Hornsby Springs	28
3	Hogtown Prairie (Sugarfoot Hammock)	27
4	Lochloosa Forest West	26
5	Fox Pond	25
6	Levy Lake (Barr Hammock)	24
6	Gum Root Swamp	24
6	Lochloosa Creek Headwaters Flatwoods	24
9	Prairie Creek	23
9	Lochloosa Forest Additions	23
9	East Side Newnans Lake	23
12	Mill Creek	22
12	Lochloosa Slough	22
12	Northeast Flatwoods	22
15	Kanapaha Prairie	21
15	East Side Greenway	21
15	Austin Cary Flatwoods	21
15	Watermelon Pond	21
15	Buck Bay Flatwoods	21
15	Lochloosa Creek	21
15	East Lochloosa Forest	21
22	Chacala Pond	20
23	Bird Island	20
23	Buzzards Roost	20
25	Hague Flatwoods	19
25	Domino Hammock	19
25	Serenola Forest	19
25	South Melrose Flatwoods	19
29	North San Felasco Hammock	18
29	Millhopper Flatwoods	18
29	Hatchet Creek	18
29	Lake Alto Swamp	18
29	Paynes Prairie West	18
29	Rocky Creek	18
29	Hickory Sink	18
29	Saluda Swamp	18
29	Monteocha Creek	18
38	East San Felasco Hammock	17
38	Little Orange Creek	17
38	Santa Fe Creek	17
41	South LaCrosse Forest	16
41	Fred Bear Hammock	16
41	Pine Hill Forest	16
44	Hasan Flatwoods	15
45	Morans Prairie	15
46	Beech Valley	13
47	Buda Sandhills	12

The greatest threats to the natural areas in Alachua County are:

1. The gradual losses of land to development;

2. The loss of quality of the natural resources due to various factors, including lack of prescribed burning;

3. The loss of connectivity, mostly as a result of paved highways and the concentration of development at the most critical points of connection; and

4. The gradual loss of plant and animal habitat quality due to the continued increase in the number of species and the size of the populations of invasive exotic plants and animals.

Loss of connectivity can be addressed in part with better planning and better highway construction. Control of invasive exotic plants can be begun by forming a low-cost program of cooperative eradication of especially ominous infestations and by outlawing the sale of some threatening species. Although the loss of land to development is inevitable, it can be moderated somewhat by good planning. Encouraging more prescribed burning is difficult and to some extent beyond local control due to such factors as national air quality standards and the structure of the legal system (liability laws). However, it is possible to have some effect by providing incentives and by setting a good example on public lands.

To conserve many of the most valuable resources identified in this report, some of the lands will need to be purchased, and conservation easements will need to be purchased on others. This recommendation is costly but necessary if some of the resources are to remain intact.

4.2 SITE SUMMARIES

The site summaries provide a description of the following aspects for each site: key features, USGS quadrangle sheet location, overall size, biocommunity types and acreages, general condition of these biocommunities, connections to adjacent areas, general condition of these connections, site boundary conditions, description of biophysical conditions, restoration and management potential, conservation strategies, and comprehensive plan considerations. Individual site scores for each parameter or subparameter are included at the end of each site summary.

_____________________________________________________________________

5.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Alachua County has a long history of human habitation, agriculture, and other types of development, yet is still rich in natural resources. There are large areas of high-quality watersheds which serve in part to provide stream flow in the creeks and rivers of this area and in part to recharge the Floridan aquifer with good-quality water. There are large areas of habitats which support a diversity of native plants and animals, and there are habitats for significant populations of several endangered species.

The 47 largest and most significant areas of ecological communities (or land that could be reclaimed to restore natural ecological communities) were identified and inventoried. Individual site summaries are included in Section 4.0. Brief descriptions for other areas that were not inventoried but which have some significant resources are included in Appendix B.

There are about 50 natural communities identified in Alachua County. The conditions of these communities vary widely, many being in good condition. Wetlands and hardwood forests were most often in good condition, whereas the fire-adapted communities such as sandhill and pine flatwoods were mostly only fair or poor in quality. This condition was usually caused by two factors. The fire-adapted communities are usually not burned with prescribed fires often enough to maintain the native flora and fauna of the community or to maintain good-quality wildlife habitat. Also, these communities are often intentionally cleared of most native flora and fauna during the establishment of pine plantations.

In the past, small ditches to isolated wetlands had been constructed throughout most of the pine flatwoods areas of north Florida to increase accessibility, increase timber production, and help control mosquitos. Some selective filling of these ditches that would not significantly conflict with these objectives would be beneficial to the wildlife habitat and surface water storage values of these wetlands.

Connections between individual sites are often impacted negatively by paved roads. The type of stream crossing used when building the road and the amount of clearing at stream crossings could be changed to greatly improve the connectivity for wildlife. Connections are often damaged by residential development as well. Residential development is often clustered in exactly the wrong place from the point of view of trying to maintain connections between potential conservation areas. This problem could be addressed to some extent by changes in land use planning.

The status of endangered species varies from one species to the next. For instance, bald eagles (Halaieetus leucocephala) are doing well here. Their population density has been increasing steadily and is one of the highest of any area in the United States outside of Alaska. Gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) were found to occur in low numbers in most of the suitable habitats that occurred on the individual sites. The several species of wading birds that are listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern and that occur in Alachua County are all surviving, but are mostly declining in numbers. The most important wood stork (Mycteria americana) rookery in this region of Florida is well protected and in good health on the Lochloosa Forest West site. (It has been monitored and protected since 1910.) Unfortunately, the only heron/egret rookery of similar status is not doing as well. The Bird Island rookery in Orange Lake, which has been owned and protected by the Audubon Society since 1910, has been damaged in the last few years by the deaths of most of the bushes in which the birds nest. In the opinion of the investigators, this shrub death is probably caused by the herbicide applications used for exotic weed control.

Exotic plants are rapidly becoming a much greater threat to the biological resources of this and all other counties in north Florida. A particularly problematic exotic infestation found in Alachua County is skunk vine (Paederia foetida), which was found during the field work on the Buda Sandhill site. This and other infestations of destructive exotic plants indicate that some concerted actions by the public agencies responsible for conserving natural resources are warranted. A program by a public agency or a cooperative group of public agencies to assist private landowners in the control and extermination of skunk vine, cogon grass (Imperata spp.), and a few other especially destructive exotic plants is recommended. Also, a law prohibiting the sale of these same plants is suggested. The situation regarding exotic animals is different. Unlike plants, the exotic animals are not in discrete, stationary patches. Exotic animals are often highly mobile and tend to be spread throughout the county. Examples of exotic animals already well established in Alachua County are armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), Asian tiger mosquitos (Aedes albopictus), and South American fire ants (Solenopsis invicta). However, there are some animals that are currently invading and are not yet spread throughout the county. One is the capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris), a rodent that can grow to more than 100 pounds, which has established a population in the northeastern corner of Alachua County (Doonan, 1996). Another is the nutria (Myocastor coypus), a somewhat smaller rodent that is established in Duval County and in Louisiana.

So much damage to natural communities is being caused by the lack of prescribed burning that it is recommended that a public assistance program be established to aid and promote prescribed burning in fire-adapted ecological communities on private lands. The Florida Division of Forestry has a program that enables them to conduct burns for land owners at reasonable rates. This program is in need of increased funding and should be promoted on a larger scale.

Recommended conservation strategies include full purchase, purchase of conservation easements, cooperative efforts and programs, enforcement of dredge and fill regulations and other wetlands regulations, the use of planning and zoning strategies and regulations, and public education. Some loss of the resources found in this inventory is inevitable due to the projected continued growth in human population. However, the use of some of these strategies on some of these sites can greatly affect the resulting state of natural resources in the future. There are possible strategies to help protect the resources and generally a number of options from which to choose. However, to fully protect the top priority areas, full purchase is often the preferred option. For most of the large areas, many of which ranked quite high, the opposite is true. In these cases, conservation easements, cooperative agreements, and providing landowners with other options are the recommended strategies.

_____________________________________________________________________

LITERATURE REVIEW

Alachua County Comprehensive Plan, Conservation/Aquifer Recharge Element. 1991.

Alachua County Department of Environmental Services. 1986. Set of infrared aerial photographs of all of Alachua County at a scale of 1:24000 taken in April, 1986. Gainesville, FL.

Alachua County Department of Environmental Services. 1987. Set of USGS Topographic Quadrangle Maps submitted with the 1987 Comprehensive Inventory of Natural Ecological Communities. Scale - 1:24000

Alachua County Property Appraiser's Office. 1994. Set of black and white aerial photos covering all of Alachua County taken in November and December, 1994, at a scale of 1:3600, with property boundaries and parcel numbers delineated.

Arnold, S.B. 1995. Map. Alachua County, Florida. Florida Gopher Frog Distribution. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Scale - 1:126720

Arnold, S.B. 1995. Map. Alachua County, Florida. Wood Stork Habitat Distribution. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Scale - 1:126720

Arnold, S.B. 1995. Map. Alachua County, Florida. Snowy Egret Habitat Distribution. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Scale - 1:126720

Arnold, S.B. 1995. Map. Alachua County, Florida. Little Blue Heron Habitat Distribution. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Scale - 1:126720

Arnold, S.B. 1995. Map. Alachua County, Florida. White Ibis Habitat Distribution. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Scale - 1:126720

Arnold, S.B. 1995. Map. Alachua County, Florida. Tricolored Heron Habitat Distribution. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Scale 1:126720

Arnold, S.B. 1995. Map. Alachua County, Florida. Limpkin Habitat Distribution. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Scale - 1:126720

Arnold, S.B. 1995. Map. Alachua County, Florida. Black Bear Habitat Distribution. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Scale 1:126720

Arnold, S.B. 1995. Map. Alachua County, Florida. Sandhill Crane Habitat Distribution. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Scale - 1:126720

Arnold. S.B. 1995. Map. Alachua County, Florida. Bald Eagle Habitat Distribution. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Scale - 1:126720

Arnold, S.B. 1995. Map. Alachua County, Florida. American Alligator Habitat Distribution. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. Scale - 1:126720

Austin, D.F., et al. 1995. Exotic Pest Plant Council's 1995 List of Florida's Most Invasive Species. EPPC Committee on Invasive Species. Dept. of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 10 pp.

Bohall, P.G. 1984. Habitat Selection, Seasonal Abundance, and Foraging Ecology of American Kestrel Subspecies in North Florida. M.S. Thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 97 pp.

Brown, R. 1996. Personal Communication regarding the exotic plants at the North San Felasco Hammock project area.

Brown, T.W. 1963. Ecology of Cypress Heads in North-Central Florida. M.S. Thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 59 pp.

Burns, J., M. Finley, D. Goodman, L. Harris, et al. 1990. Integrating Parks into Larger Units. Section Vi. In: Dottavio, Brussard, and McCrone, Eds. Protecting Biological Diversity in the National Parks: Workshop Recommendations. Transactions and Proceedings Series No. 9. USDI National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Carr, A. 1971-1987. Personal Communication and extensive discussion and education regarding the community ecology of North Florida; the impact of armadillos, cattle egrets, and fire ants on the fauna of North Florida; the ecology of alligators, Suwannee cooters, and various other reptiles in North Florida; the history, ecology, and active management of Paynes Prairie; and the inter-relationship of Paynes Prairie, Levy Lake, Newnans Lake, Chacala Pond, and Lake Wauberg.

Coile, N.C. 1993. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Plants. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Entomology, Nematology and Plant Pathology - Botany Section, Contribution No. 29. Gainesville, FL. 50 pp.

Conant, R., and J.T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 450 pp.

Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System. Office of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Tallahassee, FL. 239 pp.

Cronquist, A. 1980. Vascular Flora of the Southeastern United States. Volume I: Asteraceae. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 261 pp.

Culotta, E. 1996. Exploring Biodiversity's Benefits. Science. 273(5278): 1045-1046.

Deuver, L.C., R.W. Simons, R.F. Noss, and J.R. Newman. 1987. Final Report: Comprehensive Inventory of Natural Ecological Communities in Alachua County. KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Gainesville, FL. 140 pp. + appendices.

Doonan, T. 1996. Personal communication regarding caves and cave fauna in Alachua County,

the status of vertebrate exotics, and the location and status of wading bird rookeries.

Dressler, R.L., D.W. Hall, K.D. Perkins, and N.H. Williams. 1987. Identification Manual for Wetland Plant Species of Florida, SP-35. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 297 pp.

Drummond, M. 1996. Personal Communication regarding the ferns at Buzzard's Roost.

Edmisten, J. A. 1963. Ecology of the Florida Pine Flatwoods. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 108 pp.

Ewel, K.C., and W.J. Mitsch. 1978. Effects of Fire on Species Composition in Cypress Dome Ecosystems. Fla. Sci. 41:25-31.

Faircloth, D., R. Heeke, and R. Rocco. 1996. Suwannee River Water Management District Land Acquisition and Management Plan. Suwannee River Water Management District, Live Oak, FL. 76 pp.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1994. Map. Alachua County, Florida. Priority Wetlands for Listed Species. Office of Environmental Services, Tallahassee, FL.

Scale - 1:126720

Florida Natural Areas Inventory/Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1990. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. FNAI/FDNR, Tallahassee, FL. 111 pp.

Franz, R. 1996. Personal Communication regarding the location and fauna of various caves in Alachua County.

Franz, R., J. Bauer, and T. Morris. 1994. Caves and Their Faunas in Florida and South Georgia. Brimleyana - J. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences No. 20. 109 pp.

Godfrey, R.K. 1988. Trees, Shrubs, and Woody Vines of Northern Florida and Adjacent Georgia and Alabama. The University of Georgia Press, Athens. 734 pp.

Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States: Monocotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens. 712 pp.

Godfrey R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States: Dicotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens. 933 pp.

Hall, D.W. 1993. Illustrated Plants of Florida and the Coastal Plain. Maupin House, Gainesville, FL. 431 pp.

Hallbourg, R., et al. 1996. A Comprehensive Contaminant Source and Well Inventory Near Wellfield Areas of Alachua County, Final Project Report. Alachua County Environmental Protection Department, Gainesville, FL. 129 pp. + appendices.

Harris, L.D. 1985. Conservation Corridors, A Highway System for Wildlife. ENFO. Florida Conservation Foundation, Environmental Information Center, Winter Park, FL. 1‑4.

Harris, L.D. and K. Atkins. 1991. Faunal Movement Corridors in Florida. In: Hudson, Ed. Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Island Press. Washington, DC. 117‑134.

Harris, L.D. and J.F. Eisenberg. 1989. Enhanced Linkages: Necessary Steps for Success in Conservation of Faunal Diversity. In: Western and Pearl, Eds. Conservation for the 21st Century. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. 166-181.

Harris, L.D. and P.B. Gallagher. 1989. New Initiatives of Wildlife Conservation, The Need for Movement Corridors. In: Mackintosh, Ed. In Defense of Wildlife: Preserving Communities and Corridors. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC. 11-34.

Harris, L.D. and J. Scheck. 1991. From Implications to Applications: The Dispersal Corridor Principle Applied to the Conservation of Biological Diversity. In: Saunders and Hobbs, Eds. Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. 189-220.

Hintermister, J. 1996. Personal Communication regarding the location of wading bird rookeries in the county, the habitat value of various biological communities for various birds, the location of burrowing owls in Alachua County, the state of the rookeries in Orange Lake, and the general health of the marsh habitat in Lochloosa and Orange Lakes.

Hovis, J. 1996. Personal Communication regarding caves and cave fauna in Alachua County.

Hoyer, M.V., D.E. Canfield, Jr., C.A. Horsburgh, and K. Brown. 1996. Florida Freshwater Plants: A Handbook of Common Aquatic Plants in Florida Lakes, SP189. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, FL. 264 pp.

Humphrey, S.R. 1992. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Vol. I. Mammals. R.E. Ashton, Jr., Series Editor. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 392 pp.

Humphrey, S.R. 1996. Personal Communication regarding the bat caves of Alachua County.

Isely, D. 1990. Vascular Flora of the Southeastern United States. Volume 3, Part 2: Leguminosae (Fabaceae). The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 258 pp.

Jouvenaz, D. 1994. Personal Communication regarding the impact of fire ants on the fauna of North Florida.

Lakela, O. and R.W. Long. 1976. Ferns of Florida: An Illustrated Manual and Identification Guide. Banyan Books, Miami, FL. 178 pp.

Macesich, Milena. 1988. Geologic Interpretation of the Aquifer Pollution Potential in Alachua County, Florida. Florida Geological Survey Open File Report 21.

Mann, C.C. and M.L. Plummer. 1993. The High Cost of Biodiversity. Science. 260: 1868-1871.

Moler, P.E. 1985. Home range and seasonal activity of the eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon corais couperi, in northern Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 25 pp. Unpubl. Ms.

Moler, P.E. 1996. Personal Communication regarding the locations, population sizes, and population trends of rare, threatened, and endangered reptiles and amphibians in Alachua County, including detailed information on indigo snakes at Kanapaha Prairie, indigo snake occurrences throughout the county, alligator snapping turtle populations in the Santa Fe River, Canebrake rattlesnake distribution in the county, and short-tailed snake records for specific project areas.

Moler, P.E. and R. Franz. 1987. Wildlife values of small, isolated wetlands in the southeastern coastal plain. Pages 234-241 in Proceedings 3rd southeastern nongame and endangered wildlife symposium. Ga. Dep. Resour., Game Fish Comm. Tech. Bull. Atlanta.

Muschlitz, B. 1996. Personal Communication regarding the population status and nesting locations for swallow-tailed kites and Mississippi kites in Alachua County.

Myers, R.L. and J.J. Ewel, Eds. 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. 765 pp.

National Wetlands Inventory. 1984. Set of wetlands inventory maps of all of Alachua County. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior.

Nesbitt, S. 1996. Personal Communication regarding the location of bald eagle nests throughout the county, the location of breeding sites for Florida sandhill cranes, the population status of the wood stork rookery at River Styx, and the location and status of wading bird rookeries throughout the county.

Noss, R.F. 1983. A Regional Landscape Approach to Maintaining Diversity. Bioscience 33:700-706.

Noss, R.F. 1991. Effects of Edge and Internal Patchiness on Avian Habitat Use in Old-growth Florida Hammock. Nat. Areas J. 11(1):34-47.

Pearson, G.T. 1941. Orange Lake - An Inspiration. The Florida Naturalist (15)1:1-6.

Pritchard, P., gen. ed. 1979-1982. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Vol. 1 - Mammals. J.N. Layne, Ed. 1979.

Vol. 2 - Birds. H.W. Kale III, Ed. 1979.

Vol. 3 - Amphibians and Reptiles. R.W. McDiarmid, Ed. 1979.

Vol. 4 - Fishes. C.R. Gilbert, Ed. 1979.

Vol. 5 - Plants. D.B. Ward, Ed. 1979.

Vol. 6 - Invertebrates. R. Franz, Ed. 1982.

Repenning, R.W., and R.F. Labisky. 1985. Effects of Even-aged Timber Management on Bird Communities of the Longleaf Pine Forest in Northern Florida. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(4):1088-1098.

Rice, D.W. 1957. Life History and Ecology of Myotis austroriparius in Florida. J. Mammology 38:15-32.

Simons, R.W. 1990. Terrestrial and Freshwater Habitats. Pages 99-157 and 243-295 in Steven H. Wolfe, Ed.: An Ecological Characterization of the Florida Springs Coast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 90(21). 323 pp.

Small, J.K. 1933. Manual of the Southeastern Flora. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1554 pp.

Smallwood, J. 1990-94. Personal Communication regarding the locations and population status of Southeastern American Kestrels in North Florida, including Alachua County, and the impact of fire ants on nesting success, and the use of nest boxes to increase population levels.

St. Johns River Water Management District. 1993. Recharge Areas of the Floridan Aquifer, Alachua County, Florida. Map.

St. Johns River Water Management District. 1995. Set of infrared aerial photos covering the south-eastern two-thirds of Alachua County taken in January, 1995, at a scale of 1:24000. Palatka, FL.

Suwannee River Water Management District. 1995. General Hydrogeologic Conditions of the Floridan Aquifer. Map.

Suwannee River Water Management District. 1995. Recharge Potential of the Floridan Aquifer in the Suwannee River Water Management District. Map.

Suwannee River Water Management District. 1995. Water Management Plan. Suwannee River Water Management District, Live Oak, FL. 238 pp.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Various dates. Set of topographic quadrangle maps of all of Alachua County. U.S. Dept of Interior. Scale - 1:24000

Vince, S.W., S.R. Humphrey, and R.W. Simons. 1989. The Ecology of Hydric Hammocks: a Community Profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.26): 81 pp.

Wood, D.A. 1996. Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern, Official Lists. Bureau of Nongame Wildlife, Division of Wildlife, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. 14 pp.

Winn, J. 1996. Personal Communication regarding the wildlife at Lake Alto and the LEAFS Tract.

Wooding, J. 1996. Personal Communication regarding the location and population status of Sherman's fox squirrels and Florida black bears in Alachua County.

Wunderlin, R.P. 1983. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Central Florida. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 480 pp.

_____________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX A

ALACHUACOUNTYINVENTORY SITES

Site Quad Maps^a

1. Austin Cary Flatwoods Orange Hts., Waldo

2. Levy Lake - Barr Hammock Arredo., Mican., Will., Flem.

3. Beech Valley Worthington Springs

4. Bird Island McIntosh

5. Buck Bay Flatwoods Gainesville East, Monteocha

6. Buda Sandhills High Springs SW, Waters Lake

7. Buzzards Roost Gainesville West

8. Chacala Pond Micanopy

9. Domino Hammock Bronson NE

10. East Lochloosa Forest Citra, Hawthorn

11. East San Felasco Hammock Alachua, Gainesville West

12. East Side Greenway G'ville East, Micanopy, Orange Hts.

13. East Side Newnans Lake Orange Hts., Rochelle

14. Fox Pond Gainesville West

15. Fred Bear Hammock Arredondo

16. Gum Root Swamp Gainesville East, Orange Heights

17. Hague Flatwoods Alachua, Monteocha, G'ville E., G'ville W.

18. Hasan Flatwoods Alachua

19. Hatchet Creek G'ville East, Orange Hts., Waldo

20. Hickory Sink Arredondo, Gainesville West

Hogtown Prairie (see # 46)

21. Hornsby Springs High Springs

22. Kanapaha Prairie Arredondo

23. Lake Alto Swamp Waldo

Levy Lake - (see #2)

24. Little Orange Creek Hawthorn, Melrose

25. Lochloosa Creek Rochelle

26. Lochloosa Creek Flatwoods Melrose, Orange Hts., Rochelle

27. Lochloosa Forest Additions Rochelle

28. Lochloosa Forest West Micanopy, Rochelle

29. Lochloosa Slough Citra

30. Mill Creek Mikesville, Worth.Sp., High Sp., Alachua

31. Millhopper Flatwoods Gainesville East, Gainesville West

32. Monteocha Creek Monteocha

33. Morans Prairie Melrose, Orange Heights

34. Northeast Flatwoods Monteocha, Waldo

35. North San Felasco Hammock Alachua

36. Paynes Prairie West Arredondo

37. Pine Hill Forest Gainesville West

38. Prairie Creek Micanopy, Rochelle

39. Rocky Creek Alachua, Monteocha, Worth.Sp., Brooker

40. Saluda Swamp Keystone Hts., Melrose, Orange Hts., Waldo

41. Santa Fe Creek Worthington Springs

42. Santa Fe River Brooker, Mikesville, Monteo., Waldo, Worth.Sp.

43. Serenola Forest Micanopy

44. South LaCrosse Forest Alachua

45. South Melrose Flatwoods Melrose

46. Hogtown Prairie - Sugarfoot Arredondo, G'ville E., G'vl. W.

47. Watermelon Pond Archer, Newberry SW, Bronson NE

^aThese maps have been provided to Alachua County under separate cover.

_____________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX B

BIOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY TO RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY

From a biological perspective, almost all of the project areas in this inventory can withstand low intensity, resource based recreational activities so long as they do not require significant alteration of the environment and do not exceed the carrying capacity of the site. Only the smallest project area, Buzzards Roost, would need complete protection from recreational activity.

Buzzards Roost is a limerock outcrop area with rare ferns and other plants that could be extirpated from the site by plant collecting, rock climbing, or excessive foot traffic. It needs the complete protection it currently gets as a private homesite.

There are parts of several other project areas that would need either some restrictions or complete protection. The most obvious ones are the two major wading bird rookeries. The two islands at the Bird Island project area in Orange Lake need total protection. This occurs to a large extent naturally due to the nearly inaccessible nature of the islands. The open water and bonnet beds of the Bird Island project area are frequently used for fishing, which is an appropriate use that is no threat to the birds. Frog gigging from air boats at night in the marsh vegetation around the islands may be a serious threat to the birds. Unfortunately, it would be nearly impossible to enforce a restriction on this activity.

The wood stork rookery on the Lochloosa Forest West project area needs total protection from disturbance. This is a deep and nearly inaccessible swamp that it is not a desirable place for recreational use. This swamp is a small fraction of the total area of Lochloosa Forest West.

The various areas throughout the County identified as sandhill crane nesting spots and bald eagle nest sites need protection from human disturbance during the nesting seasons for these birds. Almost all of these nesting sites are in places that are not very accessible or well suited for most kinds of recreational use. The exceptions are mostly bald eagle nests that are on the edges of lakes. Some of these lake edge nests are in places that are used sparingly for fishing. This is not a threat, because these particular birds are habituated to this use. If they weren't they wouldn't be nesting in these locations.

The bat cave at Hickory Sink needs strong protection from human disturbance. Indeed, caves in general, both terrestrial and aquatic, need protection due to the fragile nature of their fauna. Very few of the caves of Alachua County are mentioned in this inventory, in part because mentioning them would further endanger them, but Alachua County has many important caves worthy of protection.

In the near future, the stream and river projects may need some protection from the more destructive forms of aquatic recreation, such as jet skis and high speed motor boats, because these activities cause bank and stream channel erosion, dislodge submerged aquatic vegetation, disturb and displace wildlife, and disturb and displace other, more compatible forms of recreation. The Santa Fe River throughout Alachua County and elsewhere could use increased protection from indiscriminate recreational killing of snakes, turtles, alligators, otters, wading birds, and other wildlife species. Most of this killing is illegal but occurs due to insufficient law enforcement and/or insufficient environmental education.

_____________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX C

ALACHUACOUNTYRESOURCE AREAS THAT WERE NOT INVENTORIED

LAKES: Orange Lake, Lochloosa Lake, Newnans Lake, Lake Wauberg, Bivens Arm, and Georges Pond were not inventoried directly. Some of their resources were inventoried as the result of inventorying areas adjacent to or in these lakes. All of these lakes are naturally fertile and have become more eutrophic due to human impacts. The water storage value of these lakes is high, and they all provide some recharge to the Floridan aquifer. The percentage of recharge from Georges Pond, Lake Wauberg, and Bivens Arm is the highest, since they drain to Paynes Prairie, which drains into Alachua Sink and the Floridan aquifer. The percentage of recharge from Newnans Lake is somewhat lower, since some water goes to Alachua Sink and the rest to Orange Lake. The water in Orange Lake goes partially into Orange Creek and partially into the Floridan aquifer by way of sinkholes in the southwestern corner of the lake. Lake Lochloosa has the lowest percentage of water recharging the Floridan aquifer, but some water flows into Orange Lake and thus a portion flows to the sinkholes that allow water to discharge downward; the rest drains into Orange Creek, which flows into the Ocklawaha River.

These lakes are all used for fishing and have good populations of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), speckled perch (black crappie) (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and bream (bluegill) (Lepomis macrochirus). They also have large gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) populations, which are not used by anglers but help support some significant populations of bald eagles (Hatiaeetus leucocephalus) and ospreys (Pandion haliaetus). Ospreys are abundant on these lakes, and the population of bald eagles that nests around these lakes and obtains fish, ducks, and other food from them is one of the largest in the United States outside of Alaska. The alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) population is also large and supports a large alligator harvest. There are also people who harvest pig frogs (Rana grilio) from these lakes to obtain frog legs. The habitat for wading birds, ducks, coots (Fulica americana), grebes, moorhens (Gallinula chloropus), and boat-tailed grackles (Quuiscalus major) is also significant. The marsh areas at Orange Lake also support rails (Rallus spp.), bitterns (Botaurus lentiginosus and Ixobrychus exilis), and red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus).

Lake Santa Feis a large, oligotrophic to mesotrophic lake in the northeastern corner of the County. It is the headwaters of the Santa Fe River and is a significant water resource. It is a discharge area for the surficial aquifer of this area. It is used for fishing and supports good populations of largemouth bass, bream (bluegill), shellcrackers (Lepomis microlophus), and speckled perch (black crappie). The lake is also used for swimming, boating, sailing, and water skiing.

SMALL LAKES AND MARSHES: Lake Tuscawilla is a marsh and wet prairie on the south side of Micanopy that provides some habitat for sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis), ducks, grebes, and wading birds and supports two or three pairs of Florida sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis pratensis) that nest here (Nesbitt, 1996). Lake Elizabeth is a small, mesotrophic lake at the headwaters of Lochloosa Creek. Burnetts Lake is a small lake on the east side of Alachua at the downstream end of a small stream system and discharges to the Floridan aquifer. Parchman Pond, Jake White Pond, and Blue Pete Lake are small lakes south of Archer. Lake Jeffords is a small mesotrophic Lake south of Hawthorn. Grass Prairie is a small prairie south of Kanapaha Prairie.

WADING BIRD ROOKERIES: In addition to the rookeries that are part of the areas that were inventoried, there are several that were not inventoried. There are two such rookeries in Orange Lake, one on Redbird Island, which is near Bird Island, and one at PG Run in the southeast corner of the lake. Both of these rookeries are fairly new and appear to be the result of birds leaving Bird Island in search of an alternative rookery site. There are some rookeries in the northern part of the county that have moved around considerably. Sometimes they are on public land, such as San Felasco Hammock State Preserve, and sometimes on private land.

CAVES: There are numerous caves, both terrestrial and aquatic, in western Alachua County. Some of these support significant populations of rare, specialized cave invertebrates. The most significant and well known of these caves are reported in Caves and Their Faunas in Florida and South Georgia (Franz et al., 1994). Information about most other caves in the county has been compiled by Albert Krause but is not available to the public due to the need to protect the fragile ecosystems of these caves. By far the most significant cave from a vertebrate fauna perspective is Grants Cave, which is on private property in western Alachua County near Newberry. It is fenced and carefully guarded by the owner. It supports the only known active bat maternity in Alachua County (Hovis, 1996). There are tens of thousands of southeastern brown bats (Myotis austroriparius) there at the peak of the breeding season.

CROSS CREEK: The narrow strip of land between Lakes Orange and Lochloosa has the highest density of bald eagle nests found anywhere in Alachua County and probably the rest of the United States outside of Alaska.

HOGTOWN CREEK: Hogtown Creek and its tributaries drain a large portion of the western half of Gainesville. There are many valuable natural resources along the creek and its tributaries, including a high diversity of plant species and some interesting animals. The Rock Creek subdivision and adjacent creek bottom is one spot where there is still a good diversity of species, including a rare dragonfly, Say's spiketail dragonfly (Cordulegaster sayi) (Drummond, 1996). Farther downstream, there are populations of Trillium maculatum and solomon's-seal (Polygonatum biflorum). Both species are at or near the southern end of their range. The Hogtown Creek watershed is also important because this creek flows directly down into the Floridan aquifer at Haile Sink on Hogtown Prairie and is, therefore, a creek system that should be carefully protected from pollution. Unfortunately, it has been seriously polluted in the past, and it still serves as a storm sewer for much of Gainesville. There is a continuing need to provide more stormwater detention and retention throughout this watershed, for both water quality improvement and flood protection.

ROBINSON SINKS: This is an interesting cluster of sink holes in the northwestern part of the county near the Santa Fe River. The native flora and fauna have been removed from most of this site.

HAILE QUARRY: This is an active limerock quarry in the western part of the county that will become be a cluster of deep-water lakes in a setting of limerock outcrop soil. Some mine pit lakes occur on the site. The water in the lakes is Floridan aquifer water; therefore, protection from pollution is important. There were originally some interesting limerock outcrop plant species present that could return after mining. This area could potentially become high-value wildlife habitat.

_____________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX D- ALACHUA COUNTY ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY RANKING SYSTEM PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE

26 January 1996 Meeting Minutes

Committee met at 9:00 am in the conference room of the Environmental Protection Department.

Attending: Alice Reuman (Alachua County Office of Planning & Development), Michael Drummond (Alachua County Environmental Protection Department), Cathrin Smith (Suwannee River Water Management District), Kenneth Berk (St. Johns River Water Management District), David Hall (KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc.), Robert Simons (independent contractor with KBN).

Discussion: Centered on the ranking system to be used to evaluate the natural lands. The following items were discussed and carried over to the next meeting:

Ranking system to consider:

I. Vegetation Value

A. Species diversity

B. Exotics

II. Endangered Species Habitat Value

III. Wildlife Habitat Value

IV. Hydrology

A. Ground water

B. Surface water

C. Vulnerability

V. Landscape Ecology

A. Community diversity

B. Ecological quality

C. Functional connectedness

VI. Management Potential

VII. Land Use

A. Allowable land use category

B. Passive use potential

C. Scientific, historical, cultural, and archaeological features

Modification were made to the draft presented and comments requested prior to the next meeting.

22 March 1996 Meeting Minutes

Committee met at 9:00 am in the conference room of the Environmental Protection Department.

Discussion: As during the 26 Jan. meeting the discussion centered on the ranking system to be used to evaluate the natural lands. Agreement was obtained on most of the items carried over from the last meeting. The hydrology evaluations for ground water and surface water were left to be modified by consulting with Ron Ceryak of the Suwannee River Water Management District. When a suitable hydrology evaluation can be devised, the entire ranking system will then be sent to all parties for a sign off to indicate agreement.

The ranking system is set as listed below. A method to evaluate each of these categories was also discussed and consensus achieved.

I. Vegetation Value

A. Species diversity

B. Exotics

II. Endangered Species Habitat Value

III. Wildlife Habitat Value

IV. Hydrology

A. Ground water^a

B. Surface water^a

C. Vulnerability

V. Landscape Ecology

A. Community diversity

B. Ecological quality

C. Community rarity

D. Functional connectedness

VI. Management Potential

^aUndergoing final modification.

Agenda items for the next meeting set for 19 April at the same location and time are: decision on natural lands which have been selected for evaluation, and land owner notification.

Deferred for a later meeting was weighting of the various elements in the ranking system.

15 April 1996 Meeting Minutes

Committee met at 1:30 pm in the conference room of the Environmental Protection Department.

Discussion: As during the 26 Jan. and 22 March meetings the discussion centered on the ranking system to be used to evaluate the natural lands. The hydrology evaluations for ground water and surface water were better defined after consulting with Ron Ceryak of the Suwannee River Water Management District and Robin Hallbourg with the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department. It was decided that `ground water' and `vulnerability' would refer to the Floridan Aquifer, and that `surface water' would refer to water at the surface and the Surficial Aquifer. After suitable adjustments have been made the ranking will be sent to all parties for a sign off to indicate agreement.

Deferred for a later meeting after much of the field work has been accomplished was weighting of the various elements in the ranking system.

The next meeting for this committee is scheduled for May 22, 1996, in the conference room of the Environmental Protection Department.

30 April 1996 Meeting Minutes

Subcommittee met at 9:30 pm in the conference room of the Environmental Protection Department.

Attending: Michael Drummond (Alachua County Environmental Protection Department), David Hall and Bob Simons (KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc.).

Discussion: Bob Simons has made numerous assumptions concerning size and connectedness in order to determine the natural areas to be evaluated. This meeting was requested for input from Mike Drummond. Mike was able to combine his information with Bob's in order to eliminate those areas which are slated for eminent development and to help determine if any hope was foreseeable for connections with some areas. Substantial areas of the county were reviewed.

22 May 1996 Meeting Minutes

Committee met at 9:30 pm in the conference room of the Environmental Protection Department.

Attending: Alice Reuman (Alachua County Office of Planning & Development), Michael Drummond (Alachua County Environmental Protection Department), Cathrin Smith (Suwannee River Water Management District), Kenneth Berk (St. Johns River Water Management District), David Hall and Bob Simons (KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc.).

Discussion: The Scoring System for Site Priority Ranking was addressed to settle any remaining questions. Some discomfort was felt concerning Floridan Aquifer Ground Water in the Hydrology section. It was noted the aquifer recharge and protection of ground water were not compatible and ground water protection was placed into a separate category for evaluation.

Bob Simons explained the mapping of natural areas which he has nearly finished. He related the earlier meeting with Mike Drummond to help with connectedness and size decisions. The committee discussed these evaluations and provided a few suggestions, the most notable being by Kenneth Berk that hard boundaries (section lines, quarter sections, property boundaries, etc.) be used as project boundaries so that decisions for purchasing could be made more easily.

Alice Reuman agreed to take the property owner names generated by Bob Simons and obtain phone numbers.

The next tasks are to create a field form for evaluation, to set up a property owner notification form, and to begin evaluation. One property has been field evaluated.

The next meeting for this committee is scheduled for July 1, 1996, in the second floor conference room of the Codes Building.

1 July 1996 Meeting Minutes

Committee met at 1:00 pm in the conference room of the Department of Growth Management.

Attending: Alice Reuman (Alachua County Office of Planning & Development), Michael Drummond (Alachua County Environmental Protection Department), Cathrin Smith (Suwannee River Water Management District), Kenneth Berk (St. Johns River Water Management District), David Hall and Bob Simons (KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc.).

A draft of the Phase I Preliminary Report has been completed and was distributed at this meeting for comment. The draft contained: 1. scope of work to be performed, 2. preliminary report, 3. work schedule, 4. budget report, 5. analysis and definition of natural ecological communities, 6. proposed ranking system, 7. minutes of progress meetings of this committee, and 8. field record forms.

A discussion of the method of notification of property owners mentioned that upon owner contact the preferred method would be to mention that a review of the natural areas on their property is being undertaken as a part of a contract between Alachua County and KBN Engineering. Various maps and other data sources are being used but we would like to improve our accuracy by actually accessing the property to better determine the boundaries of the various habitats and to list the species which are found in them.

If a property owner would like to have a copy of the survey they may have one sent directly to them from KBN or have a copy sent at the completion of the project. We should make sure to have the owner's name, address, and phone number listed for mailing a report.

Bob Simons explained the mapping of natural areas which he has now finished. He showed quad maps with all of the project areas defined and explained several problems he faced and the solutions he worked out. Field work is progressing.

The next meeting for this committee is scheduled for August 9, 1996, in the conference room of the Environmental Protection Department.

9 August 1996 Meeting Minutes

Committee met at 1:00 pm in the conference room of the Environmental Protection Department.

Attending: Alice Reuman (Alachua County Office of Planning & Development), Michael Drummond (Alachua County Environmental Protection Department), Cathrin Smith (Suwannee River Water Management District), Kenneth Berk (St. Johns River Water Management District), David Hall and Bob Simons (KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc.).

As we have called property owners and requested permission to enter and survey their land, some owners asked to be notified in writing. An example of the letter used for notification was discussed. We have obtained permission for most of the lands selected. A few owners have asked us to stay off their property

Some property owners have requested a copy of the survey. It will either be sent directly to them from KBN or a copy will be sent by Alachua County at the completion of the project. KBN will make sure the owner's name, address, and phone number is listed.

Bob Simons explained the mapping of natural areas which he has now finished. He discussed several problems using quad maps for orientation. Field work is still progressing and should be finished by the end of August. GIS will have attributes which list the habitats by number. Habitat descriptions should have the typical species for each habitat listed.

The next meeting for this committee is scheduled for September 13, 1996, in the conference room of the Environmental Protection Department. We will try to have rough drafts of all deliverables present including the ranking system.

13 September 1996 Meeting Minutes

Committee met at 1:00 pm in the conference room of the Environmental Protection Department.

Attending: Alice Reuman (Alachua County Office of Planning & Development), Michael Drummond (Alachua County Environmental Protection Department), Cathrin Smith (Suwannee River Water Management District), Kenneth Berk (St. Johns River Water Management District), David Hall and Bob Simons (KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc.).

Drafts of all remaining deliverables were presented to the committee with the exception of GIS mapping.

Field work and all field write-ups have been finished.

All natural lands project areas evaluations have been completed with only the acreage of the various habitats remaining to be added.

Minutes of all progress meetings are up-to-date.

Budget data is up-to-date.

Evaluation of the natural lands has been completed with two weightings: neutral and wetland.

GIS mapping of project boundaries has been completed. Habitat boundaries to date have been digitized on only a few quads. Attributes which list the habitats by number also remain to be added.

Comments on all deliverables presented to the committee as of this date are to be given to either Alice Reuman or David Hall on or before September 20, 1996.

A final meeting for this committee will be scheduled to present the results for the entire project to the community.

_____________________________________________________________________

Table 2-1. List of Parameters/Subparameters and Scoring Used for Site Rankings

VII. VEGETATION VALUE

A. Species Diversity

Based on relative numbers of species of vegetation recorded or estimated at site.

1. Very low.

2. Low.

3. Moderate.

4. High.

5. Very high.

B. Exotics

1. Area has extensive invasive exotics and extensive control required.

2. Area has some invasive exotics, control is required and can be successful.

3. Some exotics present and landscape is conducive for introduction of exotic plants and/or animals.

4. Exotics not present but landscape is conducive for introduction of exotic plants and /or animals.

5. Exotics not present and not easily introduced.

VIII. ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT VALUE (PLANTS AND ANIMALS)

A. Habitat not conducive for listed species, or no species likely.

B. Habitat potential for listed species low, or not good habitat for any listed species, but occasional use or occurrence possible.

C. Habitat potential for some listed species moderate, or good habitat for one or more species.

D. Habitat potential for some listed species high, or very good habitat for one or more listed species.

1. Habitat potential for many listed species excellent, or the best habitat for one or more listed species.

IX. WILDLIFE HABITAT VALUE

A. Sparse cover, high edge to area ratio and poor breeding, nesting and foraging habitat for game and non-game species.

B. Moderate cover, high edge to area ratio, nesting and foraging habitat, transient use by game and non-game animals.

C. Moderate cover, medium edge to area ratio, commonly used by game and non-game animals.

D. Moderate cover, with low edge to cover ratio, good foraging habitat.

E. High cover, low edge to area ratio, high cover and forage value, area used for breeding and feeding by game and non-game animals.

X. HYDROLOGY

A. Floridan Aquifer Groundwater

1. Little value for aquifer recharge.

2. Good value for aquifer recharge.

3. Significant importance for most values for aquifer recharge.

4. Great importance for aquifer recharge, some karst features.

5. Karst watershed, stream to sink system.

B. Surface Water and Surficial Aquifer Resource Protection and Flood Protection

Measure this value by estimating the amount of wetlands, the amount of area within the 100-year floodplain of streams, and the volume of water that can be stored.

Value = water storage ability of the particular property;

Protection of surface water = size of property.

1. Little value for water storage or protection of surface water quality.

2. Some value for water storage or protection of surface water quality.

3. Significant value for water storage or protection of surface water quality.

4. Significant importance for most values for water storage or protection of surface water quality.

5. Great importance for water storage or protection of surface water, especially if as a part of a karst watershed.

C. Vulnerability of Floridan Aquifer

Measure this value by assessment of possible contamination and use the Florida Geological Open File Report No. 21 (Macesich, 1988) for additional data.

1. Very low.

2. Low.

3. Moderate.

4. High.

5. Very High.

XI. LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY

A. Community Diversity

1. One to three communities of good quality.

2. Four to seven communities of good quality.

3. Eight to eleven communities of good quality.

4. Twelve to fifteen communities of good quality.

5. Sixteen or more communities of good quality.

B. Ecological Quality

This value is based on the evaluations of community quality as defined in Section 2.2.8.

List any significant endemics and note maturity of community.

1. Community types in poor condition.

2. Community types in fair condition.

3. Community types in good condition.

4. Community types in excellent condition.

5. Extraordinary example due either to rarity or quality.

C. Community Rarity (see definition in Section 2.2.8)

1. Habitat secure, quite common in Florida.

2. Habitat frequent in Florida.

3. Habitat local, but not rare.

4. Habitat rare, 6 to 20 occurrences.

5. Habitat critically imperiled, less than 5 occurrences.

D. Functional Connectedness

Riparian corridor given slightly greater weight.

1. Isolated, no functional connections.

2. Connected to other natural areas, but connections narrow.

3. Connected to two or more other natural areas.

4. Connected to other natural areas, with wide connections (contiguous).

5. Provides important connection between two or more public natural lands.

XII. MANAGEMENT POTENTIAL

B. Location and/or extent of degradation would make management difficult and expensive. Questionable whether protection/restoration programs would be successful.

___________________________________________________________________

	Table 4-2. Site Rankings Based on Subparameter Scores
Rank	Site	Total Score
1	Santa Fe River	50
2	Hornsby Springs	46
3	Hogtown Prairie (Sugarfoot Hammock)	44
4	Lochloosa Forest West	43
5	Fox Pond	41
6	Prairie Creek	40
6	Levy Lake (Barr Hammock)	40
8	Gum Root Swamp	39
9	Lochloosa Creek Headwaters Flatwoods	38
9	Lochloosa Forest Additions	38
9	Mill Creek	38
9	Kanapaha Prairie	38
13	East Side Newnans Lake	37
14	East Side Greenway	36
15	Chacala Pond	35
15	Austin Cary Flatwoods	35
15	Lochloosa Slough	35
15	Northeast Flatwoods	35
15	Watermelon Pond	35
20	Buck Bay Flatwoods	34
20	Lochloosa Creek	34
20	Buzzards Roost	34
23	North San Felasco Hammock	33
23	Millhopper Flatwoods	33
23	Hague Flatwoods	33
26	East Lochloosa Forest	32
26	Domino Hammock	32
28	Bird Island	31
28	Serenola Forest	31
28	East San Felasco Hammock	31
31	Hatchet Creek	30
31	Lake Alto Swamp	30
31	Paynes Prairie West	30
31	South Melrose Flatwoods	30
31	Rocky Creek	30
36	Hickory Sink	29
36	Saluda Swamp	29
36	Pine Hill Forest	29
39	Monteocha Creek	28
39	South LaCrosse Forest	28
39	Little Orange Creek	28
39	Fred Bear Hammock	28
43	Santa Fe Creek	26
44	Hasan Flatwoods	25
45	Morans Prairie	24
46	Buda Sandhills	22
47	Beech Valley	20

______________________________________________________________________________________________

	Table 4-3. Site Rankings Based on Parameter Scores
Rank	Site	Total Score
1	Santa Fe River	31
2	Hornsby Springs	28
3	Hogtown Prairie (Sugarfoot Hammock)	27
4	Lochloosa Forest West	26
5	Fox Pond	25
6	Levy Lake (Barr Hammock)	24
6	Gum Root Swamp	24
6	Lochloosa Creek Headwaters Flatwoods	24
9	Prairie Creek	23
9	Lochloosa Forest Additions	23
9	East Side Newnans Lake	23
12	Mill Creek	22
12	Lochloosa Slough	22
12	Northeast Flatwoods	22
15	Kanapaha Prairie	21
15	East Side Greenway	21
15	Austin Cary Flatwoods	21
15	Watermelon Pond	21
15	Buck Bay Flatwoods	21
15	Lochloosa Creek	21
15	East Lochloosa Forest	21
22	Chacala Pond	20
23	Bird Island	20
23	Buzzards Roost	20
25	Hague Flatwoods	19
25	Domino Hammock	19
25	Serenola Forest	19
25	South Melrose Flatwoods	19
29	North San Felasco Hammock	18
29	Millhopper Flatwoods	18
29	Hatchet Creek	18
29	Lake Alto Swamp	18
29	Paynes Prairie West	18
29	Rocky Creek	18
29	Hickory Sink	18
29	Saluda Swamp	18
29	Monteocha Creek	18
38	East San Felasco Hammock	17
38	Little Orange Creek	17
38	Santa Fe Creek	17
41	South LaCrosse Forest	16
41	Fred Bear Hammock	16
41	Pine Hill Forest	16
44	Hasan Flatwoods	15
45	Morans Prairie	15
46	Beech Valley	13
47	Buda Sandhills	12

______________________________________________________________________________________________

AUSTINCARY FLATWOODS

PRIORITY: 15 (slightly above average) (from unweighted sub-parameter score)

KEY FEATURES: This is a large site of mostly pine flatwoods habitat used for commercial forestry. The mesic flatwoods has been converted to slash pine plantation and the sites have been bedded. It varies from fairly poor habitat to fairly good habitat. The wetland sites of creek bottoms, cypress domes, and basin swamps that are scattered throughout the flatwoods are mostly in good condition. A significant part of Hatchet Creek and its watershed is here, making this a significant surface water resource area.

USGS QUAD: Orange Heights, Waldo

SIZE: 12,477 acres

BIO-COMMUNITY TYPES	ACRES	CONDITION OF BIO-COMMUNITY
Sandhill	206	fair to poor
Former Sandhill	16	poor
Wet Flatwoods	269	fair to poor
Mesic Flatwoods	9317	fair to some poor
Hydric Hammock	3	Fair
Bog	6	good
Baygall	514	good
Seepage Slope Forest *	142	good
Bottomland Forest	147	good
Floodplain Swamp	517	good
Depression Marsh	31	good
Basin Swamp	292	good
Dome Swamp	369	good to fair
Farm Pond *	8
Flatwoods pond	1	good
Blackwater Stream		good
Rough Pasture *	354
Row crops *	177
Active Mining *	9
Low Impact Development *	18

* Categories not used by FNAI

CONNECTIONS:
Adjacent Areas	Quality of Connection
Hatchet Creek	excellent
Gumroot Swamp	excellent
Austin Cary Forest	excellent
Saluda Swamp	fair
Lake Alto Swamp	fair to poor
Northeast Flatwoods	fair
Lochloosa Creek HQ Flatwoods	fair

(Some of these connections could be improved with highway wildlife underpasses, especially where small streams cross.)

SITE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS: The boundaries are regular in shape and conform to property boundaries, roads, section lines, or other surveyed lines except for the western boundary just south of the Austin Cary Memorial Forest. There are two small inholdings.

GEOLOGIC/HYDROLOGIC FEATURES: This site is underlain by the Hawthorn formation, which is fairly thick here and impervious to water percolation. The relatively flat topography is dotted with shallow depressions that hold water. The surface drainage is into Hatchet Creek, which flows into Newnan's Lake, which flows into Paynes Prairie and Orange Lake, both of which provide direct input into the Floridan Aquifer.

WILDLIFE HABITAT: Most of the habitat is mesic flatwoods of low to moderate wildlife habitat value. However, there is a lot of it, and there are wetlands with good habitat values scattered throughout. There is abundant browse, abundant cover, a good supply of water, but few cavities or burrows. Some of the most abundant, or at least noticeable, animals include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), black racer (Coluber constrictor), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), yellow throat (Geothylpis trichas), and rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus). A much less common species, the swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus), has been observed nesting here in recent years (Muschlitz, 1996). The many small isolated wetlands are important amphibian breeding sites and provide feeding habitat for wading birds (Moler and Franz, 1987).

RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES: The Game and Fish Commission's habitat use maps show a small amount of use by wood storks (Mycteria americana) (Arnold, 1995). We observed a small flock of them on the site. The maps show greater use for snowy egrets (Egretta thula) and tricolored herons (Egretta tricolor), and a small amount of use by little blue herons (Egretta caerulea) (Arnold, 1995). There is some use by bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) indicated (Arnold, 1995), but there is almost no open water and there are no nests, so this seems a bit odd. There are alligators (Alligator mississippiensis), canebrake rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus), gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus), gopher frogs (Rana capito), and at least one record for a short-tailed snake (Stilosoma extenuatum) (on the Austin Cary Forest near the boundary beside even better habitat on the site) (Moler, 1996). Black bears (Ursus americanus) are observed here rarely (Wooding, 1996). The habitat could be reclaimed to support both Sherman's fox squirrels (Sciurus niger Shermani) and red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) (Simons, 1996). Listed plants observed on the site include: hooded pitcher plant (Sarracenia minor), bearded grass-pink (Calopogon barbatus), yellow butterwort (Pinguicula lutea), and blue butterwort (Pinguicula caerulea). Plants listed as commercially exploited that were observed on the site are wild azalea (Rhododendron canescens), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea).

EXOTICS: There are few exotic plants on the site. Those found in small numbers are mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora), and Spanish gold (Sesbania punicea).

RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT POTENTIAL: Most of the mesic and wet flatwoods has been bedded and planted with slash pine, but some has good ground cover due to less intense site preparation and/or more prescribed burning and/or longer time since planting to recover. With more frequent prescribed burning and by allowing some trees to reach old age, the habitats for native plants and animals could be greatly improved (Simons, 1990). The key is prescribed burning, which is possible here due to the large size of the site, but is somewhat constrained by US 301 on the east side, and by SR 24 on the NW side, and by the Gainesville Regional Airport to the southwest.

RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION STRATEGIES: One of the main threats to this site is a gradual decline in the quality of the upland habitats due to infrequent prescribed burning. This degrades the quality of the ground cover vegetation through increased competition and shading by trees and shrubs. Intense site preparation methods such as the use of herbicides when sites are reforested is also causing some ground cover degradation. The major long term threat is real estate development.

This site is so large and so valuable for timber production, that the only appropriate strategies are ones that allow private owners to continue to profitably grow timber. Continued support for the agricultural exemption is a must for this strategy to work. Another strategy would be to seek conservation easements to protect the resource values. A third strategy would be to seek cooperative agreements with the private landowners to help promote or conduct prescribed burning in the fire adapted ecosystems. The points of connection to other sites are particularly important to protect. Enforcement of dredge and fill regulations to protect isolated wetlands is also important. It is also important for Forestry Best Management Practices to be followed.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: This site has large areas of wetlands and is a important water storage and watershed area. It also has several streams with some broad floodplain areas that include both 10 year and 100 year floodplains. There is only a small amount of open water.

SITE VISITS: Bob Simons, 6/25/96; David Clayton, 8/15/96.

SITE EVALUATION SCORING

Vegetation:

Species Diversity

Exotics

Endangered Species Habitat

Wildlife Habitat

Hydrology:

Floridan Aquifer

Surficial Aquifer Resource Protection

Vulnerability of Aquifer

Landscape Ecology:

Community Diversity

Ecological Quality

2.5

Community Rarity

Functional Connectedness

Management Potential

3.5

Note: See Table 2-1 for parameter descriptions.

______________________________________________________________________________

BEECHVALLEY

PRIORITY: 47 (lowest rated site) (from unweighted sub-parameter score)

KEY FEATURES: This valley once contained the finest example of slope forest on the peninsula of Florida, including the largest population of beech trees (Fagus grandifolia) and a population of Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). There are still spruce pines (Pinus glabra), swamp chestnut oaks (Quercus michauxii), laurel oaks (Quercus laurifolia), pignut hickory trees (Carya glabra), and sweetgums (Liquidambar styraciflua), but the beech trees and the original character of the slope forest are gone. The soil and topography are still intact, but the forest has been partially cleared and grazed by cattle for more than twenty years.

USGS QUAD: Worthington Springs

SIZE: 378 acres

BIO-COMMUNITY TYPES	ACRES	CONDITION OF BIO-COMMUNITY
Slope Forest	102	good to poor (variable)
Mixed Upland Forest	114	good to fair (Mesic Hammock)
Upland Pine Forest	7	poor
Baygall	4	good
Bottomland Forest	18	good
Farm Pond *	1	fair
Seepage Stream		fair
Rough Pasture *	114
Row Crops *	14
Low Impact Development *	2

* Categories not used by FNAI

CONNECTIONS: None

SITE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS: With a minor exception, the boundaries are irregular and do not follow property boundaries, roads, section lines, or other surveyed lines.

GEOLOGIC/HYDROLOGIC FEATURES: This is a large valley with a small stream in an area underlain by the Hawthorn Formation which precludes much percolation down into the Floridan Aquifer. The resulting runoff is to the small stream in this valley and from there into the Santa Fe River.

WILDLIFE HABITAT: The mix of hardwood forest and healthy pasture land is good potential habitat for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). The mesic hammock and slope forest provides good habitat for migrating song birds. Birds seen during the inventory include pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Carolina wren (Thryothorus), parula warbler (Parula americana), and red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus). The habitat diversity is not high, the browse production is low due to the cattle, but there is good mast production, abundant water, and some tree cavities. There are no burrows except for a few armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) burrows, and there is little cover.

RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES: None.

EXOTICS: There are a few chinaberry (Melia azedarach) and mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) trees at the north end and west side.

RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT POTENTIAL: If an individual, agency, or organization wanted to buy this property and restore the slope forest to its former grandeur, it would be possible to do, although the site has been subdivided. Once purchased, one would have to establish a few beech seedlings grown from other Alachua County beech trees and protect the site from invasive exotics, logging, grazing, and other potentially destructive activities for many decades.

RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION STRATEGIES: The main threat in the distant past has been clearing for cattle pasture and the grazing of cattle. The main threat in the recent past has been subdividing for low density residential development, and this continues at present to be the main threat. Maintaining the low density character of development in this site would help conserve the watershed values. To restore and protect the biodiversity of the site, it would have to be purchased. Purchase is not recommended as a strategy for public agencies to pursue.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: There are some small wetlands here. There is also a small creek with some 10 year and 100 year floodplain area.

SITE VISITS: Bob Simons 6/15/96, 1987, 1980, 1962

SITE EVALUATION SCORING

Vegetation:

Species Diversity

Exotics

Endangered Species Habitat

Wildlife Habitat

Hydrology:

Floridan Aquifer

Surficial Aquifer Resource Protection

1.5

Vulnerability of Aquifer

Landscape Ecology:

Community Diversity

Ecological Quality

Community Rarity

Functional Connectedness

Management Potential

Note: See Table 2-1 for parameter descriptions.

______________________________________________________________________________

BIRDISLAND

PRIORITY: 28 (slightly below average) (from unweighted sub-parameter score)

KEY FEATURES: This is a major heron - egret rookery site on two small islands in the middle of Orange Lake. It is the oldest Audubon Sanctuary on earth, having been purchased in 1910 by the National Association of Audubon Societies (Pearson, 1941). It is currently owned by Florida Audubon. It is the oldest continually successful heron - egret rookery in Florida and is the only rookery successfully defended against the plume hunters in the early part of the twentieth century (Pearson, 1941). The success of this rookery inspired the early Audubon members to press on with their efforts to protect wild birds after having suffered disastrous setbacks between 1900 and 1910; it provided the emotional spark that resulted eventually in a highly successful conservation effort (Pearson, 1941)

USGS QUAD: McIntosh

SIZE: 737 acres (One 13-acre island, one 1-acre island, 41 acres of marsh, and 600 acres of surrounding lake).

BIO-COMMUNITY TYPES	ACRES	CONDITION OF BIO-COMMUNITY
Basin Marsh	41	fair
Shrub Swamp *	14	poor
Marsh Lake	681	fair

* Categories not used by FNAI

CONNECTIONS: This is in the middle of Orange Lake, and is thus connected by water to sites adjacent to both Orange and Lochloosa Lakes. Because its main value is as a heron/egret rookery, connections on the ground or water are not especially pertinent, since these birds are all good long distance fliers. However, there are less mobile species using the islands and surrounding thick beds of bonnets (spatterdock) (Nuphar lutea) and surrounding open water such as alligators (Alligator mississippiensis), river otters (Lutra canadensis), turtles, fish, rails and gallinules. These animals have good, if somewhat long distance, access by water to the following sites and conservation lands:

Lochloosa Slough/Orange Creek

Lochloosa Lake/SJRWMD South Lochloosa Lake

Lochloosa Forest (SJRWMD owned and conservation easement lands)

Lochloosa Forest West

SITE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS: The boundaries around the Bird Island site are somewhat arbitrary, and are meant to be the boundaries of Section 22, T12S, R21E. They are thus regular in shape and follow the section line. (The acreage may be slightly overestimated.) The idea is to include all the bonnet beds around the islands, since they provide an important buffer for the rookery, and to include enough open water to provide a buffer area for protection from potential damage by herbicides or other causes.

GEOLOGIC\HYDROLOGIC FEATURES: The islands are low, not always even reaching the surface. The surrounding lake bottom is shallow, gradually sloping away from the islands. The lake itself is partially perched on Hawthorn Formation clays, but there are sink holes in the lake bottom that breach this formation, allowing interchange of water between Orange Lake and the Floridan Aquifer. Orange Lake receives water from the River Styx drainage, which is artificially enhanced by Camp's Canal, bringing drainage from Newnan's Lake that comes from the Hatchet Creek and Little Hatchet Creek watersheds. Orange Lake also receives water from Lake Lochloosa and the Lochloosa Creek watershed. Water from Orange Lake goes into Orange Creek, into the Floridan Aquifer, and is evaporated.

WILDLIFE HABITAT: The main value of this site is that it supports a major rookery that is now dominated by cattle egrets (Bubulcus ibis), but also supports moderate numbers (10 to 100 each) of white ibis (Eudocimus albus), snowy egrets (Eudocimus albus), little blue herons (Egretta caerulea), and anhingas (Anhinga anhinga) (Nesbitt, 1996). There is also some nesting, at least in some years, by great egrets (Casmerodius albus), tricolor herons (Egretta tricolor), black crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax), yellow crowned night herons (Nyctanassa violacea), green-backed herons (Butorides striatus), glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), boat-tailed grackles (Quiscalus major), and red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeuiceus) (Simons, Alachua Audubon Society Sanctuary Chairman, personal observation). There is also some use by moorhens (Gallinula chloropus), purple gallinules (Porphylrula martinica), king rails (Rallus elegans), America bitterns (Botaurus lentiginosus), and least bitterns (Ixobrychus exilis), some of which probably also nest here (Simons, personal observation). All of this wildlife value is dependent on the vegetation, especially the shrubs, but also the bonnets and other marsh vegetation. The shrub thicket was originally dominated by elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), with some buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and coastal plain willow (Salix caroliniana) mixed in. There were also four bald cypress trees (Taxodium distichum).

Unfortunately, there has been a dramatic reduction of this vegetation accompanied by a dramatic reduction in use of this rookery in the last six years. In the first half of this century, thousands of little blue herons, snowy egrets, and other birds nested here (Pearson, 1941). Six years ago, there were still hundreds of white ibis, little blue herons, and snowy egrets along with perhaps a thousand cattle egrets (Simons, personal observation). Now, the bird counts at the rookery are down well below these numbers.

The bald cypress trees that supported nests of great blue herons (Ardea herodias) and anhingas are all dead, and most of the shrubs that supported the nests of the other herons and egrets are also dead or gone.

RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES: This is a significant rookery for white ibis, tricolored heron, little blue heron, and snowy egret. Limpkins (Aramus guarauna) occasionally visit Bird Island. Bird Island and its satellite rookeries elsewhere in Orange Lake at Redbird Island and P.G. Run are the only rookeries in Alachua County that were found to be active in 1996 and 1996 for Snowy egrets, little blue herons, and tricolored herons (Hintermister, 1996).

EXOTICS: Cattle egrets have been dominating this rookery for several decades, to the probable detriment of the other nesting species. Wild taro (Colocasia esculenta), an invasive exotic plant, is abundant on Bird Island. Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) is abundant in the open water throughout this site and the rest of Orange Lake.

RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT POTENTIAL: The most obvious problem is the death of most of the vegetation that supported the rookery in the past. The first observed change was the death of the bald cypress trees on the east side of the island about four to six years ago (observed by Simons and reported to several public agencies and private conservation organizations at the time). This has been followed by the mortality of about 95 % of the shrubs and a similar percentage of the bonnet marsh at the edge of the Bird Island (Simons, personal observation, 1996). Currently, the shrubs on the small island are completely gone, most of the shrubs on Bird Island are dead and/or gone, most of the ring of bonnet marsh around Bird Island is gone, but the large bonnet marsh to the south of Bird Island is still present (Simons, personal observation).

In order to plan for the restoration and future management of this resource, it is necessary to try to determine the cause or causes for the death of the vegetation, so that the appropriate actions can be recommended for protecting the resource in the future and for restoration. Several possible causes have been proposed for the deaths of the bald cypress trees: lightning strikes, diseases, insects, and herbicide damage. Proposed possible causes of the death of the shrubs are guano buildup from the rookery, the breaking of branches and other wear and tear by the nesting birds, water level fluctuations, old age, and herbicide applications. This woody vegetation has continuously occupied this site for at least 90 years. The nearly complete mortality of the woody vegetation has occurred at a time when the rookery was being used by fewer birds than in the past, and at a time of less extreme water level fluctuation than has occurred in the past. Similar woody plant death in Orange Lake on other islands and in marsh areas near shore which have had no rookery activity may point to a common cause. Recent herbicide applications may have had some effect. The water levels in Orange Lake have been unusually low in the early 1990's, which could allow for more impact on the vegetation from guano than would occur otherwise. More than one factor may be at work.

The damage to the bonnet beds around the islands might be due to herbicide applications. It is true that the bonnet beds have been expanding and colonizing new areas for a long time, and that some reduction of the bonnet beds is proper. It is also true that a great reduction of bonnets could have negative consequences for fish and wildlife. The bonnet beds not only provide feeding habitat for birds and breeding habitat for fish, but the bonnets around Bird Island served as a buffer for the rookery, reducing disturbance to the rookery by keeping boats and people farther away (Simons, personal opinion).

RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION STRATEGIES: There is a possibility that the biological resources of Bird Island are threatened by the effort to control aquatic weeds with herbicide applications. The operation of air boats next to Bird Island during the nesting season may be a threat as well.

A concerted, cooperative effort to protect Bird Island by the public agencies responsible for this lake may be needed to prevent further damage and allow for recovery to begin. This situation should be carefully evaluated by qualified experts. A restoration effort to re-establish the shrub swamp and the bonnet beds at both Bird Island and the small island may be needed, if the wildlife habitat values of Bird Island are to be restored and maintained.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS: This site is all open water or wetland.

SENSITIVITY TO RECREATIONAL USE: The rookery is sensitive to disturbance from anyone entering the rookery on foot during the nesting season. This has not been a problem in the past due to the nearly inaccessible nature of the shrub swamp and surrounding marsh. With the death of much of this vegetation, it might now be more of a potential problem. Frog gigging at night from air boats at the edge of the islands might be a serious threat to the birds during nesting season due to the loud noise and strong wind blast of these boats. The open water and bonnet bed areas are frequently used for fishing, which is an appropriate use that is no threat to the birds.

SITE VISITS: Bob Simons, 10/18/96 and many previous visits.

SITE EVALUATION SCORING

Vegetation:

Species Diversity

Exotics

Endangered Species Habitat

Wildlife Habitat

Hydrology:

Floridan Aquifer

Surficial Aquifer Resource Protection

Vulnerability of Aquifer

Landscape Ecology:

Community Diversity

Ecological Quality

Community Rarity

Functional Connectedness

Management Potential

Note: See Table 2-1 for parameter descriptions.

______________________________________________________________________________

BUCK BAY FLATWOODS

PRIORITY: 20 (average) (from unweighted sub-parameter score)

KEY FEATURES: This is a large site of commercial pine flatwoods forest and associated wetlands directly north of Gainesville. It is a major headwaters area, rather like a miniature Green Swamp, supporting the following creek systems to varying degrees: Rocky Creek, Monteocha Creek, Rhuda Branch, Hatchet Creek, Little Hatchet Creek, and a bit of Hogtown Creek. The entire Rhuda Branch system is on this site as well as Sunshine Lake at the north end of the site. Wetlands occupy large areas and provide a lot of surface water storage and wildlife habitat.

USGS QUAD: Gainesville East, Monteocha

SIZE: 18,018 acres

BIO-COMMUNITY TYPES	ACRES	CONDITION OF BIO-COMMUNITY
Sandhill	72	fair
Former Sandhill	19	poor
Upland Mixed Forest	17	fair
Wet Flatwoods	538	fair
Mesic Flatwoods	11770	fair
Hydric Hammock	75	good
Wet Prairie	24	fair
Bog	45	good
Baygall	897	good
Seepage Slope Forest *	194	good
Bottomland Forest	33	good
Floodplain Swamp	119	good
Basin Marsh	168	good
Depression Marsh	160	good
Basin Swamp	1431	good
Dome Swamp	968	good
Prairie Lake	215	fair
Swamp Lake	1	good
Blackwater Stream		good
Old Field Pine Plantation *	12
Site Conversion Pine Plantation *	15
Rough Pasture *	597
Improved Pasture *	245
Row Crops *	107
Low Impact Development *	147
High Impact Development *	42

* Categories not used by FNAI

CONNECTIONS:
Adjacent Areas	Quality of Connection
Hague Flatwoods	good
Hatchet Creek	good