PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS OF THE NOVEMBER 2018 … Preliminary Evaluation of Nov 2018 Floirda Forever...Preliminary Evaluations of the November 2018 Florida Forever Proposals Florida

PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS OF THE NOVEMBER 2018

FLORIDA FOREVER PROPOSALS

Prepared by

Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1018 Thomasville Road

Suite 200-C Tallahassee, FL 32303

Blank Page

Preliminary Evaluations of the November 2018 Florida Forever Proposals

Florida Natural Areas Inventory

The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) is dedicated to gathering, interpreting, and disseminating information critical to the conservation of Florida’s biological resources. The Inventory was founded in 1981 as a member of The Nature Conservancy’s international network of natural heritage programs, and it is now part of Florida State University’s Institute of Science and Public Affairs. Funding for FNAI is provided through contracts, which currently include work for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Forest Service, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and Florida’s Water Management Districts.

FNAI staff builds and maintains a comprehensive statewide database that now includes more than 35,000 occurrences of rare plant and animal species and high-quality natural communities. The database also contains information on more than 2,000 lands managed wholly or in part for conservation. This database includes national forests, parks and wildlife refuges; state parks, forests, aquatic preserves, and wildlife management areas; water management district lands; county and municipal parks; private preserves; and military installations with substantial natural areas. Boundaries of state land acquisition projects are also represented.

As part of an agreement with DEP, FNAI provides data and expertise to assist with the multi-step process of evaluating lands proposed for acquisition through the Florida Forever Program. This document presents our preliminary review of proposals submitted for the cycle beginning May 2017. This includes three proposals: BR Ranch (DeSoto County), Gem Land Company (Leon and Jefferson Counties) and Telogia Creek (Gadsden County). This review includes the following for the proposals: Biological Conservation Priority; Natural Resource Description; Rare Species on the site; and maps of the proposed site. Recreational and archeological values are not considered in this evaluation. A tabular evaluation based on the Florida Forever Conservation Needs Assessment (FFCNA) GIS data layers is also included.

Biological Conservation Priority: We summarize our overall preliminary assessment of the proposals as a “Biological Conservation Priority” for each site. This rank represents our initial assessment of a proposal's contribution to the protection of significant ecological resources from a statewide perspective. These ranks reflect the FNAI scientific staff’s best judgment based on information available at the time of the evaluation. Further assessment may be needed for some proposals in order to appreciate their biological importance. Factors weighed in the assignment of the priority ranks include rarity, condition, and diversity of ecological resources; perceived degree of threat to the site; and relative degree of protection of the resources (i.e., number and quality of resources already adequately protected elsewhere). The importance of a proposal to the natural resource management of contiguous or nearby conservation lands is also considered. Finally, we acknowledge that sites with low ranks, though of lesser statewide significance, may nonetheless be locally valuable for education, recreation, and protection of locally rare resources.

The Biological Conservation Priority is based on a proposal's boundary as submitted. These ranks may change if alterations are made to the boundary or if new biological information about a site becomes available.

Preliminary Evaluations of the November 2018 Florida Forever Proposals

Florida Natural Areas Inventory

Natural Resource Description: The description of the natural resources presented for each proposal is developed from information provided in the proposal application, the FNAI database, FNAI staff comments, and aerial photographs. The natural communities listed in this evaluation and the percentage of the total area that each comprises were derived principally from aerial photographs as interpreted by FNAI staff and by landcover information from the Water Management Districts. These data were supplemented by FNAI natural community occurrence data where available. These sources were also used to determine the extent of disturbed lands that no longer support natural communities (agriculture areas, developed areas, mines, etc.). Acreages of communities and disturbances are approximate, but provide a reasonable estimate for this stage of the evaluation process. More precise landcover information is gathered during the project assessment phase for those proposals selected for further evaluation.

Acreages of natural communities, particularly mesic and wet flatwoods, may differ from acreages given in the Florida Forever Measures Evaluation (FFME) evaluation table (described below). The FFME relies on statewide remotely sensed data where on the ground information is lacking. Using current high resolution aerial photography, FNAI scientists sometimes identify different acreage of certain landcover types, for example, pine plantation or flatwoods, than is identified through remotely sensed data.

Rare species on the proposed areas are listed in each evaluation. Species recorded in the FNAI database and those reported in the application are listed separately in the table. Potential rare species may be discussed in the evaluation text. FNAI Global and State ranks and Federal and State legal statuses are given for each species in the table. Rank and statuses provided in the text are listed in the same order after the scientific species name. A rank/status explanation sheet is included at the end of this document.

Maps: This report provides two maps of each proposed site. The first is a small-scale map showing the proposed site in the context of surrounding conservation lands and land protection projects. The second map is of larger scale and uses recent aerial imagery that provides a view of the overall landcover of each site.

Florida Forever Measures Evaluation: Accompanying each evaluation is a table illustrating to what extent each proposed site meets 15 Florida Forever performance measures. These 15 measures were selected because they are resource-based criteria that can be used to set acquisition priorities. For each measure, we report the acres of the resource found on the proposed site and the percentage of the site containing the resource. The data in this assessment represent a highly standardized, statewide perspective of natural resource distributions. More detailed information may be gathered during the Project Assessment phase for those proposals voted upon for further evaluation. The data used in this evaluation are described in detail in the Florida Forever Conservation Needs Assessment Summary Report and Technical Report, available at www.fnai.org.

BR Ranch (DeSoto County) Less-than Fee Simple

Preliminary Evaluation

Biological Conservation Priority: Medium

Natural Resources Description: This evaluation is based on information gathered from the proposal, high resolution aerial imagery, U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5’ topographic maps, Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) Cooperative Land Cover data (FNAI, Florida Cooperative Land Cover Map, version 3.2), and information in the FNAI database.

The BR Ranch proposal comprises 4,056 acres (4044 GIS acres) in one contiguous tract in southwestern DeSoto County. The site is immediately east of the Myakka Ranchlands Florida Forever BOT project, immediately north of the RV Griffin Reserve (Southwest Florida Water Management District), and less than 2 miles west of Peace River State Forest. The application describes it as one of the last large, intact private ranch ownerships in the region.

The proposal is situated within the Peace River watershed, which drains to the Charlotte Harbor estuary. The property contains portions of the headwaters of two creek systems that are tributary to Horse Creek, a major tributary of the Peace River. The site is a working ranch with a mixture of pasture and native communities. The latter include more than 500 acres of mesic/wet flatwoods (south Florida slash pine canopy) in 10 patches. Most of the remaining uplands have been converted for pasture or agriculture. Roughly 1,300 acres of freshwater wetlands throughout the site retain natural community characteristics. Table 1. Natural communities and landcover types within the BR Ranch Florida

Forever proposal. Community or Landcover Acres Percent of

Proposal marsh 704 17 mesic flatwoods 531 13 freshwater forested wetland 480 12 wet prairie 38 1 wet flatwoods 35 1 basin marsh 30 1 dome swamp 6 0 baygall 4 0 depression marsh 1 0 pasture-improved 1,587 39 agriculture 256 7 pasture semi-improved 197 5 successional hydric shrubland/forest 90 2 developed 33 1 road 31 1

abandoned pasture 14 0 artificial pond 6 0 Total 4,044 100

The Florida Natural Areas Inventory database includes no records for rare species of animals or plants on site; this may reflect the lack of field surveys of the private property. Nearby wetlands have been documented to support nesting by wading birds (snowy egret, tricolored heron, black-crowned night-heron, white ibis), but these are in need of updates. The application lists several rare species within 1 mile of the property, or potentially occur on site based on habitat. Although these data are insufficient to list species as present on site in Table 2 below, some are likely and should be sought during subsequent field investigations. Table 2. Rare plants and animals documented or reported to occur within the BR Ranch Forever proposal.

Scientific Name Common Name Global Rank

State Rank

Federal Status

State Status

Rare plants documented on site none Additional rare plants reported on site by applicant

none Rare animals documented on site none Additional rare animals reported on site by applicant

none The Florida Forever Measures Evaluation (FFME) at the end of this memo is based on the Florida Forever Conservation Needs Assessment developed by FNAI. The data used in that analysis represent a standardized, statewide perspective of natural community distributions based primarily on data from the Cooperative Land Cover Map. As summarized in the evaluation, all or nearly all of the site (99-100%) contributes to ecological greenways, surface water protection, and aquifer recharge. Approximately a third of the site contributes to functional wetlands and natural floodplain function. More than half the site contributes to FNAI habitat conservation priorities (priority 4, 5, and 6). The proposed site contributes little to FWC’s strategic habitat conservation areas, under-represented natural communities, and sustainable forestry.

BR Ranch: Florida Forever Measures Evaluation 20181105ACRES = 4,044

MEASURES Acresa% of

project MEASURES (continued) Acresa% of

projectB1: Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas C5: Surface Water ProtectionPriority 1 0 0% Priority 1 1,736 43%Priority 2 1 < 1% Priority 2 0 0%Priority 3 6 < 1% Priority 3 1,178 29%Priority 4 0 0% Priority 4 606 15%Priority 5 271 7% Priority 5 493 12%Total Acres 278 7% Priority 6 0 0%B2: FNAI Habitat Conservation Priorities Priority 7 0 0%Priority 1 0 0% Total Acres 4,013 99%Priority 2 0 0% C7: Fragile Coastal ResourcesPriority 3 0 0% Fragile Coastal Uplands 0 0%Priority 4 427 11% Imperiled Coastal Lakes 0 0%Priority 5 1,904 47% Coastal Wetlands 0 0%Priority 6 24 < 1% Total Acres 0 0%Total Acres 2,355 58% C8: Functional WetlandsB3: Ecological Greenways Priority 1 0 0%Priority 1 0 0% Priority 2 0 0%Priority 2 0 0% Priority 3 283 7%Priority 3 2,988 74% Priority 4 1,180 29%Priority 4 0 0% Priority 5 50 1%Priority 5 1,053 26% Priority 6 0 0%Priority 6 0 0% Total Acres 1,513 37%Total Acres 4,041 100% D3: Aquifer RechargeB4: Under-represented Natural Communities Priority 1 0 0%Upland Glade (G1) 0 0% Priority 2 92 2%Pine Rockland (G1) 0 0% Priority 3 956 24%Scrub and Scrubby Flatwoods (G2) 0 0% Priority 4 2,701 67%Rockland Hammock (G2) 0 0% Priority 5 294 7%Dry Prairie (G2) 0 0% Priority 6 0 0%Seepage Slope (G2) 0 0% Total Acres 4,044 100%Sandhill (G3) 0 0% E2: Recreational Trails (miles) Sandhill Upland Lake (G3) 0 0% (prioritized trail opportunities from Office of Greenways and Trails & Univ. Florida)

Upland Pine (G3) 0 0% Land Trail Priorities 0.0Mesic/Wet Flatwoods (G4) 534 13% Land Trail Opportunities 1.3Upland Hardwood Forest (G5) 0 0% Total Miles 1.3Total Acres 534 13% F2: Arch. & Historical Sites (number) 0 sitesB6: Listed Species Occurrences G1: Sustainable ForestryG1 0 Priority 1 0 0%G2 0 Priority 2 0 0%G3 0 Priority 3 491 12%G4 0 Priority 4 0 0%G5 0 Priority 5 - Potential Pinelands 2,029 50%Total 0 Total Acres 2,520 62%C4: Natural Floodplain Function G3: Forestland for Recharge 119 3%Priority 1 0 0%Priority 2 0 0%Priority 3 233 6%Priority 4 1,069 26%Priority 5 103 3%Priority 6 0 0%Total Acres 1,405 35%

aNumber of acres of each resource in the project and percentage of project represented by each resource are listed except where noted.

PEACE RIVER REFUGEFLORIDA FOREVER

BOT PROJECT

MYAKKA RANCHLANDSFLORIDA FOREVER

BOT PROJECT

LOWER PEACERIVER CORRIDOR

LEWIS LONGINO PRESERVE

LONGINO RANCHCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

RV GRIFFINRESERVE (GDC)

MYAKKAMITIGATION

BANK

PEACE RIVERSTATE FOREST

BORAN RANCHMITIGATION BANK

CANDY BAR RANCHAGRICULTURAL AND

CONSERVATION EASEMENT3334 323136 31353534 3633

5 41 6

615 2344

987

11 12 10 11 129710 89

1618 1715 14 1316171813141516

21

22 23 242119232221 21

2829

2930

27 26 25282926 3025

33323131

363534323133

45611 26 32 5 43 1

98712119 10 11121110

16171814 13

1516171813141516

15

20 2119242322

2221201924232221

282926

29 28 273025262728

£¤17

UV72

§̈¦75

IJ760

IJ661IJ761

North Port

PEACE RIVER REFUGEFLORIDA FOREVER

BOT PROJECT

MYAKKA RANCHLANDSFLORIDA FOREVER

BOT PROJECT

LOWER PEACERIVER CORRIDOR

LEWIS LONGINO PRESERVE

LONGINO RANCHCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

RV GRIFFINRESERVE (GDC)

MYAKKAMITIGATION

BANK

PEACE RIVERSTATE FOREST

BORAN RANCHMITIGATION BANK

CANDY BAR RANCHAGRICULTURAL AND

CONSERVATION EASEMENT3334 323136 31353534 3633

5 41 6

615 2344

987

11 12 10 11 129710 89

1618 1715 14 1316171813141516

21

22 23 242119232221 21

2829

2930

27 26 25282926 3025

33323131

363534323133

45611 26 32 5 43 1

98712119 10 11121110

16171814 13

1516171813141516

15

20 2119242322

2221201924232221

282926

29 28 273025262728

£¤17

UV72

§̈¦75

IJ760

IJ661IJ761

North Port

BR RANCH FLORIDA FOREVER PROPOSAL

Proposed Florida Forever BOT Project Boundary

Florida Forever BOT Projects

State Owned Lands

Other Conservation Lands

DESOTO COUNTY

CHARLOTTE

DESOTO

MANATEE

SARASOTA

NOVEMBER 20180 2 41

Miles®

BR Ranch

T 37 ST 38 S

R23E

R24E

R22E

R23E

T 38 ST 39 S

Esri, USDA Farm Service Agency

BR Ranch Initial Proposal BoundaryFLORIDA FOREVER BOARD OF TRUSTEES PROJECT PROPOSAL BOUNDARY AS OF NOVEMBER 2018

Background: 2015NAIP Imagery

Resolution = 1 meterMap Produced by:

N. PascoNovember 2018

1018 Thomasville RoadSuite 200-CTallahassee, Florida 32303850-224-8207fax 850-681-9364www.fnai.org ®

0 0.55 1.10.275Miles

Florida Forever Proposal Boundary


Existing State Conservation Lands

Existing Water Management District Conservation Lands

Existing Private Conservation Lands

GEM (Leon and Jefferson counties) Less-Than-Fee


Biological Conservation Priority: Medium-High


The GEM (Gem Land Company) proposal comprises 16,835 acres (16,955 GIS acres) in three disjunct tracts in northern Leon and Jefferson counties, roughly 3 to 5 miles south of the Georgia state line; two of the tracts border Lake Miccosukee along the boundary between the counties (one on each side), and the third is ca. 5 miles to the west in Leon County within the Lake Iamonia basin (specifically along its primary outlet, Foshalee Slough and Lake). The proposal includes Cherokee Plantation (5,536 acres, Leon), Ring Oak Plantation (5,322 acres, Leon), and Norias Hunt Club (5,976 acres, Jefferson-Leon). The site is being proposed for less-than-fee acquisition. There are more than a dozen current conservation easements, chiefly over plantations that provide timber and hunting (principally quail), in the vicinity; these are shown on the accompanying map.

The proposed properties lie within what is commonly termed the Red Hills region, characterized by rolling, moderately well drained uplands with clay soils overlain by loamy sands, and isolated lakes and depressional wetlands. On-site elevations range from 100 feet along lakes to 234 feet. Native upland vegetation commonly consists of upland pine and, to a lesser extent, sandhill. Much of this was altered historically to support agriculture (chiefly cotton). The “upland pine” now growing on former oldfields generally supports a flora lacking some key native components including wiregrass (note: the accompanying Florida Forever Measures Evaluation [FFME] recognizes these areas in the sustainable forestry category, but not as upland pine in under-represented natural communities; FNAI will reevaluate this if a field assessment is conducted on the site). Numerous agricultural food plots that support hunting activities are imbedded within these open canopied pinelands. The proposal indicates that the pinelands are generally managed with prescribed fire, with some mowing and chopping. Although longleaf pine historically dominated the canopy, these sites additionally now support loblolly, shortleaf, and slash pine.

Waters in both Lake Miccosukee and Lake Iamonia percolate to the Florida Aquifer; both contain sinkholes that can drain much of the lakes during drought. Both are very shallow (mostly < 5 feet), heavily vegetated lakes with bald cypress, swamp tupelo, and black gum along water edges. Slopes and bottomlands within the proposal support a variety of mesic hardwoods and forested wetlands that appear to be in natural condition. The applicant notes that all three tracts also include a small depressional wetlands and intermittent streams. Two named creeks, Panther Creek (on Ring Oak) and Dry Creek (Norias), are noted as the only surface waters draining into the northern and western sides of Lake Miccosukee.

Table 1. Natural communities and landcover types within the GEM Florida Forever proposal.

Community or Landcover Acres Percent of Proposal

upland pine (requires field confirmation) 11,025 65 freshwater forested wetland 923 5 basin swamp 790 5 clastic upland lake 215 1 wet flatwoods 184 1 floodplain swamp 178 1 upland hardwood forest 109 1 depression marsh 67 < 1 floodplain marsh 18 < 1 dome swamp 9 < 1 mesic hammock 4 < 1 pasture-improved 1,956 12 pine plantation 454 3 successional hardwood forest 388 2 road 209 1 artificial pond 88 1 agriculture 84 < 1 developed 81 < 1 pasture-semi-improved 75 < 1 impoundment 50 < 1 clearing 25 < 1 utility corridor 18 < 1 successional hydric shrubland/forest 4 < 1 Total 16955 100

The Florida Natural Areas Inventory database includes records for several rare species of animals and plants on site (Table 2), most notably federally threatened Miccosukee gooseberry. Additionally, the entire site is within a general region where the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus, G5T2/S2, N, N) is considered by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to be common to occasional (infrequently present). The applicant also reports other rare animal species as having been recorded on site, including southeastern fox squirrel and Bachman’s sparrow.

Table 2. Rare plants and animals documented or reported to occur within the GEM Florida Forever proposal.


State Rank

Federal Status

State Status

Rare plants documented on site Forestiera godfreyi Godfrey’s swampprivet G2 S2 N E Lilium superbum Turk’s cap lily G5 S1 N E Persicaria meisneriana var. beyrichiana branched tearthumb G5?T5? S1 N E

Ribes echinellum Miccosukee gooseberry G1 S1 T E Sideroxylon lycioides buckthorn G5 S2 N E Stachys lythroides hyssopleaf hedgenettle G5T1Q S1 N E Additional rare plants reported on site by applicant

none Rare animals documented on site

Crotalus adamanteus eastern diamondback rattlesnake G4 S3 N N

Drymarchon couperi - historic eastern indigo snake G3 S3 T FT Gopherus polyphemus gopher tortoise G2 S2 N ST Egretta caerulea little blue heron G5 S4 N ST Eudocimus albus white ibis G5 S4 N N Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle G5 S3 N N Additional rare animals reported on site by applicant

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator G5 S4 SAT FT(S/A) Egretta thula snowy egret G5 S3 N N Mycteria americana wood stork G4 S2 T FT Peucaea aestivalis Bachman’s sparrow G3 S3 N N Sciurus niger niger southeastern fox squirrel G5T5 S3 N N

The Florida Forever Measures Evaluation (FFME) at the end of this memo is based on the Florida Forever Conservation Needs Assessment developed by FNAI. The data used in that analysis represent a standardized, statewide perspective of natural community distributions based primarily on data from the Cooperative Land Cover Map. As summarized in the evaluation, most of the site (90-100%) contributes to ecological greenways, surface water protection and aquifer recharge, with moderate contribution to strategic habitat conservation areas (priority 3 or higher: 62%) and FNAI habitat conservation priorities (50%).

Gem Land Company: Florida Forever Measures Evaluation 20181105

ACRES = 16,955

MEASURES Acresa% of


projectB1: Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas C5: Surface Water ProtectionPriority 1 0 0% Priority 1 0 0%Priority 2 13 < 1% Priority 2 313 2%Priority 3 9,834 58% Priority 3 0 0%Priority 4 0 0% Priority 4 4,777 28%Priority 5 643 4% Priority 5 7,026 41%Total Acres 10,490 62% Priority 6 1,928 11%B2: FNAI Habitat Conservation Priorities Priority 7 2,591 15%Priority 1 60 < 1% Total Acres 16,634 98%Priority 2 10 < 1% C7: Fragile Coastal ResourcesPriority 3 1 < 1% Fragile Coastal Uplands 0 0%Priority 4 103 < 1% Imperiled Coastal Lakes 0 0%Priority 5 1,064 6% Coastal Wetlands 0 0%Priority 6 7,295 43% Total Acres 0 0%Total Acres 8,533 50% C8: Functional WetlandsB3: Ecological Greenways Priority 1 649 4%Priority 1 0 0% Priority 2 757 4%Priority 2 15,019 89% Priority 3 682 4%Priority 3 0 0% Priority 4 177 1%Priority 4 0 0% Priority 5 0 0%Priority 5 296 2% Priority 6 0 0%Priority 6 0 0% Total Acres 2,264 13%Total Acres 15,315 90% D3: Aquifer RechargeB4: Under-represented Natural Communities Priority 1 42 < 1%Upland Glade (G1) 0 0% Priority 2 107 < 1%Pine Rockland (G1) 0 0% Priority 3 3,046 18%Scrub and Scrubby Flatwoods (G2) 0 0% Priority 4 4,441 26%Rockland Hammock (G2) 0 0% Priority 5 9,278 55%Dry Prairie (G2) 0 0% Priority 6 13 < 1%Seepage Slope (G2) 0 0% Total Acres 16,928 100%Sandhill (G3) 0 0% E2: Recreational Trails (miles)

Sandhill Upland Lake (G3) 0 0% (prioritized trail opportunities from Office of Greenways and Trails & Univ. Florida)

Upland Pine (G3) 0 0% Land Trail Priorities 0.0Mesic/Wet Flatwoods (G4) 0 0% Land Trail Opportunities 0.0Upland Hardwood Forest (G5) 57 < 1% Total Miles 0.0Total Acres 57 < 1% F2: Arch. & Historical Sites (number) 9 sitesB6: Listed Species Occurrences G1: Sustainable ForestryG1 1 Priority 1 0 0%G2 1 Priority 2 6,856 40%G3 2 Priority 3 867 5%G4 0 Priority 4 0 0%G5 5 Priority 5 - Potential Pinelands 1,761 10%Total 9 Total Acres 9,484 56%C4: Natural Floodplain Function G3: Forestland for Recharge 790 5%Priority 1 832 5%Priority 2 1,012 6%Priority 3 1,074 6%

Priority 4 282 2%

Priority 5 6 < 1%

Priority 6 0 0%

Total Acres 3,205 19%aNumber of acres of each resource in the project and percentage of project represented by each resource are listed except where noted.

J. R. ALFORDGREENWAY

LETCHWORTH MOUNDSCONSERVATION EASEMENT

MICCOSUKEECANOPY ROAD

GREENWAYPACE CONSERVATION

EASEMENT

BLUEPRINT 2000CONSERVATION

EASEMENT

TALL TIMBERSRESEARCHSTATION

AND LANDCONSERVANCY

BAILEY'S MILLCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

MICCOSUKEEHILLS

CONSERVATIONEASEMENT

ST. MARKSHEADWATERS

L. KIRK EDWARDS WILDLIFEAND ENVIRONMENTAL AREA

CHEMONIE PLANTATIONCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

WOODFIELDSPRINGS

PLANTATIONCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

CHEMONIE TRUSTCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

MAYS POND PLANTATIONCONSERVATION EASEMENT

HORSESHOEPLANTATION


FOSHALEEPLANTATION


SUNNY HILL PLANTATIONCONSERVATION EASEMENT

BILLINGSLEYCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

CHEROKEE PLANTATIONCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

64 65 66 67 68 6994 93 91 8711 86 85 84 8312 827 818

139 140 141 1421617 143 1441815 14 145 14618 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16

1920 232023 22 23 24 2221 212019

28 2729 30 2925 28 27 26 25 30 2628 27292627 25

35 363634 35 3531 32 33 3436 31 32 3335

31 6 53 2 5 4 1 623 232

41

910 1110 11 7 8 912 11

1415 14 13 1615 1414 1516

2022 23 24 19 2323 222124

28 272927 26 2925 30 26272830

34 35 36 353533 3134 35 313231 363636

3 2 25 13 624 1

11 12 9 1010 1110 812 711 7 8 11

15 141715 1614 14 1318 1813 1817 13

2322 23 22212222 23 2419 2019

27 262728 2726 25 27 2630 2826 293025 30 2529

34 35 36 3532 3331 343334 31 323635 3135

£¤19

£¤90

£¤319

£¤90

§̈¦10

WAKULLA SPRINGSPROTECTION ZONE FLORIDA

FOREVER BOT PROJECT

Monticello

Tallahassee

GE O R G I A

J. R. ALFORDGREENWAY

LETCHWORTH MOUNDSCONSERVATION EASEMENT

MICCOSUKEECANOPY ROAD

GREENWAYPACE CONSERVATION

EASEMENT

BLUEPRINT 2000CONSERVATION

EASEMENT

TALL TIMBERSRESEARCHSTATION

AND LANDCONSERVANCY

BAILEY'S MILLCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

MICCOSUKEEHILLS


ST. MARKSHEADWATERS

L. KIRK EDWARDS WILDLIFEAND ENVIRONMENTAL AREA

CHEMONIE PLANTATIONCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

WOODFIELDSPRINGS

PLANTATIONCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

CHEMONIE TRUSTCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

MAYS POND PLANTATIONCONSERVATION EASEMENT

HORSESHOEPLANTATION


FOSHALEEPLANTATION


SUNNY HILL PLANTATIONCONSERVATION EASEMENT

BILLINGSLEYCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

CHEROKEE PLANTATIONCONSERVATION

EASEMENT

64 65 66 67 68 6994 93 91 8711 86 85 84 8312 827 818

139 140 141 1421617 143 1441815 14 145 14618 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16

1920 232023 22 23 24 2221 212019

28 2729 30 2925 28 27 26 25 30 2628 27292627 25

35 363634 35 3531 32 33 3436 31 32 3335

31 6 53 2 5 4 1 623 232

41

910 1110 11 7 8 912 11

1415 14 13 1615 1414 1516

2022 23 24 19 2323 222124

28 272927 26 2925 30 26272830

34 35 36 353533 3134 35 313231 363636

3 2 25 13 624 1

11 12 9 1010 1110 812 711 7 8 11

15 141715 1614 14 1318 1813 1817 13

2322 23 22212222 23 2419 2019

27 262728 2726 25 27 2630 2826 293025 30 2529

34 35 36 3532 3331 343334 31 323635 3135

£¤19

£¤90

£¤319

£¤90

§̈¦10

WAKULLA SPRINGSPROTECTION ZONE FLORIDA

FOREVER BOT PROJECT

Monticello

Tallahassee

GE O R G I A

GEM LAND COMPANY FLORIDA FOREVER PROPOSAL



State Owned Lands


LEON AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES

JEFFERSONLEON

NOVEMBER 20180 3.5 71.75

Miles®

R03E

R04E

T 03 NT 02 N

R02E

R03E

R01E

R02E

T 02 NT 01 N

PROPOSED FOR LESS-THAN-FEE ACQUISITION

Gem LandCompany


Gem Land Company Initial Proposal Boundary (Western Parcels)FLORIDA FOREVER BOARD OF TRUSTEES PROJECT PROPOSAL BOUNDARY AS OF NOVEMBER 2018





0 1 20.5Miles




Gem Land Company Initial Proposal Boundary (Eastern Parcels)FLORIDA FOREVER BOARD OF TRUSTEES PROJECT PROPOSAL BOUNDARY AS OF NOVEMBER 2018





0 1 20.5Miles


Existing State Conservation Lands


Telogia Creek (Liberty County) Fee Simple


Biological Conservation Priority: Medium


The Telogia Creek proposal comprises 13,851 acres (as stated in application) (12,381 GIS acres) in 28 contiguous parcels on the south side of SR-20 between Bristol and Hosford in northern Liberty County. The site lies on the eastern side of Telogia Creek, about 12 miles upstream of its confluence with the Ochlockonee River. The proposal’s western boundary is 2.2 miles east of the Apalachicola River Florida Forever Board of Trustees (FFBOT) project, and its eastern boundary is 8 miles west of the Hosford Chapman’s Rhododendron Protection Zone FFBOT project. Nearby conservation lands include Apalachicola National Forest 2.3 miles to the south, Torreya State Park 4.7 miles to the north, Apalachicola River Water Management Area 4.7 miles to the northwest, and Apalachicola Bluffs and Ravines Preserve (The Nature Conservancy) 2.9 miles to the north-northwest.

The site, described by the applicant as Phase 1, is being offered for fee simple sale to the state. Additional acreage (ca. 5,000 acres) is expected to be offered, also as fee simple, in December as Phase 2. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is being proposed to manage the property once acquired. The proposal encompasses an expanse of uplands dissected by numerous streams within the major large bend of Telogia Creek. It has been speculated that the west-flowing stretch on the northern side of this bend once flowed to the Apalachicola River but was subsequently captured by the Ochlockonee River system. The application attachment notes that 36% of the site is considered as wetland by the National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Whereas most of the streamside communities are generally intact, the vast majority of uplands has been altered by silvicultural use. Ecological restoration will be necessary to return these uplands to a semblance of original natural system. Table 1 provides an approximation of landcover types and their relative representation within the proposal.

Table 1. Natural communities and landcover types within the Telogia Creek

Florida Forever proposal. Community or Landcover Acres Percent of

Proposal freshwater forested wetland 2886 23 floodplain swamp 652 5 wet flatwoods 67 1 dome swamp 39 0

blackwater stream 22 0 sandhill 17 0 pine plantation 8020 65 successional hydric shrubland/forest 441 4 road 214 2 clearing 15 0 successional hardwood forest 10 0 Total 12,381 100

The Florida Natural Areas Inventory database includes few records for rare species on site (Table 2); this may reflect lack of biological surveys. The entire site is within a general region where the Florida black bear is considered by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to be common (most of site) to abundant (southern portion of site). The alligator snapping turtle inhabits Telogia Creek. The eastern diamondback rattlesnake and pine snake have both been observed on SR-20 along the site’s northern edge. An old Breeding Bird Atlas record for swallow-tailed kite (Elanoides forficatus: G5/S2, N, N*; *ranks and legal statuses given as FNAI Global/State ranks, federal status, state status) is within the proposal boundaries. A historic (1966) record for toothed savory occurs at the site’s northeastern corner (perhaps just off-site). The Apalachicola dusky salamander (Desmognathus apalachicolae: G4/S2S3, N, N), Floridian finger-net caddisfly (Chimarra florida: G4/S3S4, N, N), and a rare mayfly Baetisca becki (G2G3/S2, N, N) have all been documented along the creek upstream of the proposal. Table 2. Rare plants and animals documented or reported to occur within the Telogia Creek Florida Forever proposal.


State Rank

Federal Status

State Status

Rare plants documented on site Calamintha dentata (historic) toothed savory G3 S3 N T Additional rare plants reported on site by applicant

none Rare animals documented on site Crotalus adamanteus eastern diamondback

rattlesnake G4 S3 N N

Macrochelys temminckii alligator snapping turtle G3G4 S3 N SSC Pituophis melanoleucus pine snake G4 S3 N ST Ursus americanus floridanus Florida black bear G5T4 S4 N N Additional rare animals reported on site by applicant

none

The Florida Forever Measures Evaluation (FFME) at the end of this memo is based on the Florida Forever Conservation Needs Assessment developed by FNAI. The data used in that analysis represent a standardized, statewide perspective of natural community distributions based primarily on data from the Cooperative Land Cover Map. As summarized in the evaluation, most of the site (90-100%) contributes to ecological greenways, FNAI habitat conservation priorities, surface water protection, and aquifer recharge, with substantial contribution (77% of area) to strategic habitat conservation areas.

Telogia Creek: Florida Forever Measures Evaluation 20181105

ACRES = 12,383

MEASURES Acresa% of


projectB1: Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas C5: Surface Water ProtectionPriority 1 0 0% Priority 1 0 0%Priority 2 0 0% Priority 2 0 0%Priority 3 8,890 72% Priority 3 1,638 13%Priority 4 0 0% Priority 4 4,091 33%Priority 5 648 5% Priority 5 5,988 48%Total Acres 9,538 77% Priority 6 414 3%B2: FNAI Habitat Conservation Priorities Priority 7 0 0%Priority 1 0 0% Total Acres 12,132 98%Priority 2 0 0% C7: Fragile Coastal ResourcesPriority 3 11,651 94% Fragile Coastal Uplands 0 0%Priority 4 362 3% Imperiled Coastal Lakes 0 0%Priority 5 347 3% Coastal Wetlands 0 0%Priority 6 9 < 1% Total Acres 0 0%Total Acres 12,369 100% C8: Functional WetlandsB3: Ecological Greenways Priority 1 201 2%Priority 1 0 0% Priority 2 1,574 13%Priority 2 0 0% Priority 3 2,237 18%Priority 3 0 0% Priority 4 183 1%Priority 4 0 0% Priority 5 0 0%Priority 5 12,383 100% Priority 6 0 0%Priority 6 0 0% Total Acres 4,196 34%Total Acres 12,383 100% D3: Aquifer RechargeB4: Under-represented Natural Communities Priority 1 0 0%Upland Glade (G1) 0 0% Priority 2 0 0%Pine Rockland (G1) 0 0% Priority 3 284 2%Scrub and Scrubby Flatwoods (G2) 0 0% Priority 4 2,440 20%Rockland Hammock (G2) 0 0% Priority 5 4,818 39%Dry Prairie (G2) 0 0% Priority 6 4,840 39%Seepage Slope (G2) 0 0% Total Acres 12,383 100%Sandhill (G3) 0 0% E2: Recreational Trails (miles)

Sandhill Upland Lake (G3) 17 < 1% (prioritized trail opportunities from Office of Greenways and Trails & Univ. Florida)

Upland Pine (G3) 0 0% Land Trail Priorities 0.0Mesic/Wet Flatwoods (G4) 67 < 1% Land Trail Opportunities 0.0Upland Hardwood Forest (G5) 0 0% Total Miles 0.0Total Acres 84 < 1% F2: Arch. & Historical Sites (number) 0 sitesB6: Listed Species Occurrences G1: Sustainable ForestryG1 0 Priority 1 0 0%G2 1 Priority 2 0 0%G3 1 Priority 3 8,280 67%G4 0 Priority 4 0 0%G5 0 Priority 5 - Potential Pinelands 12 < 1%Total 2 Total Acres 8,292 67%C4: Natural Floodplain Function G3: Forestland for Recharge 228 2%Priority 1 192 2%Priority 2 1,416 11%Priority 3 2,407 19%

Priority 4 396 3%

Priority 5 0 0%

Priority 6 0 0%

Total Acres 4,411 36%aNumber of acres of each resource in the project and percentage of project represented by each resource are listed except where noted.

APALACHICOLARIVER WATER

MANAGEMENT AREA

APALACHICOLANATIONALFOREST

APALACHICOLA BLUFFSAND RAVINES PRESERVE

15

23 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 2324

25 3026 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

35 36

31 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 3536

35

2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 23

11 12 7 8 9 11 1210 7 8 9 1110

14 13 18 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

23 24 19 20 21 22 24 19 21 2223 20 2322

26 30 2925 28 27 26 25 29 28 27 26

36 3135 32 33 36 3135 32 33 34 35

2 1 6 5 3 24 1 6 25 34

11 12 7 8 11 129 10 7 1110

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 16 1518 1713 14

UV20

UV65

UV12

IJ67

IJ270

IJ333

IJ12A

IJ67AIJ271

IJ379A

IJ379

IJ67

Bristol

APALACHICOLARIVER WATER

MANAGEMENT AREA

APALACHICOLANATIONALFOREST

APALACHICOLA BLUFFSAND RAVINES PRESERVE

15

23 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 2324

25 3026 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26

35 36

31 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 3536

35

2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 23

11 12 7 8 9 11 1210 7 8 9 1110

14 13 18 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14

23 24 19 20 21 22 24 19 21 2223 20 2322

26 30 2925 28 27 26 25 29 28 27 26

36 3135 32 33 36 3135 32 33 34 35

2 1 6 5 3 24 1 6 25 34

11 12 7 8 11 129 10 7 1110

14 13 18 17 16 15 14 16 1518 1713 14

UV20

UV65

UV12

IJ67

IJ270

IJ333

IJ12A

IJ67AIJ271

IJ379A

IJ379

IJ67

Bristol

TELOGIA CREEK FLORIDA FOREVER PROPOSAL


State Owned Lands


LIBERTY COUNTY GADSDEN

CALHOUN

GADSDEN

LIBERTY

NOVEMBER 20180 2 41

Miles®

TelogiaCreek

T 01 NT 01 S

R07W

R06W

R08W

R07W

T 01 ST 02 S


Telogia Creek Initial Proposal BoundaryFLORIDA FOREVER BOARD OF TRUSTEES PROJECT PROPOSAL BOUNDARY AS OF NOVEMBER 2018





0 0.75 1.50.375Miles


Existing Federal Conservation Lands

Elements and Element Occurrences

An element is a biodiversity unit of conservation attention, such as a species, population, natural community, bird rookery, spring, sinkhole, or cave. An element occurrence (EO) is an area of land and/or water in which a species or natural community is, or was, present. An EO should have practical conservation value for the Element as evidenced by potential continued (or historical) presence and/or regular recurrence at a given location.

Element Ranking and Legal Status

Using a ranking system developed by NatureServe and the Natural Heritage Program Network, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory assigns two ranks for each element. The global rank is based on an element's worldwide status; the state rank is based on the status of the element in Florida. Element ranks are based on many factors, the most important ones being estimated number of Element Occurrences (EOs), estimated abundance (number of individuals for species; area for natural communities), geographic range, estimated number of adequately protected EOs, relative threat of destruction, and ecological fragility.

FNAI GLOBAL ELEMENT RANK DEFINITIONS

G1 Critically Imperiled—At very high risk of extinction or elimination due to extreme rarity, very steep declines, or other factors.

G2 Imperiled—At high risk of extinction or elimination due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, steep declines, or other factors.

G3 Vulnerable—At moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, or other factors.

G4 Apparently Secure—Uncommon, but not rare; some cause for long term concern due to decline or other factors.

G5 Secure—Common; widespread and abundant.

GH Possibly Extinct—Known from only historical occurrences, but still some hope of rediscovery.

GX Presumed Extinct—Not located despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery.

GXC Captive or Cultivated Only—Taxon at present is extinct in the wild across their entire native range, but is extant in cultivation, in captivity, or as a naturalized population or populations outside of its native range or a reintroduced population not yet established.

G#? Inexact Numeric Rank—Denotes inexact numeric rank (e.g., G2?).

G#G# Range Rank—Used to indicate uncertainty about the exact status of the element (e.g., G1G3, G2G3).

G#T# Infraspecific Taxon—Rank of a taxonomic subgroup such as a subspecies; the G portion of the rank refers to the entire species and the T portion refers to the subgroup; numbers have same definition as above (e.g., G3T1).

G#Q Questionable Taxonomy—Distinctiveness of this element as a taxon or ecosystem type at the current level is questionable; numbers have same definition as above (e.g., G2Q).

G#T#Q Questionable Taxonomy (T)—Same as above, but validity as subspecies or variety is questioned.

GU Unrankable—Currently unrankable due to lack of information and/or conflicting information (e.g., GUT2).

GNA Not Applicable—The element is not a suitable target for conservation activities (e.g., a hybrid species).

GNR Unranked—Global rank not yet assessed.

GNRTNR Unranked (T)—Neither the element nor the taxonomic subgroup or population has yet been ranked.

FNAI STATE ELEMENT RANK DEFINITIONS

S1 Critically Imperiled—At very high risk of extirpation from Florida due to extreme rarity, very steep declines, or other factors.

S2 Imperiled—At high risk of extirpation from Florida due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, steep declines, or other factors.

S3 Vulnerable—At moderate risk of extirpation from Florida due to a restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, or other factors.

S4 Apparently Secure—Uncommon, but not rare, in Florida; some cause for long term concern due to decline or other factors.

S5 Secure—Common; widespread and abundant in Florida.

SH Possibly Extirpated—Known from only historical occurrences in Florida, but still some hope of rediscovery.

SX Presumed Extirpated—Not located in Florida despite intensive searches and virtually no likelihood of rediscovery.

SU Unrankable—Currently unrankable in Florida due to lack of information and/or conflicting information.

SNA Not Applicable—Not a suitable target for conservation activities in Florida (e.g., a hybrid species).

SNR Unranked—Neither the element nor the taxonomic subgroup/population has yet been ranked for Florida.

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS

Legal status information provided by FNAI for information only. For official definitions and lists of protected species, consult the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Definitions derived from U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Sec. 3. Note that the federal statuses given by FNAI refer only to Florida populations and that federal statuses may differ elsewhere.

C Candidate species for which federal listing agencies have sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposing to list the species as endangered or threatened.

E Endangered: species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

E, T Species currently listed endangered in a portion of its range but only listed as threatened in other areas.

E, PDL Species currently listed endangered but has been proposed for delisting.

E, PT Species currently listed endangered but has been proposed for listing as threatened.

E, XN Species currently listed endangered but tracked population is a non-essential experimental population.

T Threatened: species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

PE Species proposed for listing as endangered

PT Species proposed for listing as threatened

SAE Treated as endangered due to similarity of appearance to a species that is federally listed such that enforcement personnel have difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species.

SAT Treated as threatened due to similarity of appearance to a species that is federally listed such that enforcement personnel have difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species.

S Not currently listed, but considered a “species of concern” to USFWS.

N No federal status

STATE LEGAL STATUS

Legal status information is provided by FNAI for information only. For official definitions and lists of protected species, consult the relevant state agency. Animals: Definitions derived from “Florida’s Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern, Official Lists” published by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), 1 August 1997, and subsequent updates.

C Candidate for listing at the Federal level by USFWS

FE Listed as endangered Species at the Federal level by USFWS

FT Listed as threatened Species at the Federal level by USFWS

FXN Listed as a non-essential experimental population in Florida by USFWS

FT(S/A) Listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance by USFWS

ST State population listed as threatened by the FWC. Defined as a species, subspecies, or isolated population that is acutely vulnerable to environmental alteration, declining in number at a rapid rate, or whose range or habitat is decreasing in area at a rapid rate and as a consequence is destined or very likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.

SSC Listed as Species of Special Concern by the FWC. An element that warrants special protection, recognition, or consideration because it has an inherent significant vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental

alteration, human disturbance, or substantial human exploitation, which in the foreseeable future may result in its becoming a threatened species. (SSC* for Pandion haliaetus (Osprey) indicates that this status applies in Monroe county only.)

N Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing.

Plants: Definitions derived from Sections 581.011 and 581.185(2), Florida Statutes, and the Preservation of Native

Flora of Florida Act, 5B-40.001. FNAI does not track all state-regulated plant species; for a complete list of state-regulated plant species, call Florida Division of Plant Industry, 352-372-3505 or see: http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/.

E Endangered: species of plants native to Florida that are in imminent danger of extinction within the state, the survival of which is unlikely if the causes of a decline in the number of plants continue; includes all species determined to be endangered or threatened pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

T Threatened: species native to the state that are in rapid decline in the number of plants within the state, but which have not so decreased in number as to cause them to be endangered.

N Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing.

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/

Element Occurrence Ranking

FNAI ranks of quality of the element occurrence in terms of its viability (EORANK). Viability is estimated using a combination of factors that contribute to continued survival of the element at the location. Among these are the size of the EO, general condition of the EO at the site, and the conditions of the landscape surrounding the EO (e.g., an immediate threat to an EO by local development pressure could lower an EO rank).

A Excellent estimated viability

A? Possibly excellent estimated viability

AB Excellent or good estimated viability

AC Excellent, good, or fair estimated viability

B Good estimated viability

B? Possibly good estimated viability

BC Good or fair estimated viability

BD Good, fair, or poor estimated viability

C Fair estimated viability

C? Possibly fair estimated viability

CD Fair or poor estimated viability

D Poor estimated viability

D? Possibly poor estimated viability

E Verified extant (viability not assessed)

F Failed to find

H Historical

NR Not ranked, a placeholder when an EO is not (yet) ranked.

U Unrankable

X Extirpated

*For additional detail on the above ranks see: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/eorankguide.htm FNAI also uses the following EO ranks:

H? Possibly historical

F? Possibly failed to find

X? Possibly extirpated

The following offers further explanation of the H and X ranks as they are used by FNAI: The rank of H is used when there is a lack of recent field information verifying the continued existence of an EO, such as (a) when an EO is based only on historical collections data; or (b) when an EO was ranked A, B, C, D, or E at one time and is later, without field survey work, considered to be possibly extirpated due to general habitat loss or degradation of the environment in the area. This definition of the H rank is dependent on an interpretation of what

constitutes "recent" field information. Generally, if there is no known survey of an EO within the last 20 to 40 years, it should be assigned an H rank. While these time frames represent suggested maximum limits, the actual time period for historical EOs may vary according to the biology of the element and the specific landscape context of each occurrence (including anthropogenic alteration of the environment). Thus, an H rank may be assigned to an EO before the maximum time frames have lapsed. Occurrences that have not been surveyed for periods exceeding these time frames should not be ranked A, B, C, or D. The higher maximum limit for plants and communities (i.e., ranging from 20 to 40 years) is based upon the assumption that occurrences of these elements generally have the potential to persist at a given location for longer periods of time. This greater potential is a reflection of plant biology and community dynamics. However, landscape factors must also be considered. Thus, areas with more anthropogenic impacts on the environment (e.g., development) will be at the lower end of the range, and less-impacted areas will be at the higher end.

The rank of X is assigned to EOs for which there is documented destruction of habitat or environment, or persuasive evidence of eradication based on adequate survey (i.e., thorough or repeated survey efforts by one or more experienced observers at times and under conditions appropriate for the Element at that location).

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/eorankguide.htm

Documents

PRELIMINARY EVALUATIONS OF THE NOVEMBER 2018 … Preliminary Evaluation of Nov 2018 Floirda Forever...Preliminary Evaluations of the November 2018 Florida Forever Proposals Florida