Environmental Support Document

ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT

General RV Expansion Hillsborough County, Florida

Submitted to: Southwest Florida Water Management District Tampa Service Office 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637 717731.000 Environmental Protection Commission 3629 Queen Palm Drive Tampa, Florida 33619 81648.0000

Prepared for: McNeal Engineering, Inc. 15957 North Florida Avenue Lutz, Florida 33549

Prepared by: Environmental Consultants, LLC P.O. Box 919 Thonotosassa, Florida 33592 813.317.5497

October 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 2.0 SOILS, LAND USE/COVER DESCRIPTIONS...... 2-1 3.0 WETLAND IDENTIFICATION...... 3-1 4.0 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT ...... 4-1 5.0 PROTECTED FLORAL AND FAUNAL SPECIES ...... 5-1 6.0 PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACTS AND WETLAND MITIGATION...... 6-1 6.1 WETLAND DESCRIPTIONS ...... 6-1 6.2 WETLAND IMPACTS AVOIDANCE/MINIMIZATION...... 6-2 6.3 MITIGATION PURPOSE ...... 6-3 6.4 WETLAND MITIGATION ...... 6-4 6.5 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE...... 6-4 7.0 REFERENCES...... 7-B1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures

Figure 1. Project Location Map

Figure 2. Soils Map

Figure 3. FLUCCS Map

TABLES

Tables

Table 1. Potential Listed Floral/Faunal Species

Table 2. General Faunal and Listed Floral and Faunal Observations

PROJECTS\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\ESD Oct 15.doc i APPENDICES

Appendices

Appendix A. Wetland Boundary Depiction

Appendix B. Project Photographs

Appendix C. UMAM Calculation Sheets

Appendix D. Mitigation Plan Sheet

PROJECTS\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\ESD Oct 15.doc ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Environmental Support Document (ESD) is to report the existing natural environmental conditions of the General RV Expansion project for information obtained from readily available databases and on-site investigations. Natural environmental conditions may include, but are not limited to the location and characterization of any wetlands, significant uplands and the potential occurrence and/or habitat of federal- or state-listed faunal and floral species within the project and adjacent areas. The ESD also addresses potential project impacts to these environmental resources and describes proposed actions taken in order to prevent or mitigate any potential harm to these resources.

The proposed project consists of an approximately 35.5-acre commercial development. The project is generally located north of East Hillsborough Avenue (East US Highway 92), south of Interstate 4, east of Gallagher Road, and west of Moores Lake Road in Section 29, Township 28 South, Range 21 East, Hillsborough County, Florida (Figure 1).

PROJECTS\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\ESD Oct 15.doc 1-1 2.0 SOILS, LAND USE/COVER DESCRIPTIONS

According to the Soil Survey of Hillsborough County, Florida five (5) soil map units were identified within the project boundary: Basinger, Holopaw, and Samsula soils, depressional (#5), Ft. Mead fine loamy sand- 0 to 5 percent slopes (#18), Lake fine sand (#25), Seffner fine sand (#47), and Water (#99) (Figure 2). Basinger, Holopaw, and Samsula soils, depressional is classified as hydric by state and federal agencies. The Water mapping unit is of course classified as hydric by default. All other on-site soil mapping units are classified as nonhydric by state and federal agencies.

Existing land use/cover has been classified according to the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS), which is widely utilized in development review in Florida (Florida Department of Transportation, 1999). According to Southwest Florida Water Management District’s (SWFWMD) 2010 land use/cover data the land use/cover to the northeast of the project consists of Cropland and Pastureland (FLUCCS 210) and Hardwood-Conifer Mixed (FLUCCS 434), which was recently developed to create the General RV site (Commercial and Services, FLUCCS 140) (Figure 3). Other land use/classification to the north includes Freshwater Marshes (FLUCCS 641) and Wet Prairies (FLUCCS 643), but is believed to be part of the storm water ponds created for the expansion of Interstate 4. Most of the area to the east and west of the proposed project area consists of Low Density Residential (FLUCCS 110), but does include a small area of Hardwood-Conifer Mixed, Reservoirs (FLUCCS 530), and Nurseries and Vineyards (FLUCCS 240). The area south of the proposed project includes US Highway 92 (Transportation, FLUCCS 810) and more Low Density Residential.

The proposed project area is primarily classified as Row Crops (FLUCCS 214), and it was planted in strawberries for years. However, the fields are currently fallow and would now be appropriately classified as Fallow Crop Land (FLUCCS 261). The tailwater recovery pond located in the southern third of the project area is classified as Reservoir and Emergent Aquatic Vegetation (FLUCCS 644), which is somewhat similar to its current condition. Another wetland classification Wet Prairie (FLUCCS 643) may be used to describe a small wetland located near the project's northwest corner.

Plant species relative abundance within each of the land use/cover classifications units may vary depending on microclimate, soil, hydrology, previous land management, and other natural or anthropogenic factors. Any discrepancies in the 2010 land use/cover data may be discussed is subsequent sections of this ESD.

PROJECTS\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\ESD Oct 15.doc 2-1 3.0 WETLAND IDENTIFICATION

The on-site wetlands were delineated by staff of the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County (EPC) and a survey depicting the wetland extent approved by EPC staff is provided in Appendix A. The wetlands and wetland hydroperiods were also reviewed and approved by Southwest Florida Water Management (SWFWMD) staff.

PROJECTS\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\ESD Oct 15.doc 3-1 4.0 SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT

None of the project's natural plant communities are mapped as Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) by Hillsborough County. The closest mapped habitat is over one (1) mile to the west.

PROJECTS\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\ESD Oct 15.doc 4-1 5.0 PROTECTED FLORAL AND FAUNAL SPECIES

Initially, a literature search was conducted to determine if protected species or their critical habitat were present within the study area. Data for protected species was obtained through the Internet for the Hillsborough County Geographic Information System (GIS) database library and the Florida Geographic Database Library (FGDL), which includes a repository of GIS data from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These data provide the location of protected species and critical habitat. Additional informational resources included;

 Institute for Systemic Botany. 2015. University of South Florida database;

 2011 aerial photography acquired from the Land Boundary Information System (LABINS) administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; and,  1999/2000 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps.

From review of the collateral information listed above and professional opinion based on site inspections conducted on September 25 and October 14, 2015 a table of potential listed faunal and floral species that may be found on or adjacent to the project site was created (Table 1). All indications of general and listed floral and faunal species in the project area were recorded in Table 2. The faunal species presented in the table included observations of actual animals or signs of their presence, including tracks, burrows, dens, scat, nests, and calls.

The inspections to date have revealed one (1) listed faunal species and no listed floral species to be present on the project site. Any listed species observed and those that may reasonably utilize the on-site resources are discussed below.

The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is designated as a SSC by FWC, and listed as Threatened by the USFWS because of its similarity in appearance to the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). Due to the species' adaptive nature and the number of wetlands and stormwater management features/structures within the local landscape the American alligator may utilize the on-site habitat. However, the project should have a “no effect” determination for American alligator.

The wood stork (Mycteria americana) is listed as Endangered (E) by both the USFWS and the FWC. Normally an inhabitant of pristine swamplands, wood storks often forage

PROJECTS\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\ESD Oct 15.doc 5-1 in ditches and ponds. They require concentrations of fish in shallow water where they "grope-feed". The project is located within the 18.6-mile Core Foraging Area (CFA) of several wood stork colonies. Wetland impacts to wetland feeding areas should be mitigated by the creation of wetland compensation areas designed to facilitate the wood stork's feeding behavior, or in the case of diminimus wetland impacts the compensation can be facilitated in the proper design of storm water ponds (i.e. littoral shelves).

Avifaunal waders including the snowy egret (Egretta thula), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), limpkin (Aramus guarana), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja), and white ibis (Eudocimas albus) are listed by the FWC as Species of Special Concern (SSC) and could reasonably be expected to occasionally utilize the project wetlands for foraging. These species are highly mobile and are not usually adversely affected by typical development, unless a rookery, nesting, foraging, or roosting area is adversely affected by direct or secondary impact. No direct impacts to these species are anticipated by the project as proposed and may increase foraging areas through the creation of storm water facilities.

The Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) is a large wading bird listed as threatened by the FWC, but remains unlisted by USFWS. The range of the Florida subspecies extends from southeastern Georgia through peninsular Florida. The Florida sandhill crane is non-migratory and becomes a permanent resident wherever it nests. This bird inhabits freshwater marshes, prairies, low-lying improved pastures, and shallow-flooded open areas. It typically nests from January to June in the shallow waters of lakes, ponds, and open marshes where maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), arrowhead (Thalia geniculata), and pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) are present.

Suitable nesting habitat for Florida sandhill crane was observed as the marginal herbaceous vegetation (Cuban bulrush, (Scirpus cubensis)) of the tail-water recovery pond located in the southern third of the proposed project site. Should development activities occur during the Florida sandhill crane's nesting season nest surveys should be conducted. Observations of active nests or nesting activity should be followed by mitigative actions and coordination with the FWC, as necessary, to prevent any adverse affects to this species.

PROJECTS\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\ESD Oct 15.doc 6.0 PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACTS AND WETLAND MITIGATION

6.1 WETLAND DESCRIPTIONS

Hillsborough County defines the area waterward of the wetland line as a “Wetland Conservation Area” (WCA) and the 30-foot area landward of the WCA as the “30-foot Wetland Conservation Area Setback” (30-foot WCAS). The SWFWMD refers to the same areas as a “Wetland” and the “Wetland Buffer”, respectively. However, unlike the County, SWFWMD wetland buffers apply to the first landward 25 feet from the wetland line.

The approved wetland delineation survey confirms four (4) wetlands within the project boundaries; WCA A, WCA B, WCA C, and WCA D.

WCA A's current configuration is a 2.52-acre tail-water recovery pond in a fallow strawberry field. Located in the southern third of the project area this wetland appears to be historically underlain by Basinger, Holopaw, and Samsula Depressional soil, but is now mapped as Water. The dominant vegetation of the wetland's littoral shelf and floating island consists of Cuban bulrush and Mexican seedbox/Peruvian primrosewillow (Ludwigia octovalvis/peruviana). Other vegetation noted along the south shore includes a row of Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana) and water spangles (Salvinia minima). Very little desirable vegetation was noted within this wetland. Because this wetland was historically excavated it appears to be inundated year round and has rather dramatic slopes that are steeper than 4:1 (horizontal:vertical). Perhaps due to the steep slopes a few erosion gullies were noted along the edges of this wetland. Wildlife use of this wetland is moderate and appears to be populated with fish species larger than the eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). The wetland is also utilized by a large population of southern leopard frogs (Rana sphenocephala) and either bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) or pigfrogs (Rana grylio) or both. The fish and amphibian populations would be expected to attract a number of avifaunal predators and several were noted during the field inspections to this property.

WCA B is an herbaceous, 0.11-acre depression in an area mapped with Basinger, Holopaw, Samsula, depressional soils that are usually associated with seasonal ponded conditions. WCA B is located in the project's northwest corner. Although historically the wetland appears to have been part of a larger freshwater marsh/wet prairie the current wetland extent was tilled and row-cropped in strawberries for the last 30 years or more and it doesn't appear as 'wetland' until the winter of 2014 (based on aerial review 1982 -

PROJECTS\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\ESD Oct 15.doc 6-1 2015). Most of the vegetation in this wetland is ruderal and consists of species such as torpedograss (Panicum repens), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Mexican seedbox, climbing hempvine (Mikania scandens), Elliott's rush (Juncus elliottii), groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia), tropical flatsedge (Cyperus surinamensis), and bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). WCA B appears more of a low spot in the strawberry field and the elevated planting beds remain evident in this wetland. This past year's above normal rainfall and an alleged proximal broken drainage pipe may have contributed to the hydrology of the wetland and making a proper assessment of the wetland's long-term hydrology difficult. Regardless, the hydrology appears ephemeral and no long term hydrologic indicators are apparent due to the wetland's recent resurrection. Wildlife utilization of WCA B is minimal with the receding ponded area used as a refugia for a number of southern leopard frogs and eastern mosquitofish.

WCA C is a 0.06-acre linear, ditch-like wetland immediately north of WCA B. Vegetated much like WCA B, this wetland's vegetative composition also includes a great deal of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica). Most of the comments that pertain to WCA B also characterizes WCA C. This wetland area is likely to be of very little value to wildlife. Upon field review of this wetland by EPC staff, they opined with the project engineer that the wetland is likely man-made, created by a leaking irrigation pipe (see Appendix B).

WCA D is also a 0.04-acre linear wetland that is located immediately west of WCA B with very similar characteristics to WCA C.

The surrounding uplands, fallow strawberry field, is vegetated with chest-high, ruderal species that includes all of the aforementioned plant species in addition to: hairy indigo (Indigofera hirsuta), littlebell (Ipomoea triloba), beggarticks (Bidens alba), southern crabgrass (Digitaria ciliaris), and caesarweed (Urena lobata). Generally the land slopes from south to north and the raised planting beds remain intact, sans the black plastic 'mulch'.

6.2 WETLAND IMPACTS AVOIDANCE/MINIMIZATION

The largest wetland impact is to WCA A at 2.52 acres. As proposed, this existing tailwater recovery pond is being temporarily impacted and will be incorporated into a much larger surface water management system which appears to meet EPC and SWFWMD policies for which traditional wetland avoidance and wetland mitigation may not be required.

PROJECTS\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\ESD Oct 15.doc The remaining proposed wetland impacts are to two (2) of the three (3) small wetlands located in the project's northwest corner consisting of permanent impacts to WCA B (0.11 acres) and C (0.06 acres) for a combined acreage of 0.17 acres. Representative photographs of the proposed wetland impact areas are included in Appendix B. However, as Wetland C is considered man-made the proposed impact for the northwest wetlands totals 0.11 acres.

Development of the project requires proper drainage and treatment of storm water. An existing 15-inch drainage pipe currently runs under WCA C that needs to be removed in order to design the necessary surface water management improvements. Removal of the pipe would also cause some impact to WCA B resulting from the proximal heavy equipment necessary to excavate and remove the pipe.

Important to the sales and marketing of the inventory is proper exposure of the inventory to the public. The primary route of this marketing, and of paramount importance, is through direct visual access of the recreational vehicle inventory to those traveling Interstate 4 requiring the RVs be placed as close to the property boundary as feasible. Already set back approximately 400 feet from the edge of the eastbound lanes preserving these low quality wetlands (WCA B and WCA C) would add approximately another 100 feet of distance from the interstate along approximately 250 feet of the 1,000 feet of interstate frontage. Due to the size of the vehicles, 400 feet remains within an acceptable distance for display, but the addition of another 100 feet produces sub- optimal visual acceptability. Further, there is a huge disparity in traffic flow between Interstate 4 and US Highway 92, so it is not economically feasible to redirect vehicle display along US Highway 92.

6.3 MITIGATION PURPOSE

The purpose of the proposed mitigation is to comply with agency regulatory requirements, by compensating for wetland impacts, enhancing existing wetlands, improving wetland habitat quality, enhancing wildlife utilization, and minimizing nuisance and non-native species seed source. State and local regulatory agencies are required to use the UMAM to determine mitigation requirements for proposed wetland impacts (Appendix C). The proposed wetland impacts to WCA B's UMAM calculation sheets depict a Functional Loss of 0.033.

PROJECTS\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\ESD Oct 15.doc 6.4 WETLAND MITIGATION

For the proposed temporary wetland impacts associated with WCA A, the applicant proposes to create littoral shelves within a portion of the expanded storm water pond which will be labeled as a wetland conservation area for the EPC on all subsequent plans and be afforded typical regulatory protection provided to wetland and wetland mitigation areas. EPC generally requires 1:1 compensation in these instances. The plan depicts a 2.73-acre mitigation area for the 2.52 acres of temporary wetland impact with approximately 6,758 SF of wetland plantings that include 24 7-gallon bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) on 10-foot centers, 552 4-inch pot (or bare root equivalent) pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) on 3-foot centers, 75 bare root white water lilies (Nymphaea odorata) on 5-foot centers, and 173 4-inch pot (or bare root equivalent) soft cordgrass (Spartina bakeri) on 3-foot centers (Appendix D). This 2.73 acre EPC wetland mitigation area is separated from the overall storm water pond by a subsurface earthen berm at elevation 54 feet (NGVD) to reduce the possibility of sediments infiltrating the mitigation area. While the SWFWMD may consider the entire area a storm water pond, the 2.73 acres will be afforded full wetland protection by the EPC.

For the proposed diminimus, but permanent wetland impacts associated with the low quality WCA B, the applicant proposes to mitigate with the excess acreage above the required 2.52 acres for WCA A impacts by the EPC (2.73 - 2.52 = 0.21). Draft UMAM calculation indicate that approximately 0.15 acres of mitigation would provide a functional gain of 0.034 units (0.033 units is the Functional Loss) at this site with a Location and Landscape score of 4, a Water Environment score of 5, and a Community Structure score of 6 with a Time Lag score of 1, and a Risk Factor of 2.25.

The proposed permanent wetland impacts attributed to WCA C does not require typical wetland compensatory actions as it is considered man-made.

WCA D is not proposed for impact and thus will not require wetland mitigation.

6.5 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

Exact sequencing may be provided after competitive bidding for the construction is completed.

PROJECTS\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\ESD Oct 15.doc 7.0 REFERENCES

Allen, M. 1988. Wildlife Survey Methodology Guidelines For Section 18.D of the Application for Development Approval. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Office of Environmental Services. 14 pp. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1995. Florida Wetland Delineation Manual. 198 pp. Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Second Edition. 81 pp. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. July 2009. Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern, Official Lists. 6 pp. Florida Geographic Data Library. FTP Site. 2015. ftp://ftp1.fgdl.org/pub/county/hernando/hillsborough core. Google Earth. 2015. kh.google.com Institute for Systemic Botany. 2015. University of South Florida. http://www.plantatlas.usf.edu/isb/use.htm U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1950. Soil Survey of Hillsborough County, Florida. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Government Printing Office. 68pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Soil Survey of Hillsborough County, Florida. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Government Printing Office. 266 pp. United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Parts 17.11 and 17.12. October 1, 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 74 pp. Wunderlin, R. P and Bruce Hansen. 2011. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida, Third Edition. University Presses of Florida. 783 pp.

PROJECTS\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\ESD Oct 15.doc FIGURES Projects\15-09Hi\BG 02\GIS\Project Boundary Map BU 101515 L S D 0 e a E p t e t H G

e D

G S B

m I o i

U C b u l E e l r

G P K c r s

e 2

N e E G r b : 0

r Y

T 1

P V o D a 5

O RRY PL r

A e

A H I o 0

r l L

V S M

e o

c L 2 R

I E

t u E

5 t

M MCINTOSH RD

G B V

P L o A JUDY u RD

o N

h S

n C u

d O L

C O

n F A

r N

A U

G d o SHG IRLEY JO LN

I R

a N H R H u

O D i

0 T E G l n R l i s

. R e

R 5

S . R E t M

C Y y s

E O

R o i

R V l ,

A .

E T

D M D

P I F

E N

r E o

R p

R R

. D

A r

D L

T R

E p

i I

O P N T

d D p

U r

E L T T W . a

T R O

S E $ E

GALLAGHER RD GALLAGHER RD

R T

f P H M i

c R S L e

I L N E

I A

G , T L

A I

H I L

T L T A

E L E L

A N

A W D 4 SWIFT CREEK CIR Y OHARA PL V

P I A

S E

9 E C

G R

R A

I E

L S

O T

E A

A D

O V

D R G

O O J

L S H

N T N E

E A

O R T ACE LN MOTT RD T E

C R O

D 4 S

W A T

A S

Y S

N A B

G R

D O

B MOORES LAKE RD

R D

L EDMUND CT

A I

H N U

A S

GREYHOUND LN

J I

Y M N

N N

A O A

K S

C I R A

K R

KIRKLAND RD D

R A D REOLA RD

R D

O C

FRITZKE RD COOPER RD

O S

H P

L I

N D S S E Y

L O O

P F

E R

D L

L D

C GLOVER FARM RD D

K F

A i

R O C K

R PETTIE RD C D u

E S

e S

N N R E

L LARK N DR

D 1 PINEBROOKE PL LEGEND 60 Project Bo6u0ndary

Soil Map Unit Boundary

5 Basinger, Holopaw, and Samsula soils, depressional 18 Fort Meade loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes 18 23 Kendrick fine sand 25 Lake fine sand 33 Ona fine sand 46 St. Johns fine sand 47 Seffner fine sand 60 Winder fine sand, frequently flooded 61 Zolfo fine sand 99 Water

Feet 0 200 400 800

Date Source: Project Boundary - Hills. Co. Prop. Appr. Office, Sept. 2015 $ 2009 Soils - SWFWMD2,5 2011 Image Source: 2011 1ft. True Color - Labins, 2015 23

5 47

18 5

47 18

46 99

25 5 1 5

1 25 0 1

U B

5 p

a 33

M 25 s l i o S \ S I G \ 2 0

G B \ i H 9 0 -

5 General RV 1 \ Figure 2 s t Hillsborough County, Florida c SOILS MAP e j o r P LEGEND 643 Project Boundary 810 434 434 FLUCCS Unit Boundary 644 643 434 110 Re62s1idential, Low Density 140 Commercial and Services 190 Open Land 210 Cropland and Pastureland 214 Row Crops 615 240 Nurseries and Vineyards 434 Hardwood - Conifer Mixed 530 Reservoirs 810 615 Streams and Lake Swamps (Bottomland) 434 621 Cypress 641 Freshwater Marshes 434 643 Wet Prairies 210 644 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation 641 810 Transportation 190 643 Feet 0 200 400 800 Date Source: Project Boundary - Hills. Co. Prop. Appr. Office, Se$ pt. 2015 2010 FLUCCS - SWFWMD, 2013 Image Source: 2011 1ft. True Color - Labins, 2015

434

214

530

110

644

110 530

644

240

110 5

1 641 5 1 0 1

U B

140 p 110 a M

S C C U L F \ S I G \ 2 0

G B \ i H 9 0 -

5 General RV 1 \ Figure 3 s t Hillsborough County, Florida c FLUCCS MAP e j o r P TABLES Table 1. Potential Listed Floral and Faunal Species - General RV Expansion Scientific Name Common Name Listed Status REPTILES Alligator mississipiensis American alligator FWC-SSC, FWS-T BIRDS Ajaia ajaja Roseate spoonbill FWC-T, FWS-T Egretta caerulea Little blue heron FWC-SSC Egretta thula Snowy egret FWC-SSC Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron FWC-SSC Eudocimas albus White ibis FWC-SSC Grus canadensis pratensis Florida sandhill crane FWC-T Mycteria americana Wood stork FWC-E, FWS-E Legend: Listed Status FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service FDA = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumers Services CE = Commercially Exploited E = Endangered SSC = Species of Special Concern T= Threatened

References: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. July 2009. Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern, Official Lists. 10 pp. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Parts 17.11 and 17.12. October 1, 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 74 pp. Institute for Systemic Botany. 2015. University of South Florida. http://www.plantatlas.usf.edu/isb/use.htm Table 2. Observed General Faunal and Listed Floral/Faunal Species - General RV Expansion Scientific Name Common Name Observation Listed Status FISH Gambusia holbrooki Eastern mosquitofish v AMPHIBIAN Hyla cinerea Green treefrog v Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog v Rana sphenocephala Southern leopard frog v REPTILES Anolis sagrei Brown anole v BIRDS Anhinga anhinga Anhinga v Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk v Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk c Casmerodius albus Great egret v Charadrius vociferus Killdeer c Cyanocitta cristata Blue jay c Dendrocygna autumnalis Black-bellied whistling-duck v Dendroica palmarum Palm warbler v Egretta thula Snowy egret v FWC-SSC Gallinago delicata Wilson's snipe v Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat v Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied woodpecker c Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird v Zenaida macroura Mourning dove v MAMMALS Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo t, b Lynx rufus Bobcat t, s Procyon lotor Raccoon t, s Legend: Observation - On-site confirmation of species to date, most definitive observation listed only b = burrows, digs, excavations c = call, song, vocalization e = evidence (skeletal remains, feathers, scatching/rubs, etc.) s = scat t = tracks v = visual observation Listed Status FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission USFWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service CE = Commercially Exploited E = Endangered SSC = Species of Special Concern T= Threatened APPENDICES APPENDIX A

Wetland Boundary Depiction

APPENDIX B

Project Photographs

PROJECTS\12-16Hi BG 03\ESD July 13.doc Photo 1. WCA A - Northwest corner looking southeast.

Photo 2. WCA B - West side looking east.

General RV Expansion Photographs 10-20-2015 Appendix B Hillsborough County, Florida

Projects\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\Photo pg1 PAGE 1 Photo 3. WCA C - West side looking east.

Photo 4. WCA C - Irrigation pipe repair January 7, 2015.

General RV Expansion Photographs 10-20-2015 Appendix B Hillsborough County, Florida

Projects\15-09Hi\BG 02\PA\Photo pg2 PAGE 2 APPENDIX C

UMAM Calculation Sheets

PROJECTS\12-16Hi BG 03\ESD July 13.doc PART I – Qualitative Description (See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number General RV, Expansion Wetland B

FLUCCS code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

641, Freshwater Marsh/530, Reservoir Impact 0.11 acres

Basin/WatershedName/Number AffectedWaterbody(Class) SpecialClassification (i.e., OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance) 12, Hillsborough River Basin III NA

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands No apparent direct connection to other surface waters or wetlands. May overflow during heavy rains or freeze protection/irrigation westward to a N-S ditch on adjoining property. Historically received runoff from active strawberry field which is now fallow.

Assessment area description Historic aerial review indicates this recently constructed wetland (circa 2014) was once part of an (upland) active strawberry field 1982 - 2013. However, prior to that (1938 aerial) depicts this wetland as part of a more extensive freshwater marsh or wet prairie. Currently, the area is inundated to the flagged limits and is vegetated with Panicum repens, Eupatorium capillifolium, Ludwigia octovalvis, Cyperus surinamensis, Cynodon dactylon, Mikania scandens, Juncus elliottii , Imperata cylindrica , and Azolla filiculoides .

Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Significant nearby features landscape.) I-4 (Interstate) is just north of the wetland along with an I-4 storm Not unique. water pond. The existing RV sales facility is to the east. South is fallow strawberry field dominated by nuisance and ruderal plant species. West is low density residential and agricultural fields.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use Temporary refugia for small fish, breeding and habitat for various frog None species and thus foraging opportunities for wading birds/birds of prey and small mammals.

Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the be found ) assessment area) See Attached Table 1. See Attached Table 1.

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): See Attached Table 1.

Additional relevant factors:

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): Bob Upcavage, Environmental Consultants, LLC 9/25/2015 (rev 10/19/2015)

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date ] ATTACHMENT A PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number GeneralRV,Expansion WetlandB Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Impact BobUpcavage,Env.Consult.LLC 25-Sep-15

Scoring Guidance Optimal(10) Moderate(7) Minimal(4) NotPresent(0) The scoring of each Condition is less than Condition is optimal and indicator is based on what optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to fully supports would be suitable for the maintain most wetland/surface water provide wetland/surface wetland/surface water type of wetland or surface wetland/surface water functions water functions functions water assessed functions

Current condition: The surrounding landscape does not include any natural areas that are withoug significant disturbance. The surrounding uplands consist of fallow strawberry fields that are rampant with ruderal/nuisance species. Avifaunal species and small mammals are the only wildlife that could utilize this wetland. However, better .500(6)(a) Location and habitat abounds in the vicinity in the form of large storm water ponds and tailwater recovery ponds that are likely to Landscape Support be more attractive to this 'urban' wildlife. The exception are small amphibians such as the northern leopard frog that are afforded cover from pedatory avifaunal species by the shrubby cover. With Project: All wetland functions would be lost. w/o pres or current with 4 0 Current condition: The wetland is currently inundated, however, 2015 has seen above normal rain conditions in the area of the proposed project and long-term records (aerials) are not available nor is the wetland vegetated with perennial species that could provide evidence of previous hydrological conditions. The previous 22 years had the wetland area pparently planted in strawberries (generally the dry season). Water quality may have suffered due to .500(6)(b)Water Environment continuous use of herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers consistent with typical farming practices. Heavy rains have (n/a for uplands) previously deposited sediments into the wetland. With Project: All wetland functions would be lost.

w/o pres or current with

3 0

Current condition: Vegetation consists of one stratum, groundcover. All species species are considered ruderal/nuisance species. The only species considered 'good' are Juncus elliottii and Cyperus surinamensis , and .500(6)(c)Community structure both are indicative of disturbed areas. Additionally, two species are on the FLEPPC Category I List (most invasive species), Panicum repens and Imperata cylindrica , Both latter species dominate the wetland and immediate upland areas. 1. Vegetation and/or With Project: All wetland functions would be lost. 2. Benthic Community w/o pres or current with

2 0

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, divide by 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current or w/o pres with FL=deltaxacres= 0.03 Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.30 0.00

If mitigation For mitigation assessment areas Delta=|with-current| Timelag(t-factor)= 0.30 Risk factor = RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk) =

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date]

Values 4 0 3 0 2 0 Variables 3 3 PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET

Assessment Conducted Name By Assessment DateSite/Project General RV, Expansion Bob Upcavage, Env. Consult., LLC 25-Sep-15

Type WETLAND ID ACREAGE DELTA TIME LAG RISK FUNCTIONAL LOSS RELATIVE FUNCTION GAIN FUNCTIONAL GAIN Impact Impact Area A 0.00 0.00 0.00 Impact Impact Areas B 0.11 0.30 0.03 Impact Impact Area E 0.00 0.00 0.00

Creation Mitigation Area A 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.00 Creation Mitigation Area B 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.00 Creation Mitigation Area C 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.00

Enhancement Wetland Enhancement Area A 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.00 Enhancement Wetland Enhancement Area B 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.00 Enhancement Wetland Enhancement Area C 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.00

Preservation Pres 0.00 1 1 0.00 0.00

Total Wetland Impact 0.11 TOTALS 0.033 NA 0.000 Total Mitigation - Creation 0.00 Total Mitigation - Enhancement 0.00 Total Mitigation - Preservation 0.00 Mitigation Ratio - Creation 0 :1 mit/impact Mitigation Ratio - Enhancement 0 :1 mit/impact Mitigation Ratio - Preservation 0 :1 mit/impact Mitigation Ratio - Overall 0 :1 mit/impact Table 1. Anticipated Wildlife List for Freshwater Marshes, Community Number 25 Adapted from "26 Ecological Communities of Florida" July 1987. Species that could utilize the site (site specific) are highlighted in yellow . Species observed are denoted in the last column to the right by a letter code. COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME RANGE FWC OBSERVED FISH Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis NCS Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus NCS Bowfin Amia calva NCS American eel Anguilla rostrata NCS Bullseye snakehead1 Channa marulius S Pygmy sunfish Elasoma evergladei CS Blue-spotted sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus NCS Lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta NCS Chain pickerel Esox niger NCS Swamp darter Etheostoma fusiforme NCS Gold-spotted killifish Floridichthys carpio NCS Lined topminnow Fundulus lineolatu NCS Western mosquito fish1 Gambusia affinis N Eastern mosquito fish Gambusia holbrooki N C S v Brown hoplo1 Hoplosternum littorale NCS Florida flag fish Jordanella floridae CS Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatis N Florida gar Lepisosteus platyrhincus CS Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus NC Warmouth Lepomis gulosus NCS Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus NCS Dollar sunfish Lepomis marginatus NCS Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus NCS Bluefin killifish Lucania goodei NCS Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides NCS Swamp eel1 Monopterus albus CS Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas NCS Tadpole madtom Noturus gyrinus NCS Blue tilapia1 Oreochromis aurea CS Sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna NCS Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus NCS

AMPHIBIANS Northern cricket frog Acris crepitans crepitans N Florida cricket frog Acris gryllus dorsalis NCS Southern cricket frog Acris gryllus gryllus N Two-toed amphiuma Amphiuma means NCS Dwarf salamander Eurycea quadridigitata NCS Green treefrog Hyla cinerea NCS Squirrel treefrog Hyla squirella NCS Little grass frog Limnaoedus ocularis NCS Southern chorus frog Pseudacris nigrita nigrita S Florida chorus frog Pseudacris nigrita verrucosa NCS Ornate chorus frog Pseudacris ornata N Southern dwarf Siren Pseudobranchus axanthus NCS Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana NCS Table 1. Anticipated Wildlife List for Freshwater Marshes, Community Number 25 Adapted from "26 Ecological Communities of Florida" July 1987. Species that could utilize the site (site specific) are highlighted in yellow . Species observed are denoted in the last column to the right by a letter code. Pig frog Rana grylio NCS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME RANGE FWC OBSERVED Southern leopard frog Rana sphenocephala N C S v Greater siren Siren lacertina NCS

REPTILES Eastern cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus NCS American alligator Alligator mississipiensis N C S SSC Green anole Anolis carolinensis NCS Brown anole Anolis sagrei NCS Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina NCS Peninsular cooter Chrysemys floridana peninsularis NCS Chicken turtle Deirochelys reticularia NCS Mud snake Farancia abacura abacura NCS Striped mud turtle Kinosternon bauri NCSE2 Florida mud turtle Kinosternon subrubrum steindachneri NCS Banded water snake Nerodia fasciata fasciata N Florida water snake Nerodia fasciata pictiventris CS Black swamp snake Seminatrix pygaea NCS Florida brown snake Storeria dekayi N C S Southeastern crowned snake Tantilla coronata N Florida ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus sackeni NCST2 Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis NCS Florida softshell Trionyx ferox NCS

BIRDS Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus NCS Wood duck Aix sponsa NCS Green-winged teal Anas crecca NCS Blue-winged teal Anas discors NCS Mottled duck Anas fulvigula NCS Anhinga Anhinga anhinga NCS Limpkin Aramus guarana N C S SSC Great blue heron Ardea herodias NCS Lesser scaup Aythya affinis NCS Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris NCS American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus NCS Great horned owl Bubo virginianus NCS Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus NCS Green heron Butorides striatus NCS Common snipe Gallinago gallinago NCS Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis NCS Great egret Casmerodius albus NCS Turkey vulture Cathartes aura NCS Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon NCS Killdeer Charadrius vociferus NCS Northern harrier Circus cyaneus NCS Black vulture Coragyps atratus NCS American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos NCS Fish crow Corvus ossifragus NCS Table 1. Anticipated Wildlife List for Freshwater Marshes, Community Number 25 Adapted from "26 Ecological Communities of Florida" July 1987. Species that could utilize the site (site specific) are highlighted in yellow . Species observed are denoted in the last column to the right by a letter code. Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata NCS Little blue heron Egretta caerulea NCS SSC COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME RANGE FWC OBSERVED Snowy egret Egretta thula NCS SSC American swallow-tailed kite Elanoides forficatus CS White ibis Eudocimas albus NCS SSC Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus NCSE American coot Fulica americana NCS Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus NCS Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas NCS Sandhill crane Grus canadensis NCS Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis NCST Southern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus NCST Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana NCS Song sparrow Melospiza melodia NC Wood stork Mycteria americana NCSE Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax NCS Osprey Pandion haliaetus N C S SSC2 White pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos NCS Double-crested cormorant Phalacorcorax auritus NCS Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps NCS Purple gallinule Porphyrula martinica S Purple martin Progne subis NCS Boat-tailed grackle Quiscalus major NCS Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula NCS King rail Rallus elegans NCS Snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis SE Rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx ruficollis NCS Barred owl Strix varia NCS Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria NCS

MAMMALS Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus NCS Florida panther Felis concolor coryi NCSE River otter Lutra canadensis NCS Mink Mustela vison NCS Round-tailed muskrat Neofiber alleni NCS White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus NCS Marsh rice rat Oryzomys palustris S Raccoon Procyon lotor N C S t Feral hog1 Sus scrofa NCS Swamp rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus N Marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris NCS Florida black bear Ursus americanus floridanus NCST3 Table 1. Anticipated Wildlife List for Freshwater Marshes, Community Number 25 Adapted from "26 Ecological Communities of Florida" July 1987. Species that could utilize the site (site specific) are highlighted in yellow . ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS NOT COMMON TO FRESH WATER MARSHES COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME RANGE FWC OBSERVED Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos N C S v NCS

List of Abbreviations C = Central Florida Distribution N = North Florida Distribution S = South Florida Distribution

FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

E = Endangered Species T = Threatened Species SSC = Species of Special Concern

c = call, vocalizations d = digs, burrows, scratchings t = tracks, rubs, trails n = nest, bedding s = scat v = visual fo = fly over (wildlife not necessarily utilizing the property).

1 = Nonnative species 2 = FWC listing in FL Keys only 3 = FWC listing in other than Baker or Columbia Counties or in the Apalachicola Forest

Sources: Internet. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010 Official Lists of Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. July 2009. 26 Ecological Communities of Florida. Soil Conservation Society of America. 1987. APPENDIX D

Mitigation Plan Sheet

PROJECTS\12-16Hi BG 03\ESD July 13.doc