Part Iii. Environmental Resources Impacts Question 12

PART III. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES IMPACTS

QUESTION 12 - VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE

See State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, F.S.)

GOAL( 9); POLICY ( 7)

GOAL (10); POLICIES ( 1),( 3),( 4),( 6)

GOAL (16); POLICY ( 2)

A. Identify the dominant species and other unusual or unique features of the plant communities on Map F. Identify and describe the amount of all plant communities that will be preserved in a natural state following development as shown on Map H.

The land use types and vegetative communities within the boundaries of the site were reviewed in the field and classified utilizing the FLUCCS, Level III (FDOT, January 1999) (Map F). The boundaries of all wetlands and surface waters on the site were delineated in accordance with SWFWMD Chapter 62-340, F.A.C., and the ACOE pursuant to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Manual) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plan Region (Version 2.0) (November 2010). The SWFWMD or ACOE have not reviewed the wetland delineations in the field. Map F2 depicts the approximate locations of all wetlands/surface waters and the vegetative cover and community types for all wetlands, surface waters and uplands within the project boundaries.

The site currently supports seven different land use types/vegetative communities within its boundaries. There were no unusual or unique vegetative communities on the site. The following provides brief descriptions for each of the land use types/vegetative communities identified within the subject property boundaries:

Uplands

Cropland and Pastureland (210): The pastures were dominated by bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) with scattered occurrences of live oak (Quercus virginiana), American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), grape vine (Vitis sp.), winged sumac

(Rhus copallinum), blackberry (Rubus sp.), dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), cudweed (Pseudognaphalium sp.), Carolina cranesbill (Geranium carolinianum), yucca (Yucca sp.), pricklypear (Opuntia humifusa), and tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum). There was also evidence of remnant crops of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) and watermelon (Citrullus lanatus).

Hardwood-Coniferous Mixed (434): The canopy and subcanopy taxa consisted of live oak, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), water oak (Quercus nigra), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine (Pinus elliottii), sand live oak (Quercus geminata), cabbage palm, turkey oak (Quercus laevis), scrub oak (Quercus inopina), and common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana). Herbaceous and shrub taxa included saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), blueberry (Vaccinium sp.), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), grape vine, American beautyberry, pawpaw (Asimina sp.), blackberry, bahiagrass, cudweed, Canada toadflax (Linaria canadensis), tropical soda apple, pawpaw (Asimina sp.) bluestem (Andropogon sp.), gallberry (Ilex glabra), staggerbush (Lyonia sp.), tarflower (Bejaria racemosa), blackroot (Pterocaulon pycnostachyum), bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), elephantsfoot (Elephantopus sp.), common persimmon, and cottonweed (Froelichia floridana).

Utilities (830): Vegetation was similar to the cropland and pastureland (210) with evidence of prior peanut crops.

Wetlands and Surface Waters

Reservoirs less than 10 acres (4 hectares) which are dominant features (534): Both surface water features were heavily used by cattle and contained no vegetation within the interior of the ponds. Surface water 2 located in the northwest corner of the site exhibited bahiagrass around the perimeter of the pond.

Freshwater Marsh (641): Most of these areas were utilized by cattle and vegetation was disturbed. Species included duckweed (Lemna sp.), manyflower marshpennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata), dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), dock (Rumex sp.), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), southern watergrass (Luziola fluitans), spikerush (Eleocharis sp.), false reinorchid (Habenaria sp.), threadleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria filiformis), water spangles (Salvinia minima), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), water-hyacinth (Eichhornia sp.), watershield (Brasenia schreberi), floating marshpennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica).

Wet Prairie (643): Most of these areas were heavily utilized by cattle. Evidence of mowing in and around the systems was observed. Species included manyflower marshpennywort, dotted

22 smartweed, mild waterpepper (Polygonum hydropiperoides), mock bishopsweed (Ptilimnium capillaceum), southern watergrass, alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), flatsedge (Cyperus sp.), creeping primrosewillow (Ludwigia repens), bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), tropical soda apple, Nuttall’s thistle (Cirsium nuttallii), dogfennel, and cudweed. The edges of some of the systems contained live oak, sweetgum, cabbage palm, crabgrass (Digitaria sp.), and dead oaks in the weatland interior.

The majority of the site is in improved pasture or row crops with lesser components of upland forests. The site will be mass-graded. Therefore, none of the existing land uses or vegetative communities will remain except for approximately eight acres around the existing bald eagle nest and approximately seven acres of wetlands.

B. Discuss what survey methods were used to determine the absence or presence of state or federally listed wildlife and plants. (Sampling methodology should be agreed to by the regional planning council and other reviewing agencies at pre- application conference stage.) State actual sampling times and dates and discuss any factors that may have influenced the results of the sampling effort. Show on Map G the location of all transects, trap grids, or other sampling stations used to determine the on-site status of state or federally listed wildlife and plant resources.

Prior to on-site reconnaissance, a list of state and federally listed fish, wildlife, and plants reported to occur in Marion County, Florida, was prepared along with a brief description of the preferred habitat for these species. Identification of vegetative cover types and wildlife surveys on the site were conducted during April 2016 and June 2016 to determine the occurrence or likelihood of occurrence for listed (protected) species. Species listed for protection under provisions of the ESA of 1973, 16 United States Code 1531- 1544, December 28, 1973, as amended 1976-1982, 1984, and 1988 and Florida rule [68A-27.0001 – 27.007, F.A.C. and reported to occur within Marion County, Florida, are represented in Table 12.1 . (Note: The FWC adopted new rules for listing imperiled fish and wildlife species effective on November 15, 2010 and amended October 9, 2013. Species previously classified by FWC as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Species of Special Concern (SSC) were approved for reclassification as Federally Endangered (FE), Federally Threatened (FT), State-designated Threatened (ST), or as SSC, a temporary category of protection for those species that needed additional data in order for FWC to determine whether they should be listed as ST or removed from the Florida list. Based on the regulatory changes to Chapter 68A-27 in 2010, FWC officially adopted the imperiled species management system and initiated preparation of the Draft Imperiled Species Management Plan (ISMP). The Draft ISMP is a strategic, comprehensive plan designed to conserve 57 fish and wildlife species over the next 10 years. The Draft ISMP includes supporting Draft Species Action Plans (SAPs) addressing individual species needs and Integrated

Conservation Strategies for multiple species and their shared habitats. The final Draft ISMP and SAPs were adopted by the FWC on November 16, 2016. The final adopted ISMP and SAPs have been incorporated herein. The likelihood of occurrence, listed within this table, is based on a comparison of known general habitat requirements of these species with the habitats found on or near the site, the quantity, quality, and adjacency of these habitats, as well as any observations or sign of these species during the field review. The likelihood of occurrence for listed species was rated as high, moderate, low, unlikely, or not applicable based on knowledge of a species’ habitat preference and site conditions. A likelihood of occurrence given as “unlikely” indicates that no, or very limited, suitable habitat for this species exists on the site, but the site is within the documented range of the species; “not applicable” indicates that the habitat for this species does not exist on or adjacent to the site and/or the site is not within the documented range of the species.

Scientists conducted a 15% vehicular and pedestrian survey within all the habitat types on the site (Map G). A total of 63 transects were conducted over a five-day period (April 6, 7, 12, 19, and June 30, 2016). All state or federally listed fish or wildlife species observed (including sign) were documented. In addition, based on prior observations by scientists of a Florida scrub-jay adjacent to the site, a formal Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) survey in accordance with the USFWS 2007 survey protocol was conducted on the site (see Map G2).

C. List all state or federally listed wildlife and plant resources that were observed on the site and show location on Map G. Given the plant communities on-site, list any additional state or federally listed wildlife and plant resources expected to occur on the site and show the location of suitable habitat on Map G. Additionally, address any unique wildlife and plant resources, such as colonial bird nesting sites and migrating bird concentration areas. For species that are either observed or expected to utilize the site, discuss the known or expected location and population size on-site, existence (and extent, if known) of adjacent, contiguous habitat off- site, and any special habitat requirements of the species.

No state or federally listed plant resources were observed on the site. Given the agricultural land use history, it is unlikely that any T&E plants occur on the site. The development activities proposed would not be prohibited under provisions of Section 9 of the ESA of 1973 as amended or Chapter 5B-40 F.A.C.

Fish and wildlife observed (by way of direct observation, sign, or call) are listed below. Federally and state listed fish and wildlife are included in bold and their federal/state status shown in parentheses (see also Attachment 2).

Amphibians and Reptiles gopher frog (Rana capito) gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) (ST) squirrel treefrog (Hyla squirella) southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus gryllus)

Avifauna

American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos)

American swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus) bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) black vulture (Coragyps atratus) blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) merlin (Falco columbarius) northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)

25 southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus)(ST)

Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) (ST) tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) white ibis (Eudocimus albus)

Mammals

Cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus sp.)

Sherman’s fox squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) (SSC) white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) wild boar (Sus scrofa)

Gopher Tortoise (Candidate, USFWS; ST): The 15% survey of the upland habitat types on the site was conducted in accordance with the survey protocol in Appendix 4 of the FWC gopher tortoise permitting guidelines1. The survey documented 100 gopher tortoise burrows (Map G). Extrapolating the 15% survey over the entire site where suitable habitat exists there are approximately 667 burrows on site. Using the FWC adopted conversion factor (0.5) this would equate to an estimated on-site population of 334 gopher tortoises.

Florida Pine Snake (ST): The site is within the range of the Florida pine snake. No Florida pine snakes were observed however, there is a moderate likelihood that the Florida pine snake may be present based on the occurrence of isolated wetlands and the presence of gopher tortoise burrows which may serve as refugia.

Eastern Indigo Snake (T/FT): Eastern indigo snakes (Drymarchon couperi) were not observed during survey transects, have not been observed on the site, and the likelihood of occurrence is low based on the rarity of the species. However, they have potential to occur based on the presence of a mix of habitats on and adjacent to the site and the presence of gopher tortoise burrows which may serve as refugia.

Bald Eagle: One bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest was documented on the southeastern portion of the site (Map G). Although the bald eagle is no longer listed as a threatened species under the ESA of 1973 as amended, they are protected under provisions of

1 Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines, Gopherus polyphemus. April 2008 (Revised February 2015. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, FL. 136pp.

26 the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) (effective August 9, 2007).

Southeastern American Kestrel (ST): Two subspecies of American kestrels occur in Florida, the eastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius sparverius) and the southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus). The eastern American kestrel winters in Florida, arriving in September and leaving in the early spring months of March-April2. Southeastern and eastern kestrels co-occur in Florida during the winter, during which time they are virtually indistinguishable in the field. Southeastern American kestrels are secondary cavity nesters, typically using cavities excavated by other species in trees or snags. Based on the time of year of the field survey (April, June) it is our opinion that kestrels observed were southeastern American kestrels (Falco sparverius paulus). A total of four kestrels were observed during the April, June 2016 surveys (Map G). Although potential nest cavities were observed during the field surveys, no nesting activity was observed.

Wood Stork (T/FT): No wood storks were observed on the site during the field surveys. Given that there are no currently active wood stork colonies within 15 miles of the site, it is unlikely that wood storks occur on the site and utilize the on-site wetlands for foraging.

Wading Bird Rookeries (1999): The FWC wading bird rookery database from the 1999 statewide survey contains no records of rookeries used by wading birds on the site. However, the database contains records of seven wading bird rookeries within 9.3 miles of the site3. There were no listed species of wading birds or their nests observed on the site during the field surveys, however, it is likely some listed species may forage in the on Site wetlands. There are very few wetlands on the site and much better foraging and nesting opportunities for listed species of wading birds are available off Site.

Burrowing Owl (ST): Burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) typically occur in open, well-drained, treeless areas where herbaceous groundcover is low and sparse. Historically, burrowing owls occurred primarily in the dry prairies of central Florida, but land clearing and wetlands drainage have greatly expanded the range and habitats used by burrowing owls4. Currently, burrowing owls are found in a variety of open, well-drained habitats including improved pastures, golf courses, school campuses, athletic fields, airports, cemeteries, and industrial/residential complexes. Burrowing owls construct burrows in well-drained soils, but will also adopt abandoned gopher tortoise burrows or nest in polyvinyl chloride pipes, culverts, and under the

2 Wood, D. A. 2001. Florida’s fragile wildlife: conservation and management. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 3 Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, and T. Gilbert. 1994. Closing the gaps in Florida’s wildlife habitat conservation system. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. 4 Millsap, B. A. 1996. Florida burrowing owl. Pages 579-587 in Rodgers, J. A., Jr., H. W. Kale II, and H. T. Smith (editors). Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume V. Birds. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

27 eaves of buildings. There is a moderate likelihood that burrowing owls occur on the site based on the presence of suitable soils and habitat. However, no burrowing owls or their burrows were observed during the field surveys.

Sand Skink (T/FT): The site is greater than 25 miles from the historic range of sand skinks (see Map G3). In addition, the entire site is less than 82 feet in elevation and does not contain open, sandy soils that would be swimmable by sand skinks. Although all of Marion County is included within the USFWS consultation area for sand skinks, formal surveys to document the presence or absence of sand skinks would not be required by the USFWS given that the elevation on-site does not meet the criteria warranting surveys (80 feet or higher). It is our opinion that sand skinks do not occur on-site due to the lack of suitable habitat.

Florida Sandhill Crane (ST): The site is within the range of Florida sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis pratensis). Sandhill cranes were documented foraging in the pastures on the site during the field reviews. Potential nesting habitat occurs in two of the freshwater marsh wetlands on-site. Suitable habitat for Florida sandhill cranes is located adjacent to the site in wetlands and pasture areas.

Sherman’s Fox Squirrel (SSC): Potential nesting habitat for the Sherman’s fox squirrels (Sciurus niger shermani) occurs on the site and two adults were observed during the field reviews (Map G). This species is relatively common in this region of central Florida. Suitable habitat for this species occurs adjacent to the site including golf courses and upland pine and hardwood forests. Florida black bear: The Florida black bear is a wide-ranging omnivore that was removed from the FWC list as ST upon meeting recovery criteria for the species and implementation of a statewide management plan in August 2012. FWC databases contain no records of Florida black bear telemetry, roadkill, or nuisance complaints on the site. However, there are numerous records of nuisance complaints of Florida black bears in the surrounding area. Although portions of the site were mapped as potential habitat for Florida black bears) the site is not within the primary or secondary range of populations of Florida black bears as mapped by the FWC (2009). Given the minimal amount of suitable habitat, it is unlikely that Florida black bears utilize the site.

Florida Scrub-jay (T/F T): A formal survey was conducted in select portions of the site for the Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) in accordance with USFWS (2007) protocol. The purpose of the survey was to assess the site for suitable Florida scrub-jay habitat, determine the occurrence of the species, and approximate limits of occupied territories, if any exist. No suitable habitat or scrub-jay families were documented on the site. Please see Map G2 for scrub-jay call station locations. It is unlikely that the Florida scrub-jay utilizes the site.

American Alligator [T(S/A), (FT, S/A)]: American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) were not observed on the site. Minimal potential nesting and foraging habitat occurs on the site. Better habitat occurs off the site where there are more extensive wetland and riverine habitats.

D. Indicate what impact development of the site will pose to affected state or federally listed wildlife and plant resources.

An estimated 667 gopher tortoise burrows occur in the upland habitats on the site. The density and location of burrows makes it impractical to develop and avoid impacts to gopher tortoises. Gopher tortoise burrows and foraging habitat will be lost as a result of the development.

There is one bald eagle nest on the site. Development is proposed up to 330 feet from the nest tree. There is the potential for the development to affect the bald eagle.

No federally listed species were documented on the site. The eastern indigo snake (T/ST) and American Alligator (T, S/A;ST,S/A) may potentially occur on-site. Should either species be present on-site, development could eliminate habitat. Habitat will remain in the post development condition in the wetlands remaining as well as the open space and golf course.

State listed species observed on-site include the southeastern American kestrel (ST), Sherman's fox squirrel (SSC), and Florida sandhill crane (ST). Only presence of these species has been documented and there is abundant suitable habitat for these species on adjacent properties. Some habitat will be lost as a result of development. However, adverse impacts to the species’ populations are not expected. In the post development condition suitable habitat will remain in the wetlands remaining on site and in open space and golf course areas. Should active nesting be documented prior to or during construction, coordination with the FWC will be conducted to determine the appropriate management/mitigation strategy.

E. Discuss what measures are proposed to be taken to mitigate impacts to state and federally listed wildlife and plant resources. If protection is proposed to occur on- site, describe what legal instrument will be used to protect the site, and what management actions will be taken to maintain habitat value. If protection is proposed to occur off-site, identify the proposed amount and type of lands to be mitigated as well as whether mitigation would be through a regional mitigation land bank, by acquisition of lands that adjoin existing public holdings, or by other means.

In order to develop the site, relocation of gopher tortoises will be necessary. Prior to development, a gopher tortoise conservation permit will be obtained and gopher tortoises will be relocated off-site to a permitted gopher tortoise recipient site.

There is one bald eagle nest on-site and development is proposed up to 330 feet from the nest tree. The applicant intends to secure a bald eagle disturbance permit from the FWC and an incidental take permit from the USFWS to authorize development as close as 330 feet from the nest tree. Avoidance and minimization measures as required by the regulatory agencies, provision of at least one conservation measure, and monitoring of the eagle nest during the nesting season will be conducted as required.

Clearing of trees that could potentially serve as nest sites for the Sherman’s fox squirrel will be conducted outside the nesting season to the extent practicable. Should clearing be necessary during the nesting season field surveys to determine if any active fox squirrel nests will be conducted. Should any active nests be documented coordination with FWC will be conducted to determine the appropriate management/mitigation.

Southeastern American kestrels have been observed on-site. However, no active nesting has been observed. Should any active nesting be documented, coordination with the FWC will be conducted to determine the appropriate mitigation, potentially including an incidental take permit. In the post development condition foraging habitat will remain in the open space and golf course areas on-site.

Impacts to Florida sandhill cranes are not expected. Foraging habitat will remain on-site in the post development condition in the open space area and golf course. Should any nesting be documented during construction, coordination with the FWC will be conducted to determine the appropriate management/mitigation strategy.

All of the 7.26 acres of wetlands and surface waters are proposed to remain undisturbed on the site post construction. The wetlands will be protected by a (minimum 15 foot average) 25- foot upland buffer. No impacts to listed species of wading birds are expected and no mitigation is required.

No federally listed species were documented to occur on-site. Federally listed species have a low probability of occurrence on-site and mitigation is not expected to be necessary. However, should the presence of a federally listed species be documented prior to development, appropriate mitigation and permitting as needed will be coordinated through the USFWS.

The site is predominately pastureland and cropland and does not provide any natural wildlife corridors. It is bordered by development on its northern boundary and a portion of its eastern boundary. A substantial portion of the western boundary is defined by State Road 200. The surrounding land uses are primarily residential and agriculture. While the land use to the south and east contain some native habitat, no corridors exist on the site that facilitate habitat connections and/or wildlife movement to other areas.