• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Main
 Maps
 Activities sheet






Title: Conservation area land management (CALM) plans
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00090230/00001
 Material Information
Title: Conservation area land management (CALM) plans
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Facilities Construction & Planning, University of Florida
Publisher: Facilities Construction & Planning, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00090230
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

Binder1 ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Table of Contents
        Page 2
    Main
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Maps
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
    Activities sheet
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
Full Text



I CONSERVATION AREA LAND MANAEMEN (L PL AN


Conservation Area Land Management


November 2004

Facilities, Planning &
Construction Division




. UNIVERSITY OF
SFLORIDA






Conservation Area Land Management Plan November 2004

I. Executive Sum m ary................................... ...................... ....... 3

II. Introduction................... ................... ................................... 5

III. Campus-wide Conservation Area Master Plan
A. Conditions Inventory
1. W after R esources.................................. .............. .... ...... 5
2. N natural Com m unities.................. .................. .................... 8
3. Soils..................................................... 14
B. Federal, State and Regional Requirements............ .............................. 20
C. Campus-wide Goals / Best Management Practices ........... ................... 21






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


Executive Summary

The Conservation Area Land Management (CALM) plan documents existing conditions and specifies
management activities for Conservation Areas on the University of Florida Campus. These Conservation
Areas are defined in the Campus Master Plan as having a Conservation Future Land Use designation. In most
cases, the areas are also listed in the 1995 and 2000 Master Plans as Preservation Areas.

The CALM plan serves as the Conservation Element's Data and Analysis that covers Campus Conservation
Areas within the Campus Master Plan. Previous Master Plans documented the existence of Conservation
Areas, but provided little background information nor guidance for improvements to each of the areas.
Therefore, the premise behind this CALM plan was to create a plan that documents existing conditions on
campus natural areas and makes recommendations that enhance these special places. Additionally, the plan is
intended to demonstrate the University's commitment to preserving and improving campus natural areas.

Beginning in the fall of 2003 an ad-hoc working group of University staff, faculty, students and interested
community members conducted tours of 25 campus Conservation Areas and 5 passive recreation areas in
order to determine their current state and recommend improvements for each area. From these 30 areas that
were visited 22 specific area plans have been developed (passive recreation areas were not included and some
Conservation Area were grouped together) that outline issues and strategies for each Conservation Area. The
core members of this group included: Paula Fussell, Linda Dixon, Alex Holecek, Chuck Hogan, Marty Werts,
Erick Smith, Mark Clark, Tom Walker, Meghan Pressley, Fritzi Olsen, Bruce Delaney, Glenn Ketchum,
Mark Brown, Gerald Kidder, Nick Vellis, Clay Montague, and Ann Stolda, although other were involved in
individual site visits. The recommendations from this working group formed the foundation of the CALM
plan and specific area plans.

The conservation land use designation of the Campus Master Plan's future land use map formed the
starting point for remapping all land use categories by identifying and protecting those lands that should
not be developed. Remapping efforts were based on up-to-date spatial data that illustrated the inaccuracy
of many conservation boundaries that were on the adopted future land use map (areas where land use
designations conflict with the underlying use of the land or natural features). This new and more accurate
data included wetland boundaries, floodplain boundaries, tree canopy coverage, steep slopes,
archeological sites and other natural and anthropogenic features that represent logical separation lines
between uses. Thus, using this new data the ad-hoc working group, along with staff, began the remapping
efforts with the adopted 2000-2010 boundaries serving as the starting point. Through the work of the
Conservation Study Committee (Mark Brown, Sheri Bryan, Peggy Carr; Mark Clark,; Eva Czarnecka,
Joyce Dewsbury, Linda Dixon, Paula Fussell, Chuck Hogan, Mark Hostetler, Gerald Kidder, Erik Lewis,
Nancy Menzel, Clay Montague, Mackenzie Moritz, Meghan Pressley, Jack Putz, Erick Smith, Nick Vellis,
Tom Walker, Marty Werts) these boundaries were revised, with some areas being added and others being
eliminated.

Site visits by the working group lead to the observation, in most cases, that Conservation Areas on campus
have not been actively managed. Thus, management issues identified by the group included basic
problems of erosion, sedimentation, trash, unauthorized parking, invasive non-native plants and lack of
amenities for visitors. In order to address these concerns, the working group came up with a number of
management activities that have been included within the specific area plans and in the activities
spreadsheet. Typical activities that were identified include fencing, educational/interpretive signage,
invasive non-native plants management, trail marking, and habitat enhancements (plantings and shelters).
Additionally, the working group recognized the importance of several Conservation Areas to support


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


environmental research / teaching and identified measures that should be taken to enhance these uses and
foster multidisciplinary projects where feasible.

Successful performance will be measured by implementation of management strategies, along with
changes to baseline conditions herein. Therefore, this plan represents the baseline report for the
University's Conservation Areas and will serve as the basis for measuring future improvements, habitat
quality and flora and fauna abundance and diversity.

Funding to implement these recommendations will come from a variety of sources including the
following:

1. Grants The University successfully received a grant from the Department of Environmental
Protection to eradicate invasive non-native plants in two Conservation Areas. Other grants that
could be applied for include stormwater and erosion grants from state and federal agencies,
demonstration grants for establishment of best management practices, and wildlife.
2. Capital Improvements Trust Fund (CITF) The University has requested $500,000 for FY 2005-
2006 for management activities detailed in the CALM plan.
3. Division of Academic Affairs Currently, this Division supports efforts at Seahorse Key and the
NATL Conservation Area. This support could be broadened as other Conservation Areas are used
as outdoor teaching laboratories that support academic research and teaching.
4. Division of Finance and Administration This Division, through the Physical Plant Division,
currently provides the bulk of maintenance within and around Conservation Areas through
mowing, tree planting, fencing, informational kiosks and by limiting vehicular access by
unauthorized personal.
5. IFAS facilities IFAS also provides maintenance to Conservation Areas within and adjacent to its
operations through mowing, fencing and by limiting vehicular access by unauthorized personal.
6. Partnerships Some success has been achieved at improving Conservation Areas with cooperation
by the City and Gainesville Regional Utilities. Efforts will be made to build upon these
partnerships and gain new partners, particularly in the areas of invasive plant management and
stream erosion.
7. Management Endowments Promote and expand Conservation Area management through
securing long-term endowments through charitable giving with the University of Florida
Foundation.


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


Introduction

The Conservation Element for the University of Florida Master Plan serves two purposes. The first purpose is
the traditional role within comprehensive plans of inventorying current environmental conditions, or data and
analysis, on a campus wide basis and then developing Goals, Objectives and Policies that both maintain good
conditions and improve upon those identified as not meeting federal, state, and campus environmental
standards. The second purpose is to specifically address each Conservation Area on campus and develop
management activities that are tailored to the major issues of each. The following document will outline the
latter of these two efforts by giving an overview of Campus natural areas and specific details on each
designated Conservation Area.

The 2000-2010 Master Plan contained some inconsistencies between what was considered a conservation
land use and what was considered a preservation area. In other words, some areas like the creeks adjacent to
Sorority Row, P.K. Yonge and Diamond Village were considered Conservation Areas, but not preservation
areas. In other cases, areas considered preservation were placed in the passive recreation land use category
(examples Wilmot Gardens, DASH Handicap course). Similarly, some wetlands and water bodies were not
designated as a conservation land use. This plan, as well as the updated Master Plan, will strive to eliminate
these inconsistencies and identify management strategies for those places designated as conservation.

Conditions Inventory

Water Resources

The University of Florida's hydrology is unique from much of the State of Florida in that runoff from
storm events, irrigation and surficial aquifer seepage all empty into depressions that ultimately recharge
the Floridan aquifer. This is in contrast to the more typical view of Florida hydrology, which is generally
characterized by surface water that runs into larger bodies of water that in turn flow to the ocean, or by
areas of porous soils that allow water to recharge directly to an aquifer. The watersheds of the University
are along the Cody Scarp. This scarp marks a geologic transition zone where the clays of the Northern
Highlands physiographic province give way to karst prone limestones and sands of the Gulf Coastal
Lowlands. Lands to the west of campus (transition area grading to Gulf Coastal Lowlands) are generally
characterized as a mixture of sand and unconsolidated clays that allow for the easy downward movement
of water to the Floridan aquifer, with very little in the way of surface water drainage features. Meanwhile,
lands to the north and east of campus consist of remnants of the Northern Highlands province, which are
characterized as poorly drained, low recharge, with significant drainage where water instead of recharging
the aquifer makes its way via a series of creeks and rivers into the St. Johns River and ultimately the
Atlantic Ocean. The University is in the transition zone between these provinces in a zone called a stream
to sink watershed. As the name implies, stream to sink watersheds are where surface water flows down
gradient and ultimately ends up in a depression or sinkhole. In the University's case the majority of
surface water ends up in one of three depressions or sinkholes Bivens Arm (Alachua Sink), Surgarfoot
Prairie (Haile Sink) or Lake Alice (drainage wells).

Watersheds

Lake Alice Watershed
The Lake Alice watershed (basin) covers about 80% of campus, with approximately 1,140 acres of the
basin on campus and an additional 381 acres contributing from off campus. Stormwater, reclaimed
irrigation water and surfical aquifer seepage from creeks are the major contributors to the lake, which is


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


the ultimate surface destination of water within the watershed. Historical accounts of Lake Alice show a
lively past within the internal campus discourse, were different views on how to manage the lake and
watershed have held sway over the years. The first accounts of controversy appear around 1946 -1947
when wastewater was diverted from a sinkhole, Sweet Sink, adjacent to the sewage treatment plant, to
Lake Alice. This sinkhole, according to historical accounts, was the outlet for high water in the basin. The
basis for the diversion from the sinkhole was that effluent discharges entering the sink were showing up in
the city's public supply water system. This diversion of water to the lake led to a major increase in the
water entering the lake and to flooding of traditionally non-flood prone areas. The flooding was further
compounded by increases in impervious surface, irrigation and cooling waters (historically, Lake Alice
was also augmented by the University's water chilling system and by air-conditioning systems that both
discharged large amounts of water into Lake Alice. Over the years these non-beneficial uses of water have
been taken off line). Many solutions were contemplated, with a final decision reached to allow Lake Alice
to hold more water, while also installing two drainage wells that drain when water levels reach a certain
elevation within the lake.

During the years of direct wastewater discharges to the lake, concern was expressed by many campus
professionals on the increased nutrient content. It was observed that these nutrients were leading to
increased aquatic plant growth and accelerated eutrophication processes within the lake. To deal with the
engulfing plant growth of water hyacinths, parrotfeather and coontail, university staff started a
maintenance removal program of these plants that is ongoing to this day. Eventually, years later and after
much discussion from campus personnel about the impacts that effluent discharges were having on the
lake, direct wastewater discharges to the lake were removed.

The current stormwater permit with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) allows
the University to increase impervious surfaces within the Lake Alice watershed by an additional 184 acres
(as of 7/11/2000) without additional stormwater facilities being built. This permit does not cover added
stormwater from offsite sources in the City of Gainesville, nor from roads maintained by the Department
of Transportation.


Hume Fona


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


Hogtown Creek Watershed
The Hogtown Creek Watershed covers the majority of incorporated City of Gainesville, however only 315
acres out of 13,440 acre watershed are present on the main campus. Hogtown Creek, the primary drainage
conveyer in the watershed, drains into a depression named Sugarfoot Prairie and ultimately into Haile
Sink. The two areas on campus that drain into Hogtown Creek are lands up gradient of Elizabeth Creek
that runs though the University Arboretum, near the President's home, and the lands on the western side of
campus that drain into the Hogtown Creek Woods area along SW 34th Street.

This watershed, as with much of Gainesville, was urbanized before the era of stormwater management and
specifically on-site retention and detention. As a result, the creeks in this watershed suffer from high
velocities during storm events, which cause in-stream erosion and lead to down-stream sedimentation that
elevates the floodplain, potentially flooding structures. Unlike the Lake Alice watershed, new
development within this watershed must be permitted individually with the SJRWMD, which will require
the use of on-site retention or detention. Additionally, the University is looking for ways to cooperate with
the City to incorporate new stormwater techniques to help ameliorate the downstream impacts of previous
development by incorporation of Low Impact Development techniques where practicably feasible.

Bivens Arm Watershed
Bivens Arm Lake is the receiving body of this 2,200 acre watershed, 456 acres of which are on campus.
The main tributary to Bivens Arm Lake is Tumblin Creek, which runs though the University's laboratory
school P.K. Yonge. This creek empties into a large bottomland hardwood forest near US 441 on the
northeast rim of the lake. Before being channelized to accelerate upstream drainage, this wetland forest
provided water quality treatment through vegetative uptake of nutrients and metals. Other more
intermittent tributaries are present to the north of the lake adjacent to the College of Veterinary Medicine
facilities and to the west by IFAS's facilities, crops and pastures. Bivens Arm, like Lake Alice suffers
from eutrophication from primarily anthropomorphic sources upstream.

Tumblin Creek is another Gainesville creek that suffers from in-stream erosion and downstream
sedimentation. Additionally, the creek is on the Florida Department of Environmental Protections 305 (b)
list as not meeting water quality standards, with a water quality rating of poor. The City of Gainesville and
the University are exploring cooperative solutions that will help enhance the creek and improve water
quality entering Bivens Arm.

Depression Basins (Watersheds)
In the University's Stormwater Management Master Plan a number of smaller watersheds or basins are
defined as depressional basins. A depressional basin occurs when all surrounding land flows into a
depression. In karst areas (sinkhole areas) these depressions often have an outlet in the form of a sinkhole
that drains into an aquifer. However, when groundwater levels are high enough, sinkholes stop being
drains and instead act like plugs or in some cases even as discharge points for the aquifer. When this
happens the entire depression basin may fill up creating unexpected flooding. If enough water makes it
into the system, water will eventually start flowing into an adjacent basin.

In reality, all of the University's watersheds are depression basins, since they all flow into depressions or
sinkholes. The Bivens Arm / Tumbling Creek watershed is the only university basin that outlets to an area
that can contribute to water that has the potential to make it to the ocean via the surface, but this only
occurs during exceedingly heavy rainfall years, when the Floridan aquifer is also full and high.


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


Sinks, Ponds, Lakes and Creeks
While there are numerous small lakes and creeks on campus, only a few are named. The following list of
named waterbodies are present on or adjacent to the main campus Ocala Pond, Gator Pond, Dairy Pond,
Green Pond, Lake Alice, Bivens Arm Lake, Sweet Pond / Sink, SEEP (Stormwater Enhancement
Ecological Project), Presidents Pond, Hume Pond, Golf Course Pond, Deer Pond. The only named creeks
on campus are Elizabeth, a tributary of Hogtown Creek, and Tumblin that runs through P.K. Yonge and
into Bivens Arm.

All campus water bodies play a role in stormwater storage and conveyance. On campus, many ponds and
sinks work as storage systems that accept stormwater runoff up to a predetermined elevation where an
outlet structure has been placed. When water reaches the specified elevation it will begin to flow into one
of these outlets that in turn flow into the University's stormwater system. Meanwhile, creeks act as surface
stormwater systems in that they convey stormwater to base elevations within the basin. Additionally,
many of the stormwater pipes are routed to drain into the creeks, in many cases contributing significant
amounts of the creek's flow.

Natural Communities

The following descriptions of natural community types present on campus are largely taken from the
Natural Communities of Florida (FNAI, 1990). While these communities are present on campus they may
bare little resemblance to the descriptions that follow in that campus natural communities are generally
disturbed by adjacent urbanization, heavy use from university personal and fire suppression.

Basin Marsh
Basin marsh is characterized as an herbaceous or shrubby wetland situated in a relatively large and
irregular shaped basin. Basin marshes usually develop in large solution depressions that were formerly
shallow lakes. The lake bottom has slowly filled with sediments from the surrounding uplands and with
peat derived from plants. Thus, the soils are usually acidic peats. The hydroperiod is generally around 200
days per year. Open areas of relatively permanent water within the marsh, with or without floating aquatic
vegetation. They may eventually succeed to Bog, if a muck fire does not reverse succession. Many of the
plants and animals occurring in Basin Marshes also occur in Floodplain Marsh, Slough, Swale and
Depression Marsh. Large examples of the Depression Marsh, in fact, may be very difficult to distinguish
from small examples of Basin Marsh.

Plant Species
Typical plants include common reed, panicum, cutgrass, southern watergrass, pennywort, Spanish needle,
redroot, soft rush, American lotus, water primrose, arrowhead, coastal plain willow, saltbush, elderberry,
spikerush, knotweed, buttonbush, and dog fennel.

Animal Species
Typical animals include two-toed amphiuma, lesser siren, greater siren, cricket frog, green treefrog, bull
frog, pig frog, leopard frog, alligator, eastern mud snake, green water snake, banded water snake, striped
swamp snake, black swamp snake, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, little blue heron, tricolored
heron, bald eagle, and northern harrier.


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


Bottomland Forest
Bottomland Forest is characterized as a low-lying, closed-canopy forest of tall, straight trees with either a
dense shrubby understory and little ground cover, or an open understory and ground cover of ferns, herbs,
and grasses. Bottomland Forest occurs on low-lying flatlands that usually border streams with distinct
banks, such that water rarely overflows the stream channel to inundate the forest. They also occur in
scattered low spots in basins and depressions that are rarely inundated, which allow typical upland species
to survive. Soils are generally a mixture of clay and organic materials. The water table is high, but
Bottomland Forests are inundated only during extreme floods or exceptionally heavy rains.

Plant Species
Typical plants include water oak, live oak, red maple, sweetgum, loblolly pine, white cedar, cabbage
palm, diamond-leaf oak, southern magnolia, loblolly bay, swamp tupelo, spruce pine, American beech,
dahoon holly, wax myrtle, swamp dogwood, Florida elm, stiffcomel dogwood, and American hornbeam.

Animal Species
Typical animals include marbled salamander, mole salamander, three-lined salamander, slimy salamander,
five-lined skink, ringneck snake, gray rat snake, eastern king snake, cottonmouth, wood duck, red-tailed
hawk, turkey, yellow-billed cuckoo, screech-owl, great-homed owl, ruby-throated hummingbird, acadian
flycatcher, pileated woodpecker, hermit thrush, cedar waxwing, yellow-throated warbler, opossum, gray
squirrel, flying squirrel, raccoon, mink, gray fox, bobcat, and white-tailed deer.

Depression Marsh
Depression Marsh is characterized as a shallow, usually rounded depression in sand substrate with
herbaceous vegetation often in concentric bands. Depression Marshes are similar in vegetation and
physical features to, but are generally smaller than, Basin Marshes. Depression Marshes are typical of
karst regions where sand has slumped around or over a sinkhole and thereby created a conical depression
subsequently filled by direct rain fall, runoff, or seepage from surrounding uplands. The substrate is
usually acid sand with deepening peat toward the center.

Plant Species
Typical plants include St. John's wort, spikerush, yellow-eyed grass, chain fern, willows, maidencane,
wax myrtle, swamp primrose, bloodroot, buttonbush, fire flag, pickerelweed, arrowheads, and
bladderwort. Larger and more permanent Depression Marshes may have many of the same plants and
animals listed as typical of Basin Marshes. However, because of their isolation and small size, many
Depression Marshes support a very different assemblage of species than that found in larger, more
permanent wetlands.

Animal Species
Depression marshes are considered extremely important in providing breeding or foraging habitat for such
species as the flatwoods salamander, mole salamander, tiger salamander, dwarf salamander, striped newt,
oak toad, cricket frog, pinewoods treefrog, barking treefrog, squirrel treefrog, little grass frog, southern
chorus frog, ornate chorus frog, narrowmouth toad, eastern spadefoot toad, gopher frog, white ibis, wood
stork and sandhill crane. Depression Marshes occurring as isolated wetlands within larger upland
ecosystems are of critical importance to many additional wetland and upland animals.

Floodplain Marsh
Floodplain marshes are wetlands of herbaceous vegetation and low shrubs that occur in river floodplains,
mainly in Central Florida and along the St. Johns, Kissimmee and Myakka rivers, on sandy alluvial soils
with considerable peat accumulation. Emergent grasses, herbs, and shrubs that dominate Floodplain


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


Marshes include sawgrass, maidencane, and buttonbush. Floodplain Marshes are maintained by regimes of
fire and water. Fires apparently burn on a one- to five-year basis under natural conditions and maintain the
open herbaceous community by restricting shrub invasion; however, severe fires during drought periods
will often bum the mucky peat. Floodplain Marshes are flooded with flowing water for about 250 days
annually.

Plant Species
Other typical plants include sand cordgrass, dotted smartweed, arrowheads, pickerelweed, reimargrass,
spikerush, bulrushes, bladderpod, common reed, coreopsis, glasswort, seashore dropseed, sea purslane,
and water primrose.

Animal Species
Typical animals include cricket frog, pig frog, leopard frog, American alligator, eastern mud snake,
banded water snake, striped swamp snake, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, little blue heron,
tricolored heron, black-crowned night-heron, yellow-crowned night-heron, northern harrier, sandhill
crane, raccoon, and river otter.

Marsh Lakes
The distinctions between Marsh Lakes and Depression Marshes are quite subtle, because of their
successional interrelationships. Depression Marsh is characterized as a shallow, generally round or
elliptical depression vegetated with concentric bands of hydrophytic herbaceous plants. Depending upon
the depth and slope of the depression, an open water zone with or without floating plants may occur at the
center. The open water zone is considered to be a Marsh Lake if it is small in comparison to the
surrounding marsh. Otherwise, the system is considered to be a Flatwoods Lake or a Prairie Lake,
depending upon the surrounding community. In a Marsh Lake, fire maintains the surrounding open
herbaceous community by restricting shrub invasion. The normal interval between fires is 1 to 10 years,
with strictly herbaceous marshes burning about every 1 to 3 years, and those with substantial willow and
buttonbush having gone 3 to 10 years without fire. Fires during drought periods will often burn the mucky
peat and will convert the marsh into a Marsh Lake. The depressions in which Marsh lakes develop are
typically formed by solution holes form in the underlying limestone, causing surface sands to slump into a
circular depression. Soils in these depressions generally consist of acidic sands with some peat and
occasionally a clay lens. Water is derived mostly from runoff from the immediately surrounding uplands.
These marshes function as aquifer recharge areas by acting as reservoirs, which release groundwater when
adjacent water tables drop during drought periods.

Plant Species
Marsh Lakes are often surrounded by either a sparse, Wet Prairie-like zone or a dense ring of saw
palmetto and other shrubs. Typical plants include spikerush, yellow-eyed grasses, St. John's wort, chain
fern, coastal plain willow, maidencane, wax myrtle, water primrose, floating heart, buttonbush, fire flag,
pickerelweed, arrowhead, bladderworts, bottlebrush threeawn, toothache grass, star rush, bulrushes,
sawgrass, and nut sedge.

Animal Species
Many animals utilize marshes primarily for feeding and breeding areas but spend most of their time in
other habitats. Other animals are more dependent on marshes, spending most of their time within them.
Typical animals include amphiuma, lesser siren, greater siren, cricket frog, green treefrog, bullfrog, pig
frog, leopard frog, alligator, eastern mud snake, banded water snake, green water snake, striped crayfish
snake, black swamp snake, American bittern, least bittern, great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, little
blue heron, tricolored heron, green-backed heron, black-crowned night-heron, white ibis, glossy ibis, bald


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


eagle, northern harrier, king rail, Virginia rail, sora, limpkin, long-billed marsh wren, yellowthroat, red-
winged, blackbird, boat-tailed grackle, and Florida water rat.

Mesic Flatwoods
Mesic Flatwoods are more commonly referred to as pine flatwoods (upland pine) and are characterized by
their open canopy of widely spaced pine trees with little or no understory, but a dense ground cover of
herbs and shrubs. Several variations of Mesic Flatwoods are recognized, the most common associations
being longleaf pine wiregrass runner oak and slash pine gallberry saw palmetto. Mesic Flatwoods
occur on relatively flat, moderately to poorly drained terrain. The soils typically consist of 1-3 feet of
acidic sands generally overlying an organic hardpan or clayey subsoil. The hardpan substantially reduces
the percolation of water below and above its surface. During the rainy seasons, water frequently stands on
the hardpan's surface and briefly inundates much of the flatwoods; while during the drier seasons, ground
water is unobtainable for many plants whose roots fail to penetrate the hardpan. Thus, many plants are
under the stress of water saturation during the wet seasons and under the stress of dehydration during the
dry seasons. Another important physical factor in Mesic Flatwoods is fire, which probably occurred every
1 to 8 years during pre-Columbian times. Nearly all plants and animals inhabiting this community are
adapted to periodic fires; several species depend on fire for their continued existence. Without relatively
frequent fires, Mesic Flatwoods succeed into hardwood-dominated forests whose closed canopy can
essentially eliminate the ground cover herbs and shrubs.

Plant Species
Pant species typical of Mesic Flatwoods include longleaf pine, slash pine, wire grass, saw palmetto,
gallery, St. j ohn-wort, dwarf huckleberry, fetterbush, dwarf wax myrtle, stagger bush, blueberry, gopher
apple, tar flower, bog buttons, blackroot, false foxglove, white-topped aster, yellow-eyed grass, and
cutthroat grass

Animal Species
Typical animals of Mesic Flatwoods include: oak toad, little grass frog, narrowmouth toad, black racer,
red rat snake, southeastern kestrel, brown-headed nuthatch, pine warbler, Bachman's sparrow, cotton rat,
cotton mouse, black bear, raccoon, gray fox, bobcat, and white-tailed deer.

Seepage Slope
Seepage Slopes are wetlands characterized as shrub thickets or boggy meadows on or at the base of a
slope where moisture is maintained by downslope seepage such that the ground is usually saturated but
rarely inundated. They generally occur where water percolating down through the sand hits an
impermeable layer, such as clay or rock. Seepage Slope soils are acidic, loamy sands with low nutrient
availability that are constantly saturated by seepage except during droughts. They are rarely inundated,
although small pools and rivulets are common.

Plant Species
Typical plants include pond pine, slash pine, longleaf pine, titi, fetterbush, myrtle-leaved holly, black titi,
ale-berry, large gallberry, dahoon holly, gallberry, white cedar, tulip poplar, wax myrtle, odorless wax
myrtle, blueberry, dog-hobble, racemed fetterbush, sweet pepperbush, possumhaw, Virginia willow, laurel
greenbrier, wiregrass, pitcher plants, beakrush, cutthroatgrass, orchids, cinnamon fern, chain fern,
bluestem, yellow-eyed grass, and an array of insectivorous plants. A large number of orchids,
insectivorous plants, showy wildflowers and other plant species associated with this natural community
are rare or endemic and considered endangered or threatened.


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


Animal Species
Typical animals include the pine barrens treefrog, squirrel treefrog, ribbon snake, and cottonmouth.

Upland Mixed Forest / Mesic Hammock
Upland Mixed Forests are characterized as well-developed, closed-canopy forests of upland hardwoods on
rolling hills. Upland Mixed Forests occur on rolling hills that often have limestone or phosphatic rock near
the surface and occasionally as outcrops. Soils are generally sandy-clays or clayey sands with substantial
organic and often calcareous components. The topography and clayey soils increase surface water runoff,
although this is counterbalanced by the moisture retention properties of clays and by the often thick layer
of leaf mulch which helps conserve soil moisture and create decidedly mesic conditions.

Plant Species
Common species of this community type include southern magnolia, pignut hickory, sweetgum, Florida
maple, devil's walking stick, American hornbeam, redbud, flowering dogwood, Carolina holly, American
holly, eastern hophornbeam, spruce pine, loblolly pine, live oak, and swamp chestnut oak, among others.
Other typical plants include gum bumelia, hackberry, persimmon, red cedar, red mulberry, wild olive,
redbay, laurel cherry, black cherry, bluff oak, water oak, cabbage palm, basswood, winged elm, Florida
elm, sparkleberry, Hercules' club, slippery elm, beautyberry, partridgeberry, sarsaparilla vine, greenbrier,
trilliums, beech drops, passion flower, bedstraw, strawberry bush, silverbell, caric sedges, fringe tree,
horse sugar, white oak, and blackgum.

Animal Species
Typical animals species of the mesic system include slimy salamander, Cope's gray treefrog, bronze frog,
box turtle, eastern glass lizard, green anole, broadhead skink, ground skink, red-bellied snake, gray rat
snake, rough green snake, coral snake, woodcock, barred owl, pileated woodpecker, shrews, eastern mole,
gray squirrel, wood rat, cotton mouse, gray fox, and white-tailed deer.

Xeric Hammock
Xeric Hammock is characterized as either a scrubby, dense, low canopy forest with little understory other
than palmetto, or a multi-storied forest of tall trees with an open or closed canopy. Several gradations
between these extremes exist. Xeric Hammock is an advanced successional stage of Scrub or Sandhill.
The variation in vegetation structure is predominantly due to the original community from which it
developed. In all cases, however, the soils consist primarily of deep, excessively-drained sands that were
derived from old dune systems. The scarcity of herbs and the relatively incombustible oak litter preclude
most fires from invading Xeric Hammock. When fire does occur, it is nearly always catastrophic and may
revert to Xeric Hammock into another community type. Xeric Hammock only develops on sites that have
been protected from fire for 30 or more years. Xeric Hammocks are often associated with and grade into
Scrub, Sandhill, Upland Mixed Forest or Slope Forest.

Plant Species
Typical plants found in Xeric Hammock forest include live oak, sand live oak, laurel oak, turkey oak,
blackjack oak, red oak, sand post oak, staggerbush, saw palmetto, sparkleberry, pignut hickory, southern
magnolia, redbay, American holly, wild olive, black cherry, fox grape, beautyberry, bluejack oak,
Chapman's oak, persimmon, and yaupon

Animal Species
Animals typically found in this community type include barking treefrog, spadefoot toad, gopher tortoise,
worm lizard, fence lizard, black racer, red rat snake, hognose snake, crowned snake, screech-owl, turkey,
blue jay, eastern mole, gray squirrel, and eastern flying squirrel.
12


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


Invasive Non-Native Plants (Invasive)
Management of invasive plants began in Florida in 1899, when the 55th Congress authorized the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) through the Rivers and Harbor Act to crush, divert, or remove water
hyacinth from access areas of the St. Johns River. In May of 1899, the Florida Legislature prohibited the
planting of water hyacinth in waters of the State of Florida. Thus, began Florida's long battle with
invasive plants and the beginning of regulations to prevent their expansion. The definition of an invasive
species, not necessarily plants, is exotic a non-indigenous species, or one introduced to this state, either
purposefully or accidentally; a naturalized exotic is defined as escaped into the wild where it reproduces
on its own either sexually or asexually; while a native is a species already occurring in Florida at the time
of European contact (1500).

Policy 2.8 of the Landscape Architectural Guidelines Element of the Campus Master Plan states that it is
the intent of the University to remove all non-native invasive plants which are identified on any of the
following lists: The IFAS Assessment of Non-Native Plants in Florida's Natural Areas, the Department of
Agriculture's "Noxious Weed List", the Department of Environmental Protection's "Prohibited Plant List"
and the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council's "Florida's Most Invasive Species List" from the campus
grounds.

Many consider invasive non-native plants a serious threat to native species, communities, and ecosystems.
They can compete with and displace native plants, animals, and other organisms that depend on them,
alter ecosystem functions and cycles significantly. However, it is also true that many species now
considered natives were invaders at some point in the past and that in certain circumstances only these
adaptable and hardy species survive. Most land management of Florida natural areas is based on returning
ecosystems to a pre-European colonization (1500s) status. Determining what the status was at that time is
generally based on either historical documentation such as survey field notes, diagrams and journals or on
soil properties that indicate previous land uses and seed sources.

Most of the University's Conservation Areas have been documented to contain invasive exotic plants. In
some areas like Wilmot Gardens, these invasive plants have literally overrun the place, changing a
camellia memorial garden into an overgrown thicket of vines. Restoration of this and other areas will take
active and continuous management. Currently, the University is working on a pilot project with the City of
Gainesville to eradicate invasives in Hogtown Creek Woods and in the Natural Areas Teaching Lab. This
project is the result of a successful grant application to the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council. The
grant was the number #1 ranked project submitted and was awarded $21,063.13.

Treatment of Invasive Plants
In order to manage invasive non-native plants in Florida natural areas, land managers primarily use
herbicides and / or mechanical harvesting to contain and in time eliminate these alien invaders. Other
treatments techniques include biological controls, which uses predators of the plants from there native
territory to try and contain their expansion and fire management, which can be effective on plants not
adapted to fire dominated ecosystems. The following discussion from the Florida Exotic Pest Plant
Council on invasive non-native plant control types provides an overview of each treatment technique.

Herbicidal Control Many woody plant species can be controlled with herbicides applied in a
variety of ways. The most common application methods are foliar spray, stump treatment, basal
soil treatment, and basal bark application. In foliar treatments the herbicides are pre-mixed with
diluents and sprayed onto the foliage of the plant. Usually the leaves are "sprayed-to-wet" which
means applying only enough solution to begin running off the leaf surface. Basal soil treatments


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


can be used with either liquid or dry formulations. The material is broadcast onto the soil under the
canopy of the tree. Rainfall carries the herbicide into the root zone of the plant where it is absorbed
by the roots. The basal bark application consists of the herbicide solution being applied, most
commonly by back-pack sprayer, in a wide band on the stems of the plants near the base. The
material is absorbed into the plant and translocated throughout the plant. Another technique is to
treat the stump with a herbicide solution immediately after cutting the tree at or near ground level.
There are other application methods such as the "frill and girdle", and various direct injection
techniques for the control of exotic species. However, these methods are not practical for
controlling Brazilian pepper. Aerial application of herbicides can be used in areas that are remote
or where there are large monotypic stands.

Mechanical Control Mechanical control is accomplished through the use of heavy equipment
such as bulldozers, front end loaders, root rakes and other specialized equipment. The use of heavy
equipment is sometimes not suitable in natural areas. Once undisturbed soils have been unsettled,
they are susceptible to invasion by invasive exotic pest-plants. Mechanical control is accepted
along ditch banks, utility rights-of-way and other disturbed areas. As follow-up, a herbicide
application is highly recommended to prevent regrowth from the remaining stumps. Stumps that
fail to be chemically treated will resprout and continue to infest natural areas and wetlands.

Biological Control involves moving host specific natural enemies from the native range of the
weed to its introduced range. The goal is to reduce weed abundance to a level that can be tolerated.
Biological control does not eradicate weeds. It simply restores a natural balance between the weed
and its enemies. Biological control can be self-regulating since the introduced natural enemies
often become part of the ecosystem. Biological control is not a quick fix. The period of time
between initiation of a weed bio-control program and when the first natural enemy is released is
measured in years. Release must be approved by both state and federal agencies. Releases require
propagation of large numbers and distribution in the field followed by monitoring to determine
whether establishment has occurred and how effective the natural enemies are.

Other Plants can be stressed, or even killed, by the physical environment. Temperature and
salinity variations, water level fluctuations, and the presence or absence of fire are examples of
physical conditions that can dictate vegetation patterns. Land managers use many of these natural
limiting factors to manipulate the environment for vegetation management. More often than not,
however, nature controls these physical changes and the land manager is forced to take a side seat
and observe the changes.

Soils

The following soils descriptions are based on information from the Soil Survey of Alachua County (1985)
and are found on the University of Florida main campus.

Apopka Sand (0-5% slope)
This nearly level to gently sloping, well-drained soil is in relatively small areas of the deep, sandy
uplands. Slopes are nearly smooth or slightly complex. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown
sand about 5 inches thick. The subsurface layer is sand to a depth of 61 inches. In this Apopka soil, the
available water capacity is very low to a depth of 61 inches and is medium below. Permeability is rapid in
the sandy surface and subsurface layers and moderate in the loamy subsoil. Natural fertility of the soil is
low. The organic matter content of the surface layer is usually low. Natural vegetation is turkey, bluejack,


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


post and sand live oak and longleaf pine. The understory is mostly pineland threeawn, indiangrass, some
bluestem, panicum and brackenfern.

Arredondo Fine Sand (5-8% slope)
This sloping, well-drained soil is in small areas on sharp breaking slopes and in relatively large areas on
long slopes of the uplands. Typically, the surface layer is dark grayish brown fine sand about 5 inches
thick. The subsurface layer is yellowish brown fine sand to a depth of 65 inches. The available water
capacity is low in the surface and subsurface layers and medium in the subsoil. Organic matter content is
low. Natural vegetation of this soil includes slash and longleaf pine, live and water oaks, hickory and
dogwood. The understory is shrubs and native grasses, lopsided indiangrass, creeping bluestem and
several varieties of panicum are some of the most common of the native grasses.

Arredondo Urban Land Complex (0-5% slope)
This complex consists of well drained nearly level to gently sloping Arredondo soils and Urban Land.
About 50 to 85% of each delineation is open areas of Arredondo soils. These open areas are gardens,
vacant lots, lawns or playgrounds. About 15 to 50% of each delineation is urban land. Urban land consists
of areas covered with buildings, streets, parking lots, sidewalks and other structures. Typically, the surface
layer of Arredondo soils is dark grayish brown fine sand about 6 inches thick. The subsurface layer is
brownish yellow to yellowish brown fine sand to a depth of 47 inches. The available water capacity of
Arredondo soil is low in the surface and subsurface layer and low to medium in the subsoil. Organic
matter content and natural fertility are low. Natural vegetation is slash, loblolly, longleaf pine, live, laurel,
water oak, hickory and dogwood. The understory consists of a cover of adapted low growing herbs and
shrubs.

Bivans Sand (2-5% slope)
This gently sloping, poorly drained soil is on relatively broad flats and at the base of the rolling uplands.
The areas are irregular in shape and range from about 10 to 55 acres. Typically the surface layer is dark
gray sand about 6 inches thick. The subsurface layer is gray sand 9 inches thick. This Bivans soil has a
perched water table that is in the surface and subsurface layers and the upper part of soil for 1 to 4 months
during most years. Surface runoff is moderate. The available water capacity is low to medium.
Permeability is moderate to moderately rapid in the surface and subsurface layers. Natural fertility is low
to medium. Organic matter content of the surface layer is moderately low to moderate. Natural vegetation
is slash, longleaf, and loblolly pines; live, laurel, and water oaks; and sweetgum, hickory, holly and
magnolia. The understory is chiefly waxmyrtle, blackberry, greenbrier, bluestem, low paspalum, pineland
threeawn, and dwarf huckleberry

Bivans Sand (5-8% slope)
This is a sloping, poorly drained soil on short breaking slopes and along hillsides of the uplands.
Typically, the surface layer is dark gray sand about 5 inches thick. The subsurface layer is light brownish
gray sand about 5 inches thick. In the Bivans soil, the subsurface layer and upper part of the subsoil are
saturated by a perched water table for 1 to 3 months during most years. Permeability is moderate to
moderately rapid in the surface and subsurface layers. Natural fertility is low to medium and the organic
matter content is moderately low to moderate in the surface layer. Natural vegetation is slash and loblolly
pines, live, laurel and water oaks and sweetgum, hickory and magnolia.

Blichton Urban Land Complex (0-5% slope)
This complex consists of poorly drained, nearly level to gently sloping Blichton soils and Urban land. It is
irregularly shaped with relatively small areas. About 50 to 85 percent of each delineation is open areas of
Blichton soils. These open areas are gardens, vacant lots, lawns and playgrounds. About 15 to 50 percent


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


of each delineation is Urban land. Urban land consists of areas covered with houses, streets, parking lots,
sidewalks, industrial buildings and other structures. Typically, the surface layer of Blichton soils is dark
grayish brown sand about 6 inches thick. The subsurface layer is grayish brown to light brownish gray
sand about 22 inches thick. In the Blichton soils, the water table is within 10 inches of the surface for
about 1 to 4 months during most years. Natural fertility is low. Organic matter content is low to moderate.
Natural vegetation is slash, longleaf and loblolly pines, sweetgum, magnolia, hickory, maple waxmyrtle,
pineland threeawn and other adapted shrubs and herbs.

Blichton Sand (2-5% slope)
This gently sloping, poorly drained soil is on gently rolling uplands. Slopes are slightly convex. The areas
are mostly irregular in shape and elongated and range from 10 to 40 acres. Typically the surface layer is
dark grayish brown sand about 6 inches thick. It is about 3 percent nodules of ironstone and fragments and
nodules of phosphatic limestone. The subsurface layer extends to a depth of 28 inches. The upper 7 inches
is grayish brown sand and it has about 2 percent nodules of ironstone and fragments of phosphatic
limestone. In Blichton soil, the subsurface layer and the upper part of the subsoil are saturated by a
perched water table for 1 to 4 months during most years. Surface runoff is medium. The available water
capacity is low in the sandy surface and subsurface layers and low to medium in the loamy subsoil.
Natural fertility is low to medium and organic matter content is moderately low to moderate. Natural
vegetation consists of hickory, magnolia, pineland, three awn, slash, longleaf, loblolly pines, sweet gum
and bluestem.

Bonneau Fine Sand (0-5% slope)
This gently sloping, moderately well drained soil is in small to relatively large areas on uplands. Slopes
are generally convex. Typically, the surface layer is dark gray fine sand about 9 inches thick. The
subsurface layer is brownish yellow fine sand to a depth of 29 inches. The Bonneau soil has a water table
that is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches for 1 to 3 months and at a depth of 60 to 72 inches for 2 to 3 months
during most years. Surface runoff is slow. Permeability is moderately slow to moderate in the upper part
of the subsoil and very slow to slow in the lower part. The available water capacity is low in the sandy
surface and subsurface layers. Natural fertility is low in the sandy layers and medium in the loamy subsoil.
Organic matter content is low to moderately low in the surface layer. The natural vegetation is chiefly
slash, longleaf and loblolly pines, laurel, live, water and red oaks and hickory, dogwood and sweetgum.
The understory consists of wild grape, American beautyberry and waxmyrtle.

Bonneau Sand (2-5% slope)
This gently sloping, moderately well drained soil is in small to relatively large areas on uplands. Slopes
are generally convex. Typically, the surface layer is dark gray fine sand about 9 inches thick. The
subsurface layer is brownish yellow fine sand to a depth of 29 inches. The Bonneau soil has a water table
that is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches for 1 to 3 months and at a depth of 60 to 72 inches for 2 to 3 months
during most years. Surface runoff is slow. Permeability is moderately slow to moderate in the upper part
of the subsoil and very slow to slow in the lower part. The available water capacity is low in the sandy
surface and subsurface layers. Natural fertility is low in the sandy layers and medium in the loamy subsoil.
Organic matter content is low to moderately low in the surface layer. The natural vegetation is chiefly
slash, longleaf and loblolly pines, laurel, live, water and red oaks and hickory, dogwood and sweetgum.
The understory consists of wild grape, American beautyberry and waxmyrtle.

Kanapaha Sand (0-5% slope)
This soil consists of nearly level to sloping, poorly drained soils that formed in thick beds of sandy and
loamy marine deposits. The water table is at a depth of less than 10 inches for 1 to 3 months and at a depth
of 10 to 40 inches for 3 to 4 months during most years. Natural fertility is low to medium. Organic matter


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


content of the surface layer ranges from moderately low to moderate. The natural vegetation is chiefly
slash and loblolly pine, water, live and laurel oak, sweetgum and holly. The understory is mostly
waxmyrtle, low paspalum, pineland threeawn, longleaf uniola, hairy panicum, fringeleaf paspalum,
huckleberry and some bluestems.

Kendrick Sand (2-5% slope)
This gently sloping, well-drained soil is in both small and large areas on the gently rolling uplands. These
areas are mostly irregularly shaped or elongated and range from about 20 to 200 acres. Typically the
surface layer is dark grayish brown sand about 9 inches thick. The subsurface layer is yellowish brown
loamy sand to a depth of 26 inches. In this Kendrick soil, the available water capacity is low in the surface
and subsurface layers, medium in the upper 5 inches of the subsoil, and medium to high below this depth.
Permeability is rapid in the surface and subsurface layers. Permeability is moderate to moderately rapid in
the upper 5 inches of the subsoil, moderately slow to moderate in the next 42 inches, and slow in the lower
17 inches. Natural fertility is low in the sandy surface layer and medium in the loamy subsoil. Surface
runoff is moderately slow. Natural vegetation of this soil is chiefly slash, loblolly and longleaf pines, oak,
dogwood, hickory, magnolia and sweetgum. The understory consists of several varieties if bluestem,
lopsided indiangrass, toothachegrass, hairy panicum, fringeleaf paspalum, briers, creeping beggarweed,
eastern bracken, huckleberry, blueberry, greenbrier, and sedges

Lochloosa Fine Sand (2-5% slope)
This gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained soil is in small and large areas on the rolling uplands.
Typically, the surface layer is dark gray fine sand about 7 inches thick. The subsurface layer is yellowish
brown loamy sand or sand to a depth of 31 inches. This soil has a water table that is about 30 to 40 inches
below the surface for 1 to 4 months during most years. Surface runoff is slow. The available water
capacity is low to medium in the sandy surface and subsurface layers and medium in the subsoil. The
natural vegetation of this soil is chiefly slash and loblolly pines, oak, dogwood, hickory, magnolia and
sweetgum. The understory consists chiefly of waxmyrtle, wildgrape, dwarf huckleberry, toothachegrass,
several varieties of bluestems, low panicums and creeping beggarweed.

Lochloosa Soil (2-5% slope)
This gently sloping, somewhat poorly drained soil is in small and large areas on the rolling uplands.
Typically, the surface layer is dark gray fine sand about 7 inches thick. The subsurface layer is yellowish
brown loamy sand or sand to a depth of 31 inches. This soil has a water table that is about 30 to 40 inches
below the surface for 1 to 4 months during most years. Surface runoff is slow. The available water
capacity is low to medium in the sandy surface and subsurface layers and medium in the subsoil. The
natural vegetation of this soil is chiefly slash and loblolly pines, oak, dogwood, hickory, magnolia and
sweetgum. The understory consists chiefly of waxmyrtle, wildgrape, dwarf huckleberry, toothachegrass,
several varieties of bluestems, low panicums and creeping beggarweed.


Millhopper Sand (0-5% slope)
This nearly level to gently sloping, moderately well drained soil is in small and large irregularly shaped
areas on uplands and slightly rolling knolls in the broad flatwoods. Typically, the surface layer is dark
grayish brown sand about 9 inches thick. The subsurface layer is sand or fine sand about 49 inches thick.
This Millhopper sand has a water table that is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches for 1 to 4 months and at a depth
of 60 to 72 inches for 2 to 4 months during most years. Natural vegetation of this soil consists of live
laurel, post, water oaks, sweet gum, cherry laurel, hickory, slash and longleaf pines. The understory is
chiefly lopsided indiangrass, hairy panicum, low panicum, green brier, hawthorn, persimmon, fringeleaf
paspalum, hoary tickclover, dwarf huckleberry, chalky and creeping bluestems and pineland threeawn.


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


Millhopper Sand (5-8% slope)
This sloping moderately well drained soil is in small areas on narrow breaks and on long slopes of rolling
uplands. Typically the surface layer is dark grayish brown sand about 7 inches thick. The subsurface layer
is sand about 47 inches thick. This Millhopper soil has a water table that is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches
for 1 to 2 months and at a depth of 60 to 72 inches for 2 to 3 months during most years.

Millhopper Urban Land Complex (0-5% slope)
This complex consists of moderately well drained, nearly level to gently sloping Millhopper soils and
Urban Land. The areas are irregular in shape and range from about 15 to 250 acres. This complex is within
the most urbanized areas. About 50 to 85 percent of each delineation is open areas of Millhopper soils.
These open areas are vacant lots or are used for gardens, lawns, parks or playgrounds. About 15 to 50
percent of each delineation is Urban land covered with buildings, streets, parking lots, sidewalks and other
structures. Typically the surface layer of Millhopper soils is dark grayish brown sand about 9 inches thick.
The subsurface layer is yellowish brown to pale brown sand about 49 inches thick. The available water
capacity is low in the surface and subsurface layers and low to medium in the subsoil. Natural vegetation
of this unit consists chiefly of live, laurel, post and water oaks, sweetgum, cherry laurel, a few hickory,
slash and longleaf pines. The understory is chiefly lopsided indiangrass, hairy panicum, low panicum,
greenbrier, hawthorn, persimmon, fringeleaf paspalum, hoary tickclover, dwarf huckleberry, chalky and
creeping bluestems and pineland threeawn.

Monteocha Loamy Sand (0-2% slope)
This nearly level, very poorly drained soil is in wet ponds and shallow depressional areas in the flat
woods. Slopes are less than 2 precent. Typically, the surface layer is black loamy sand about 12 inches
thick. The subsurface layer is light brownish gray sand to a depth of 18 inches. The Monteocha soil has a
water table that is within 10 inches of the surface for more than 6 months during most years. Natural
fertility is medium in the surface layer and low in the subsurface layer and subsoil. Organic matter content
is high to very high in the surface layer. The natural vegetation is chiefly cypress. Some swamp tupelo,
pond pine, bay and other water-tolerant hardwoods are in some areas. Water-tolerant grasses grow in a
few areas. Most of the areas are still in native vegetation.

Newnan Sand (Flat)
This nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil is in small to relatively large areas in flatwoods.
Typically, the surface layer is dark gray sand about 5 inches thick. The subsurface layer is light brownish
gray sand to a depth of 12 inches. This Newnan soil has a water table that is at a depth of 18 to 30 inches
for 1 to 2 months during most years and at a depth of 30 to 60 inches for 2 to 5 months. The available
water capacity is very low-to-low. Permeability is rapid to a depth of about 12 inches. Natural fertility is
low in the sandy upper 56 inches. Most areas are still in natural vegetation, which is chiefly longleaf and
slash pines and water oak. The understory is running oak, palmetto, waxmyrtle, huckleberry, brackenfern,
blueberry, briars, gallberry, bluestem and pineland threeawn.

Pomona Sand (0-2% slope)
This nearly level, poorly drained soil is in small and large areas in the flatwoods. Slopes are nearly smooth
and range from 0 to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer is very dark gray sand about 5 inches thick. The
subsurface layer is sand to a depth of 16 inches. In this Pomona soil, the water table is within 10 inches of
the surface for 1 to 3 months during most years. The available water capacity is low to medium in the
surface and subsurface layers and it ranges from low to high in the subsoil. Permeability is rapid to very
rapid in the surface and subsurface layers. Natural vegetation of this soil is a forest of longleaf and slash



November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


pine. The understory is sawpalmetto, waxmyrtle, gallberry, bracken fern, pineland threeawn, blueberry,
huckleberry, bluestem and running oak. Most areas are still in natural vegetation.

Samsula Muck (0-1% slope)
This nearly level, very poorly drained organic soil is in large and small swamps, marshes and ponded
areas in the broad flatwoods. Slopes are usually slightly concave and range from 0 to 1 percent. Areas are
either circular, irregular in shape, or elongated. Typically, the surface layer is muck about 35 inches thick.
The upper 8 inches is very dark brown and the lower 27 inches is very dark gray. The Samsula soil has
water at or on the surface for more than 6 months during most years. The water table is within 10 inches
of the surface for most of the remainder of the year, except during long extended dry periods. The
available water capacity is very high in the organic layer. The natural vegetation of the soil is chiefly
cypress, Bay, black gum and swamp maple are in some areas. Water-tolerant grasses are in few areas.
Most areas of this soil are still in natural vegetation.

Surrency Sand (Flat)
This nearly level, very poorly drained soil is in ponds and depression areas in the broad flatwoods and in
areas of wet prairie on uplands. Typically, the surface layer is black sand about 15 inches thick. The
subsurface layer is light gray sand to a depth of 28 inches. This Surrency soil has a water table that is
within 10 inches of the surface for about 6 months or more during most years. The available water
capacity ranges from low to high in the surface and subsurface layers and from low to medium in the
subsoil. Permeability is moderately rapid, to rapid in the sandy surface and subsurface layers and slow to
moderately slow in the loamy subsoil. Natural fertility is medium in the surface layer and is low in the
subsurface layer and the subsoil. The natural vegetation is chiefly cypress, swamp tupelo, pond pine, bay,
and other water tolerant hardwoods are in the same areas. In a few areas water tolerant grasses grow.

Urban Land Millhopper Complex (0-2% slope)
This complex consists of Urban land intermixed with nearly level areas of Millhopper soils. The areas are
irregular in shape and range from 15 to 200 acres. About 50 to 85 percent of each delineation is Urban
land. This Urban land consists of areas covered with buildings, streets, parking lots, sidewalks, and other
structures. About 15 to 50 percent of each delineation is open areas of Millhopper soils. These open areas
are vacant lots, lawns, parks, or playgrounds. The Millhopper soils of this complex have a water table at a
depth of 40 to 60 inches for 1 to 4 months and at a depth of 60 to 72 inches for 2 to 4 months during the
whole year. The available water capacity is low in the surface and subsurface layers and low to medium in
subsoil. Permeability is rapid in the surface and subsurface layers, and it is slow to moderate in the
subsoil. Natural fertility is low. Organic matter content is low to moderately low in the surface layer.
Natural vegetation of Millhopper soils consists chiefly of live, laurel, post, and water oaks; slash and
longleaf pines; sweetgum and cherry laurels. A few hickory trees are in these areas. The understory is
chiefly lopsided indiangrass, hairy panicum, low panicum, green brier, hawthorn, persimmon, fringeleaf
paspalum, hoary tickclover, dwarf huckelbery, chalky and creeping bluestems, and pineland threeawn.

Wauchula Urban Land Complex (0-2% slope)
This complex consists of poorly drained, nearly level Wauchula soils and urban land. Slopes range from 0
to 2 percent. Typically, the surface layer of Wauchula soils is black to dark gray sand about 8 inches thick.
In the Wauchula soils, the water table is within 10 inches of the surface for about 1 to 3 months during
most years. Natural fertility and organic matter contents are low. Permeability of the sandy surface and
subsurface layers is rapid. The natural vegetation is slash and longleaf pines. The understory is palmetto,
gallberry, waxmyrtle, pineland threeawn and other adapted shrubs and herbs.

Wauchula Sand (0-2% slope)


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


This complex consists of well drained nearly level to gently sloping Arredondo soils and Urban Land.
About 50 to 85% of each delineation is open areas of Arredondo soils. These open areas are gardens,
vacant lots, lawns or playgrounds. About 15 to 50% of each delineation is urban land. Urban land consists
of areas covered with buildings, streets, parking lots, sidewalks and other structures. Typically, the surface
layer of Arredondo soils is dark grayish brown fine sand about 6 inches thick. The subsurface layer is
brownish yellow to yellowish brown fine sand to a depth of 47 inches. The available water capacity of
Arredondo soil is low in the surface and subsurface layer and low to medium in the subsoil. Organic
matter content and natural fertility are low. Natural vegetation is slash, loblolly, longleaf pine, live, laurel,
water oak, hickory and dogwood. The understory consists of a cover of adapted low growing herbs and
shrubs.

Zolfo Sand (0-2% slope)
This nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil is on slight rises of the flatwoods and in the rather broad
transitional areas between the rolling uplands of the western part of the county and the flatwoods of the
eastern part. Slopes are nearly level and range from 0 to 2 percent. Areas are irregular in shape. Typically,
the surface layer is dark gray sand about 8 inches thick. The subsurface layer is sand and extends to a
depth of 60 inches. The Zolfo soil has a water table that is at a depth of 24 to 40 inches for 2 to 6 months
during most years. Surface runoff is slow. The available water capacity is low to medium. Natural fertility
is low. Natural vegetation of this soil is slash and longleaf pines and water, laurel and live oaks. The
understory consists of waxmyrtle, sumac, gallberry, palmetto, pineland threeawn, bluestem, carpet grass
and panicum.

Federal, State and Regional Environmental Standards and Regulations

Federal Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act
The Federal Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C., created much of the basis for today's environmental
regulatory framework for development. This legislation gives the U.S. Environmental Protection
Authority (EPA) the responsibility for setting national water quality standards to protect public health and
welfare, while giving states the job of determining how best to meet those standards. In Florida, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Florida's five water management districts administer
the implementation and enforcement of the Act, with some oversight maintained by the EPA. By
addressing both point and non-point source pollution these agencies both monitor water quality and
implement rules that will improve impaired waters.

Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), states are required to develop lists of pollutant-impaired waters. As
described in subsection 303(d) of the CWA, impaired waters are those that do not meet water quality
standards that states have set for them. For those waterbodies that are listed, the states must develop Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of pollutants.

State Department of Environmental Protection
A number of State laws govern environmental protection within the State of Florida. Most of these laws
are administered by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, with some delegation of
responsibilities given to water management districts and local governments.

The 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act authorizes the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection to create the 303(d) list, which is currently based on the state's 1996 305(b) Water Quality
Assessment Report. The "305(b) report" uses a watershed approach to evaluate the state's surface waters
and ground waters. This report and list identify "impaired" water segments, with the four most common
water quality concerns: coliforms, nutrients, turbidity, and oxygen demanding substances. Listed water


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


segments are candidates for more detailed assessments of water quality and, where necessary, the
development and implementation of a TMDL. TMDLs take into account the water quality of an entire
water body or watershed and assess all the pollutant loadings into that watershed, rather than simply
considering whether each individual discharge meets its permit requirements. The management strategies
that emerge from the TMDL process encompass approaches such as regulatory measures, best
management practices, land acquisition, infrastructure funding, and pollutant trading. They also include an
overall monitoring plan to test their effectiveness.

Historically the 305(b) report and 303(d) list have been managed and reported as separate documents.
However, in 2002 the EPA recognized that water quality monitoring and data analysis (under 305(b)) are
the foundation of water resource management decisions (using 303(d)). Thus, EPA and its partners are
developing a consolidated 305(b)/303(d) assessment approach called, "Consolidated Assessment and
Listing Methodology" (CALM), which aims to help states improve the accuracy and completeness of
303(d) lists and 305(b) report.

The FDEP 2002 305(b) Report lists Bivens Arm Tumbin Creek watershed with poor water quality that
does not meet its designated use as Class III water, while both Lake Alice and Hogtown Creek watersheds
meet their designated use and are listed as having good water quality. However, the 303(d) list is currently
based on the 1998 305(b) list, which lists Tumblin Creek, Hogtown Creek, and Lake Alice as potentially
impaired waters.

Regional St. Johns River Water Management District
The environmental resource and surface water permitting program (ERP -Florida Administrative Code -
40C) of the St. Johns River Water Management District regulates the storage of surface waters,
stormwater discharge and wetland resource permitting programs on the University's main campus.
Environmental resource permitting is a tool for managing the effects of land use changes on water
quantity, water quality, and wetland habitat. The program includes permit application review, compliance
activities, outreach to the regulated public, and rule development. Monitoring and research activities that
focus on discharges of surface water from agricultural areas also fall under the program. In addition, the
program provides for collection of data on wetlands and completion of periodic assessments of wetland
status and trends. All building on campus is required to be addressed under an ERP permit.

Archeological Sites Division of Historical Resources, Department of State
The University of Florida and the Division of Historical Resources (DHR) within the Department of State
have signed a Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) pursuant to Section 267.061(2), Florida
Statutes. Under this agreement, the University identified and mapped known and high probability
archeological sites. The University has agreed to take specific actions outlined in the MOA, before
commencing maintenance, construction and development activities that may affect known and probable
archaeological sites within the confines of campus.

Campus-wide Goals and Best Management Practices

Public Participation
In 2003-2004 an ad-hoc group of interested faculty, staff, students and community stakeholders
participated in site tours of all of the University's natural areas lead by staff of the Facilities, Planning and
Construction Division. The purpose of the tours was to engage interested people from different
backgrounds into coming up with creative ideas for management, improvements and alternative uses for
all existing and potential natural areas. The following discussion on goals and best management practices


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


is largely derived from the collaboration that resulted. Specific recommendations from this working group
are to be found within the specific area plans.

Stormwater
Erosion and sedimentation are two of the primary concerns that are common to many of University's
Conservation Areas. Since the Lake Alice watershed covers 80% of campus, Conservation Areas within
this area are perhaps of most concern. This is in part due to the fact that Lake Alice has been designated as
this watershed's retention pond. The current permit with the St. Johns River Water Management District
(SJRWMD) allows the University to increase impervious surfaces within the watershed by an additional
184 acres (as of 7/11/2000) without additional stormwater facilities being built. While this allows the
University to maintain a compact core of buildings without large areas dedicated to stormwater treatment,
it also leads to an exacerbation of creek erosion and downstream sedimentation to a system that already
has fairly severe problems. Thus, even though the SJRWMD's permit does not require additional
stormwater treatment until the threshold is tripped, degradation to these conveyance systems would be
reduced if retention / detention and other runoff management techniques were accommodated within the
watershed wherever possible.

In order to reduce stormwater runoff and improve water quality in campus natural areas, new technologies
should be incorporated into future building sites that will retain and percolate water. Additionally, areas
being retrofitted must be looked at as opportunities to incorporate stormwater treatment into landscaping,
contouring and paving. Many of the ideas being looked at come from the field of Low Impact
Development (LID). This field looks for small ways to incorporate stormwater retention into building and
landscaping, depressions, and multifunctional design. Some examples of LID include grassy swales, bio-
retention areas, permeable pavement and grading to reduce runoff


Lower Post Increased
Development Time of
LID Practice CN Concentration Retention Detention
Grade slope X
Increase roughness X
Grassy Swales X X
Vegetative filter strips X X X
Disconnected impervious surface X X
Reduce curb and gutter X X
Rooftop storage X X X
Bioretention X X X
Revegetation X X X
The above chart illustrates the reduction in stormwater that can be achieved from different LID
approaches (CN = runoff curve number).


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


This example illustrates a bio-retention (rain garden) stormwater treatment in a parking lot.

Another approach that uses the traditional stormwater pond design with an ecological design twist is a
large scale bio-retention area, which is a BMP that should be considered in developing areas of campus.
This approach to stormwater retention can be found currently at the Stormwater Ecological Enhancement
Project (SEEP), adjacent to the Performing Arts parking lot and the Natural Areas Teaching Lab (NATL)
Conservation Area. The retention pond was originally constructed in 1988 as a typical wet retention pond
with a flat bottom and no attention paid to plant species diversity. In 1995, an initiative to redesign the
basin into a more ecologically sensitive manor that befitted its placement next to the NATL was initiated.
This redesign's primary goal, as articulated by its designers, was to increase the diversity of flooding
depths and frequency of flooding that will occur, since this is the primary factor regulating species
composition in a wetland. To do this, two depressions (one 4-feet, the other 5-feet deep), were dug at the
southeastern end of the pond providing a deep, open-water habitat. At the north end a low berm was
constructed to temporarily impound 80% of the entering stormwater. This forebay provides the first phase
of treatment and was planted with species known to take up heavy metals and remove nutrients. Water
from the forebay is then slowly released, first flowing through an area planted to resemble a bottom-land
hardwood swamp, moving into a shallow freshwater marsh and then entering the deep-water ponds. The
basin was planted with species that resemble those found in wetlands of North Central Florida.

The expected benefits of this type of retention are species diversity, wildlife habitat, aesthetics, water
quality, and research potential. All of these benefits have been proven to be correct at the SEEP, however
one issue remains that has not been adequately studied. This issue is the potential effects that these ponds
have on wildlife, and particularly federally listed species. Since stormwater ponds are designed to treat the
noxious constituents found in run-off, they are laden with metals, pesticides and fertilizers all of which
can prove harmful to wildlife. The main species of concern that use ponds for foraging are wading birds,
such as the federally listed Wood Stork. At present little research has been conducted on what the long-
term impacts are on these species from utilizing stormwater detention, roadside swales, and ecologically
enhanced ponds. Arguments can be made that these species will utilize wet retention ponds regardless of
whether they have been ecologically enhanced, however it is equally likely that by enhancing them the
probability of more productivity (more food) will encourage increased use. Thus, while it is hoped that
these ponds are the panacea that is a win-win, additional research is sorely needed.


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


Fire Management
Many areas now listed as Conservation Areas on campus would look and function in a dramatically
different way, if not for the prevention of fire. The most pre-dominate systems in campus natural areas are
thick, hardwood-dominated forests that are not considered fire dependent systems. However, some of
these forested areas would have had a thinner tree canopy, different vegetative dominance and more
abundant understory without fire suppression. Currently, the only Conservation Area that is fire
maintained is the Natural Areas Teaching Lab. This area is maintained by various departments' staff that
study the effects of burning on flora and fauna and what is needed to bring back a system to pre-
suppression conditions. In practice, the reality of trying to use fire as a widespread management tool in
urban settings like the University is generally considered by land management professionals as un-
manageable and cost prohibitive, due to concerns of smoke on roads and people, along with the liability
potential if a bur escapes into adjacent areas. Therefore, while it is recognized that burning is a very
important tool in Conservation Area preservation and restoration (maintenance), it is also recognized that
given the urban setting of many of campus's Conservation Areas that active fire management is unlikely.
Locally, the City of Gainesville has come to similar fire management conclusions on their Bivens Arm
Nature Park, which they manage chemically and mechanically, rather than with fire (Bivens Arm Nature
Park, 2002).

Mowing
Throughout campus, many areas have been traditionally mowed to give a neat and orderly appearance.
While this has been the traditional approach, there are some areas where mowing is not necessary and by
eliminating some of these areas, the University may save time, money, and energy while enhancing
wildlife habitat. In fact, quite often the use of infrequent mowing, decorative fencing and planting of
wildflowers can be done in such a way that it both enhances habitat and is aesthetically pleasing.
Additionally, in some areas a less frequent mow schedule versus an all out ban on mowing may be more
appropriate. As with all operational decisions there are a number of factors that must be considered, before
deciding which areas are appropriate for non-traditional approaches. The balance between aesthetics
(form) and function will always have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Public education can
improve the acceptance of strategic no-mow areas by explaining the benefits of this approach and
recognizing the areas as wildlife habitats


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


Mowed to the water's edge


Fenced off natural area


no mow area


Habitat Enhancement
One of the consistent recommendations of the ad-hoc working group of interested faculty, staff, students
and community stakeholders that visited all of the campus natural areas was to enhance habitat wherever
practicable. Some of the ideas for enhancement forwarded by the group included: nesting boxes for birds,
bat houses, planting of wildflowers for bees and butterflies, removal of invasive non-native plants, and the
planting of shrubs and trees that are important to local fauna. Some of these recommendations (bird and
bat boxes, invasive plant removal) have been specifically carried forward in the specific area plans that
follow, while others (planting of trees and shrubs) are noted here as an advisory note for those
implementing this plan to always consider the potential to incorporate wildlife friendly planting wherever
possible.

Public Use
Conservation lands on campus differ in their potential to accommodate use by the campus community and
general public. Some areas are primarily wetland floodplains that without clearing and elevated
boardwalks would be inaccessible to most potential users. Other areas have a fair degree of slope that
would not be accessible to most people without improvements. If improvements were not made
unrestricted access would lead to erosion and disturbance of the natural area. However, some campus
Conservation Areas do not have these access limitations and this is where public access improvements
will need to be prioritized.

While not specifically identified in the land use designation, the management approach of each
Conservation Area will generally fit into one of the three following broad categories Nature Park,
Academic Preserve and Nature Preserve. The Nature Park management approach is where public use is
encouraged and physical improvements will be targeted to enhance the visitation experience. Examples of
Conservation Areas that fit into the Nature Park category are McCarty Woods, Bartram-Carr Woods and
Reitz Ravines. Academic Preserve is the designation that fits Conservation Areas where the basic focus is
on the research of natural processes, in these areas teaching and research are encouraged and public use is
prohibited or discouraged. The NATL is the obvious example of this category. Improvements and
accessibility will be determined by the types of research and teaching being conducted and its
compatibility with public use. The final category, Nature Preserve, is reserved for wetland areas, areas of
steep slope and areas with known or probable listed species. In these areas physical improvements will be
limited to habitat and hydrologic restoration, with public use discouraged. While each Conservation Area
will be identified with one of these primary management approaches, there are some Conservation Areas


November 2004






Conservation Area Land Management Plan


that will contain a combination of these approaches. Presumably, all Conservation Areas will be used to
some degree for academic purposes. An example of a Conservation Area that fits into all three categories
is Lake Alice. Portions of Lake Alice are very accessible and public use is warranted, many areas within
are used for teaching, while some areas are wet and inaccessible where public use should be discouraged.
Each specific area plan will identify which management approach best fits the Conservation Area.

One goal of this plan is to identify and prioritize Conservation Areas that need improvements in order to
direct use to the proper locations, make it more accessible, while addressing the Americans with
Disabilities Act requirements. Basic improvements that have been identified include designating trails,
sitting areas, and informational kiosks. Additionally, discrete signage should be placed along trails
pointing out unique features and providing information unique to each area. Sensitive areas of steep slope
and unique vegetation should be identified and restricted with natural barriers placed where possible
(fencing where not).

Additionally, access and use of Conservation Areas should be restricted to practices consistent with
preservation of each natural area. Typical uses are passive in nature and include walking, jogging, wildlife
observation, educational uses, and biking limited to designated trails. Other proposed uses that are not
entirely consistent with preservation of natural areas should not be allowed, unless approved by the Lakes,
Vegetation and Landscape Committee and Senior Administration.


November 2004







Figure 7 1


Conservalin Areas
Main Campus


U.& E FIlan Rhu4.arp


4':C

10=1:00000= = f-

Mmch 'OW-
I.+,~ I;FR T I)

T.'FLORIDA
., 1 - ow 11 -1


I--


i-i
---U;


-i101


-,I


-LCim


i~~cf~


^


314~







Figure 7 -2


Natural CommunitI.
MWin Campus


Liii] r: nsr.lhcn m



1 I i3daii4 IM:I ErI





-beh~jh h".Wanf P-4n Winh~
FI&SnN3(%F VX0~
Lrrwir' 4l.pr l hrn L,00-










14





Un h 'UDP

IFTLORIDAA
.. o.. 1 -




















































,* I:


Figure 7 3

Waler Resources
Main Campus


t~-cc-.e-r. aton Area






?II I:Ipr~aj l %AE-d1~i l

&Jm ieL 'eiJ5.hc


v wrea. l


/'.



1 :
I' ctk Jill


I..'FLORIDA
., -.-po 111 -1








Figure 7 4


Soils
Main Campus


- \


m~ ~-sW~~~
*I-rcarl

U ra
*s k~~

LI eE
Zl3 ~mm

Dra iw~n6
* *r*


U Ir~adi


W .-
Ntww pop tqw
LWranLew



iii~ UbNYAM
*11~


4j


1 F*f4


tj"%NT- RSM CWlr


#TFLQRIDA
., 1 - ow 11 -1


'4


.: A


~k~4~






~










Objective 1 Preserve and restore natural habitat functions on all campus conservation areas.
Policy 1.1 -Maintain and restore plant diversity.
Activity 1.1.1 Bartram-Carr Woods Plant specimen trees PPD Jan-07
Activity 1.1.2 Bat House Woods Plant specimen trees PPD Jan-07
Activity 1.1.3 DASH Course Plant specimen trees PPD Jan-07
Activity 1.1.4 Green Pond- Newnins-Ziegler Plant specimen trees PPD Jan-07
Activity 1.1.5 Graham Woods Plant specimen trees PPD Jan-07
Activity 1.1.6 Lake Alice Plant specimen trees PPD Jan-07
Activity 1.1.7 McCarty Woods Plant specimen trees PPD Jan-07
Activity 1.1.8 President's Park Plant specimen trees PPD Jan-07
Activity 1.1.9 University Park Arboretum Plant specimen trees PPD Jan-07
Total
Policy 1.2 Inventory flora and fauna in conjunction with future updates of the Campus Master Plan
Activity 1.2.1 Brtram-Carr Woods Inventory flora and fauna Wildlife and Botany Departments Aug-05 $6,000
Activity 1.2.2 Bivens Rim Inventory flora and fauna Wildlife and Botany Departments Aug-05 $2,000
Activity 1.2.3 Fraternity Wetlands Inventory flora and fauna Wildlife and Botany Departments Aug-05 $2,500
Activity 1.2.4 Graham Woods Inventory flora and fauna Wildlife and Botany Departments Aug-05 $2,500
Activity 1.2.5 Harmonic Woods Inventory flora and fauna Wildlife and Botany Departments Aug-05 $2,000
Activity 1.2.6 Hogtown Creek Woods Inventory flora and fauna Wildlife and Botany Departments Aug-05 $4,000
Activity 1.2.7 Lake Alice Inventory flora and fauna Wildlife and Botany Departments Aug-05 $6,000
Activity 1.2.8 McCarty Woods Inventory flora and fauna Wildlife and Botany Departments Aug-05 $2,000
Activity 1.2.9 Surge Wetlands (NATL east) Inventory flora and fauna Wildlife and Botany Departments Aug-05 $3,000
Total $30,000
Policy 1.3 Install and maintain bird and bat boxes in order to increase animal use of campus natural areas.
Activity 1.3.1 Bartram-Carr Woods Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $200
Activity 1.3.2 Bat House Woods/ Sink Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $600
Activity 1.3.3 Bivens Rim Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $200
Activity 1.3.4 Fraternity Wetlands Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $200
Activity 1.3.5 Graham Woods Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $200
Activity 1.3.6 Green Pond- Newnins-Ziegler Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $100
Activity 1.3.7 Harmonic Woods Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $200
Activity 1.3.8 Lake Alice Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $200
Activity 1.3.9 McCarty Woods Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $200
Activity 1.3.10 President' Park Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $600
Activity 1.3.11 Reitz Ravine Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $100
Activity 1.3.12 Surge Wetlands (NATL east) Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $200
Activity 1.3.13 Swine Unit Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $200
Activity 1.3.14 University Park Arboretum Install bird and bat boxes Wildlife Department & PPD Jan-07 $200
Total $3,400
Policy 1.4 Remove non-beneficial invasive non-native vegetation.
Activity 3.4.1 Bartram-Carr Woods Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $5,000
Activity 3.4.2 Bat House Woods Sink Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $60,000
Activity 3.4.3 Bivens Rim Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $10,000
Activity 3.4.4 Digital Design Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $15,000
Activity 3.4.5 Fraternity Wetlands Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $20,000
Page 1









Activity 3.4.6 Graham Woods Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $20,000
Activity 3.4.7 Green Pond- Newnins-Zieler Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $5,000
Activity 3.4.8 Harmonic Woods Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $15,000
Activity 3.4.9 Htown Prairie Woods Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $20,000

Activity 3.4.10 Lake Alice Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, FDEP, WRPC & City of Gainesville $10,000
Activity 3.4.11 McCarty Woods Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $50,000
Activity 3.4.12 NATL-west Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, FDEP, WRPC & NATL $10,000
Activity 3.4.13 President's Park Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $20,000
Activity 3.4.14 Reitz Ravine Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $10,000
Activity 3.4.15 Solar Park Pond / Woods Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $30,000
Activity 3.4.16 Sorority Row Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $20,000
Activity 3.4.17 Surge Wetlands (NATL east) Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD & NATL $10,000
Activity 3.4.18 Swine Unit Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $5,000
Activity 3.4.19 Trillium Slope Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $15,000
Activity 3.4.20 University Park Arboretum Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $15,000
Activity 3.4.21 West Woods Fund contractor to remove invasive plants FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments $15,000
Total $380,000
Policy 1.5 -Plant food source vegetation in order to animal use of campus natural areas.
Activity 3.5.1 Bartram-Carr Woods Plant food source vegetation FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments
Activity 3.5.2 Bat House Woods/ Sink Plant food source vegetation FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments
Activity 3.5.3 Plant food source vegetation FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments
Activity 3.5.4 Digital Design Plant food source vegetation FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments
Activity 3.5.5 Graham Woods Plant food source vegetation FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments
Activity 3.5.6 Green Pond- Newnins-Ziegler Plant food source vegetation FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments
Activity 3.5.7 Harmonic Woods Plant food source vegetation FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments
Activity 3.5.8 Lake Alice Plant food source vegetation FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments
Activity 3.5.9 McCarty Woods Plant food source vegetation FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments
Activity 3.5.10 President's Park Plant food source vegetation FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments
Activity 3.5.11 Reitz Ravine Plant food source vegetation FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments
Activity 3.5.12 Sorority Row Plant food source vegetation FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments
Activity 3.5.13 University Park Arboretum Plant food source vegetation FPC, PPD, Student Groups & UF Departments



Objective 2 Maintain hydrologic function and improve water quality, utilizing innovative BMPs in line with the University's mission.
Policy 2.1 Increase water retention / detention capacity in order to reduce the velocity of stormwater and improve water quality.
Activity 2.1.1 Bartram-Carr Woods Explore opportunities to treat water runoff from nursery operations FPC and PPD
and drainage solutions to prevent flooding.
Activity 2.1.2 Bat House Woods/ Sink Work with City on improvements to Tumbin Creek FPC, PPD, DOT & City of Gainesville
Activity 2.1.3 Bivens Rim Place detention basins behind fraternity houses FPC and PPD
Activity 2.1.4 Fraternity Wetlands Enhance Graham Pond by incorporating SEEP concepts FPC and PPD
Activity 2.1.5 Graham Woods Enhance sinks by incorporating SEEP concepts FPC and PPD
Activity 2.1.6 Green Pond- Newnins-Ziegler Explore opportunities to treat stormwater with rain garden adjacent to FPC and PPD
Museum Rd.
Activity 2.1.7 Harmonic Woods Explore opportunities to treat stormwater with rain gardens. FPC and PPD
Activity 2.1.8 Hogtown Prairie Woods Explore opportunities to treat stormwater. FPC and PPD
Activity 2.1.9 Lake Alice Explore opportunities to treat stormwater. FPC and PPD
Activity 2.1.10 McCarty Woods Explore opportunities to treat stormwater with rain gardens adjacent FPC and PPD
____ to parking areas. ,










Activity 2.1.11 West Woods Explore opportunities to treat stormwater with rain gardens adjacent FPC and PPD
to parking areas.
Activity 2.1.12 Surge Wetlands (NATL east) Explore opportunities to increase retention of stormwater. FPC, PPD, DOT & City of Gainesville
Activity 2.1.13 University Park Arboretum Install grassy swale and identify other opportunities for stormwater FPC, PPD, DOT & City of Gainesville Mark Clark
collection

Policy 2.2 Stabilize eroded stream banks with native vegetation / innovative hardscaping.
Activity 2.2.1 Bartram-Carr Woods Regularly maintain sedimentation build up in Tumblin Creek FPC, PPD, DOT &City Sally
Activity 2.2.2 Bivens Rim Stabilize instream erosion areas with hardscape material such as chert FPC, PPD, DOT &City
_______________ ________3 riprap
Activity 2.2.3 Diamond Creek Stabilize instream erosion areas with hardscape material such as chert FPC, PPD, DOT &City
riprap
Activity 2.2.4 Fraternity Wetlands Stabilize instream erosion areas with hardscape material such as chert FPC, PPD, DOT &City
riprap
Activity 2.2.5 Graham Woods Stabilize instream erosion areas with hardscape material such as chert FPC, PPD, DOT &City
riprap
Activity 2.2.6 Green Pond- Newnins-Ziegler Regularly maintain sedimentation build up areas adjacent to Newell FPC, PPD, DOT &City
Dr., Center Dr. and North-South Dr..
Activity 2.2.7 Jennings Hall Stabilize instream erosion areas with hardscape material such as chert FPC, PPD, DOT &City
_______________ ________8 riprap
Activity 2.2.8 Lake Alice Stabilize instream erosion areas with hardscape material such as chert FPC, PPD, DOT &City
riprap
Activity 2.2.9 President's Park Stabilize instream erosion areas with hardscape material such as chert FPC, PPD, DOT &City
riprap
Activity 2.2.10 Reitz Ravine Stabilize instream erosion areas with hardscape material such as chert FPC, PPD, DOT &City
riprap
Activity 2.2.11 Sorority Row Regularly maintain sedimentation build up areas adjacent to Newell FPC, PPD, DOT &City
Dr., Center Dr. and North-South Dr..
Activity 2.2.12 Tumblin @ PK Stabilize instream erosion areas with hardscape material such as chert FPC, PPD, DOT &City
riprap
Activity 2.2.13 University Park Arboretum Stabilize instream erosion areas with hardscape material such as chert FPC, PPD, DOT &City
riprap


Policy 2.3 Coordinate with outside entities to improve on-campus water quality through education, volunteer clean-up and other proactive approaches.
Activity 2.3.1 Bivens Rim Coordinate with partners to hold volunteer clean-ups FPC, PPD, DOT, Student Groups & City of Gainesville Staff Time
Activity 2.3.2 Diamond Creek Coordinate with partners to hold volunteer clean-ups FPC, PPD, DOT, Student Groups & City of Gainesville StaffTime
Activity 2.3.3 Hogtown Prairie Woods Coordinate with partners to hold volunteer clean-ups FPC, PPD, DOT, Student Groups & City of Gainesville Staff Time
Activity 2.3.4 President's Park Coordinate with partners to hold volunteer clean-ups FPC, PPD, DOT, Student Groups & City of Gainesville Staff Time
Activity 2.3.5 Solar Park Pond / Woods Coordinate with partners to hold volunteer clean-ups FPC, PPD, DOT, Student Groups & City of Gainesville Staff Time
Activity 2.3.6 Sorority Row Coordinate with partners to hold volunteer clean-ups FPC, PPD, DOT, Student Groups & City of Gainesville Staff Time
Activity 2.3.7 Surge Wetlands (NATL east) Coordinate with partners to hold volunteer clean-ups FPC, PPD, DOT, Student Groups & City of Gainesville Staff Time
Activity 2.3.8 Tumblin @ PK Coordinate with partners to hold volunteer clean-ups FPC, PPD, DOT, Student Groups & City of Gainesville Staff Time
Activity 2.3.9 University Park Arboretum Coordinate with partners to hold volunteer clean-ups FPC, PPD, DOT, Student Groups & City of Gainesville Staff Time


Policy 2.4 Create a process for naming campus waterbodies.
Activity 2.4.1 Bartram-Carr Woods Name Sink FPC, PPD &UFF Staff Time
Activity 2.4.2 Bat House Woods/ Sink Name Stream FPC, PPD &UFF Staff Time
Activity 2.4.3 Diamond Village / Sorority Woods Name Stream FPC, PPD &UFF Staff Time
Activity 2.4.4 Fraternity Wetlands Name Stream FPC, PPD &UFF Staff Time
Activity 2.4.5 Graham Woods Name Stream FPC, PPD &UFF Staff Time
Activity 2.4.6 Organic Garden Name Intermittent Stream FPC, PPD &UFF Staff Time
Activity 2.4.7 Reitz Ravine Name Stream FPC, PPD &UFF Staff Time
Page a










Activity 2.4.7 Solar Park Pond / Woods NameSink FPC, PPD &UFF Staff Time




Objective 3 Support the University's teaching and research mission by coordinating with departments involved in environmental research.
Policy 3.1 Develop sites as a demonstration site for stormwater / urban creek management BMPs.

Activity 3.1.1 Bartram-Carr Woods Work with partners to improve and study water quality on site FPC, PPD, Alachua County, Environmental
Engineering, Wetlands Club
Activity 3.1.2 Graham Woods Work with partners to improve and study water quality on site FPC, PPD, Alachua County, Environmental
Engineering, Wetlands Club
Activity 3.1.3 NATL-west Work with partners to improve and study water quality on site FPC, PPD, Alachua County, Environmental
Engineering, Wetlands Club
Activity 3.1.4 Work with partners to improve and study water quality on site FPC, PPD, DOT, Alachua County, Environmental
Surge Wetlands (NATL east) Engineering, Wetlands Club
Activity 3.1.5 University Park Arboretum Work with partners to improve and study water quality on site FPC, PPD, DOT, Alachua County, Environmental
Engineering, Wetlands Club


Policy 3.2 Coordinate with academic departments to facilitate development and maintenance of outdoor teaching areas.
Activity 3.3.1 Bartram-Carr Woods Meet with Academic Departments to identify opportunities to FPC, PPD & UF Academic Departments
improvee site as outdoor teaching lab
Activity 3.3.2 Bivens Rim Meet with Academic Departments to identify opportunities to FPC, PPD & UF Academic Departments
improve site as outdoor teaching lab
Activity 3.3.3 Graham Woods Meet with Academic Departments to identify opportunities to FPC, PPD & UF Academic Departments
improve site as outdoor teaching lab
Activity 3.3.4 Green Pond Newnins-Ziegler Meet with Academic Departments to identify opportunities to FPC, PPD & UF Academic Departments
improvee site as outdoor teaching lab
Activity 3.3.5 Harmonic Woods Meet with Academic Departments to identify opportunities to FPC, PPD & UF Academic Departments
improve site as outdoor teaching lab
Activity 3.3.6 Lake Alice Meet with Academic Departments to identify opportunities to FPC, PPD & UF Academic Departments
improve site as outdoor teaching lab
Activity 3.3.7 McCarty Woods Meet with Academic Departments to identify opportunities to FPC, PPD & UF Academic Departments
improve site as outdoor teaching lab
Activity 3.3.8 NATL-west Meet with Academic Departments to identify opportunities to FPC, PPD & UF Academic Departments
improvee site as outdoor teaching lab
Activity 3.3.9 Reitz Ravine Meet with Academic Departments to identify opportunities to FPC, PPD & UF Academic Departments
improve site as outdoor teaching lab
Activity 3.3.10 Surge Wetlands (NATL east) Meet with Academic Departments to identify opportunities to FPC, PPD & NATL
Improve site as outdoor teaching lab
Activity 3.3.11 University Park Arboretum Meet with Academic Departments to identify opportunities to FPC, PPD & UF Academic Departments
improvee site as outdoor teaching lab


Policy 3.3 Identify specimen trees with tree labels, numbers, or informational plaques.
Activity 3.3.1 Bartram-Carr Woods Identify specimen trees with proper signage Physical Plant Division
Activity 3.3.2 Bat House Woods/ Sink Identify specimen trees with proper signage Physical Plant Division
Activity 3.3.3 Graham Woods Identify specimen trees with proper signage Physical Plant Division
Activity 3.3.4 Green Pond Newnins-Ziegler Identify specimen trees with proper signage Physical Plant Division
Activity 3.3.5 Harmonic Woods Identify specimen trees with proper signage Physical Plant Division
Activity 3.3.6 Lake Alice Identify specimen trees with proper signage Physical Plant Division
Activity 3.3.7 McCarty Woods Identify specimen trees with proper signage Physical Plant Division
Activity 3.3.8 NATL-west Identify specimen trees with proper signage Physical Plant Division
Activity 3.3.9 Reitz Ravine Identify specimen trees with proper signage Physical Plant Division
Activity 3.3.10 University Park Arboretum Identify specimen trees with proper signage Physical Plant Division
Page 4












Objective 4 Improve appearance, security and access in all campus natural areas.
Policy 4.1 Manage campus natural areas by designating and maintaining trails, providing sitting areas, providing blue light phones and regular trash cleanup, where appropriate.
Activity 4.1.1 Bartram-Carr Woods Clean up trash Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.1.2 DASH Course Designate trails, provide sitting area & clean up trash Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.1.3 Digital Design Build elevated boardwalk from Center Drive to parking area Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.1.4 Fraternity Wetlands Clean up trash Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.1.5 Graham Woods Designate trails, provide sitting area & clean up trash Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.1.6 Green Pond Newnins-Ziegler Designate trails, provide sitting area & clean up trash Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.1.7 Harmonic Woods Designate trails, provide sitting area & clean up trash Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.1.8 Hogtown Prairie Woods Designate trails, provide sitting area & clean up trash Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.1.9 Lake Alice Clean up trash Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.1.10 McCarty Woods Clean up trash Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.1.11 NATL-west Designate trails & clean up trash Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.1.12 Reitz Ravine Maintain site to enhance visitor experience Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.1.13 Solar Park Pond / Woods Designate trails, provide sitting area & clean up trash Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.1.13 University Park Arboretum Clean up trash Physical Plant Division


Policy 4.2 Fence or use signage to identify boundaries, prevent parking in unauthorized areas, designate mowing frequency zones and trap trash along roadways, without inhibiting animal movement.
Activity 4.2.1 Install and maintain fencing or barriers, along with behavioral
Bartram-Carr Woods signage Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.2 Bat House Woods/ Sink Install and maintain fencing Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.3 Bivens Rim Install and maintain fencing adjacent to Archer (w/ DOT) Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.4 Install and maintain fencing along creek in order to protect no-mow
Diamond Jenning Creek buffer Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.5 Digital Design Install and maintain fencing behind fraternity houses Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.6 Fraternity Wetlands Install post fencing in grassy areas around Newnins-Ziegler Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.7 Install rope & bollard fencing adjacent to fraternity and sorority
Green Pond Newnins-Ziegler housing and along Village Rd. Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.8 Harmonic Woods Install and maintain fencing or barriers, along with behavioral
signage to control unauthorized use Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.9 Hogtown Prairie Woods Install and maintain fencing along 34th Street Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.11 Lake Alice Install additional fencing adjacent to University Gardens Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.12 McCarty Woods Install post fencing adjacent parking areas Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.13 NATL-west Maintain fencing Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.14 Presidents Park Maintain fencing Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.15 Solar Park Pond / Woods Extend fencing along SW 23 Terrace Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.16 Surge Wetlands (NATL east) Install and maintain fencing adjacent to roadways Physical Plant Division
Activity 4.2.17 University Park Arboretum Install and maintain fencing Physical Plant Division


Policy 4.3 Identify the property by installing University of Florida signage and informational kiosks.
Activity 4.3.1 Bartram-Carr Woods Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD Oct-04
Activity 4.3.2 Bat House Woods Sink Identify with UF blue signage & informational kiosk FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.3 Bivens Rim Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.4 Blue Wave Wetland Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.5 DASH Course Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.6 Digital Design Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Page b









Activity 4.3.7 fraternity Wetlands Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.8 Graham Woods Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.9 Green Pond Newnins-Ziegler Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.10 Harmonic Woods Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.11 Hogtown Prairie Woods Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.12 McCarty Woods Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.13 NATL-west Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.14 Reitz Ravine Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.15 Solar Park Pond / Woods Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.16 Sorority Row Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.19 Surge Wetlands (NATL east) Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.20 Trillium Slope Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD
Activity 4.3.21 University Park Arboretum Identify with UF blue signage FPC and PPD


Policy 4.4 Identify partners for management and upkeep of conservation areas, through fundraising opportunities in coordination with the University of Florida Foundation.
Activity 4.4.1 Bartram-Carr Woods Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.2 Bat House Woods/ Sink Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $100,000
Activity 4.4.3 Bivens Rim Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.4 Blue Wave Wetland Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.5 DASH Course Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.6 Digital Design Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.7 Fraternity Wetlands Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.8 Graham Woods Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.9 Green Pond Newnins-Ziegler Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.10 Harmonic Woods Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.11 Hogtown Prairie Woods Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.12 Lake Alice Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $100,000
Activity 4.4.13 Lake Alice South Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.14 McCarty Woods Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.15 NATL-west Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $100,000
Activity 4.4.16 Reitz Ravine Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.17 Solar Park Pond / Woods Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.18 Surge Wetlands (NATL east) Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.19 Swine Unit Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.20 Trillium Slope Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
Activity 4.4.21 University Park Arboretum Solicit management endowments in coordination w/ UFF FPC and UFF $50,000
STotal $1,200,000


Page 6




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs