Title: Project Assessment - Green Swamp Lake and Polk Counties, Conservation and Recreation Lands Project
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004991/00001
 Material Information
Title: Project Assessment - Green Swamp Lake and Polk Counties, Conservation and Recreation Lands Project
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Land Acquisition Advisory Council Liaison Staff and Florida Natural Areas Inventory
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Project Assessment - Green Swamp Lake and Polk Counties, Conservation and Recreation Lands Project (JDV Box 40)
General Note: Box 30, Folder 4 ( The Green Swamp - 1974 - 1993 ), Item 5
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004991
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text

S ATTACHMENT E


PROJECT ASSESSMENT


GREEN SWAMP
Lake and Polk Counties

CONSERVATION AND RECREATION LANDS PROJECT


prepared by
Land Acquisition Advisory Council Liaison Staff
and
Florida Natural Areas Inventory

August 1992


approved by
Land Acquisition Advisory Council
on
August 20, 1992


----~












CONTRIBUTORS


FIELD INSPECTIONS

LAAC staff ground inspection (drive through) on June 23, 1992: Doug Bailey (GFC), David Buchanan (DNR),
Ruark Cleary (DER), James Grubbs (DOF), Erik Johnson (DNR), Richard Hilsenbeck (FNAI). Also Present:
Ellen Hemmert (Polk County, G.S. Task Force). (Note that the LAAC liaison staff also aerially inspected the
Green Swamp in November of 1991).


Additional FNAI ground inspection on June 23, 27, and 28 (included fly-over via fixed-wing aircraft), 1992:
Richard Hilsenbeck.


ASSESSMENT TEXT
Although development of the text for the CARL Assessments is a cooperative staff effort, the bulk of
information for a given section is provided by the staff members) from the particular agency or agency
divisions) that has the most expertise in the subject area addressed by that section. Consensus approval
of the LAAC liaison staff determined the final form of the Acquisition/ Management Goals and Objectives.
Compilation and editing of Assessments were done by Erik Johnson. Below is a list of the major sections
in the Assessment and contributors to them.

Natural Communites, Vascular Plants: Richard Hilsenbeck (FNAI)
Forest Resources: James Grubbs (DOF)
Fish and Wildlife: GFC; Doug Bailey, Terry Gilbert (species list), Maureen MacLaughlin and James Cox
(LANDSAT and GIS analysis)
Water Resources: Ruark Cleary (DER)
Geologic Resources: Thomas Scott (DNR, Resource Management)
Outdoor Recreation Resources: David Buchanan (DNR, Recreation and Parks)
Archeological/ Historical Resources: Susan Herring (DHR)
Vulnerability and Endangerment: James Farr (DCA)
Acquisition/ Management Goals and Objectives: Erik Johnson (DNR, State Lands)
Location: Carolyn DeHaven-Hardee and Bernadette Leyden (both DNR, State Lands)
Proximity to other Dedicated Conservation Lands: Cathleen NeSmith and Thomas Ostertag (both FNAI)
Ownership Pattem and Cost: Carolyn DeHaven-Hardee






Key to Commonly Used Acronyms

CARL = Conservation and Recreation Lands Program
DCA = Department of Community Affairs
DER = Department of Environmental Regulation
DHR = Division of Historical Resources, Department of State
DNR = Department of Natural Resources
DOF = Division of Forestry, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
FNAI = Florida Natural Areas Inventory
GFC = Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
LAAC = Land Acquisition Advisory Council













GREEN SWAMP
PROJECT ASSESSMENT

Lake and Polk Counties



I Introduction
The Green Swamp is an immense project (post-assessment total of -216,520 acres) that is an
extremely complex mosaic of highly disturbed upland and wetland parcels intermixed with higher
quality wetland forests. Indeed, the Green Swamp project includes a diverse array of natural
communities but with much fragmentation of contiguous natural areas. Although an accurate figure
is impossible to calculate because data on the historic distribution of communities are unavailable, it
is estimated that 90% of the upland vegetation has been substantially disturbed. Approximately 46%
of the total acreage within the original Resource Planning Boundary (-42,000 acres deleted following
assessment) is disturbed to the extent that it is not considered a natural community. Even though the
bulk of the project is congruent with the Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC), most of these upland
areas have been converted to such uses as improved pasture for livestock production, cultivation of
row crop type produce, citrus groves, sod farms, various mining activities (limestone, phosphate, sand,
and peat), a massive tire dump, an airport, wholesale plant nurseries, old fields, and hundreds to
thousands of private residences. While most of the remaining areas in natural vegetation may be
considered as wetlands in the broad sense, the project also contains some widely scattered upland
parcels of good quality. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) reports at least 4 Special Animals
occurring on or near the project.

The primary importance of the Green Swamp is its significance as a strategic hydrological resource.
The project encompasses portions of the headwaters of five major rivers in the state and has the
highest ground water altitude in the Florida peninsula. Indeed, the potentiometric high for the entire
Floridan Aquifer is found within the confines of the Green Swamp. In certain areas of the Green
Swamp, the Aquifer outcrops directly to the ground surface. The Green Swamp ACSC represents an
area considered critical to the Floridan Aquifer in terms of total, active recharge (i.e., it maintains the
ground water pressure level in Central and South Florida) and overall water quality. The Green Swamp
area is currently threatened with urban development, intensive and diverse agricultural activities, and,
at least in the short-term, non-renewable silviculture operations (i.e., production of cypress mulch).

Based on FNAI Assessment recommendations (see discussion on page 6), and the Green Swamp Task
Force Report (1992), two large non-contiguous areas have been identified within the Resource Planning
Boundary (see attached map) as Phase I acquisition areas. Only Phase I has been approved for
Project Design. The largest of the two tracts, in the eastern portion of the ACSC is roughly continuous
with the "Core Area" identified in the Task Force Report. The Phase I areas (-126,080 acres) were
selected based on relative intactness of the natural communities.

Phase I lands and any additional areas targeted for CARL acquisition within the Green Swamp project
should be pursued as shared acquisitions with the Southwest Florida and St. Johns River Water
Management Districts and local governments. Much of the water resource value of the Green Swamp
could be more appropriately protected through land use regulations that maintain the existing rural
character of the area. Acquisition should be reserved for areas with multiple, high resource, values.











II. Resource Description


A. Natural Resources

1. Natural Communities
This assessment of Natural Communities is based on the proposal application, data in the
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) data base, 1990 aerial photographs (for both Polk and
Lake counties), GFC LANDSAT land cover data, site visits by an FNAI botanist/ ecologist on
June 23, 27 and 28, 1992 (including a small plane flight over the project on the 28th). Natural
Communities within the project, listed in order of approximate aerial extent, include: Basin
Swamp, Mesic Flatwoods and Dry Prairie, Baygall and Hydric Hammock, Depression Marsh,
Upland Mixed Forest, Sandhill, and Scrub. The approximate acreage and percentage of the
project comprised of each community type is listed in the table at the end of this section.
Approximately 46% (119,069 acres including 8,076 acres of open water) of the project is
disturbed to the extent that FNAI does not classify that area as a natural community. (Note
that the previous figures were based on LANDSAT data and were determined prior to deletion
of approximately 42,000 acres following assessment.)

The Basin Swamp vegetation is of variable quality, apparently depending upon several factors
such as past logging activity, fire history, disruption of normal hydrological regime, and
possible conversion to broad and varied agricultural activities. Most of the Basin Swamp
stands that were possible to investigate from the ground show a nearly even-aged distribution
of pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens). Although pond cypress is the dominant overstory
species, it is often mixed with typical hardwood tree associates such as, southern red maple
(Acer rubrum), pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), black gum (Nssa svlvatica), sweet bay
(Magnolia virginiana), silk bay (Persea palustris), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), sweetgum
(Liuidambar stvraciflua), and some scattered slash pine (Pinus elliottii). The loblolly bay,
usually more frequent at the margins of this community, is mixed with a periphery understory
of Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), wax myrtle (Mric cerifera),
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), slash pine, and southern red maple. The understory and
herbaceous layer of most of these forested swamps consists of a dense growth of wax myrtle,
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), royal and an occasional cinnamon fern (Osmunda
recalls and 0. cinnamomea), blue hyssop (Bacoa caroliniana), dotted smartweed
(Polyvonum punctatum), purple and floating bladderwort (Utricularia ourpurea and U. inflata),
sawgrass (Cladium iamaicense), umbrellagrass (Fuirena scirpoidea), care (Carex lupulina),
chain fears (Woodwardia areolata and W. virainica), shield fern (Thelvpteris interrupta,
swordfem (Blechnum serrulatum), fascicled beak-rush (Rhvnchospora miliacea), redroot
(Lachnanthes caroliniana), swamp hibiscus (Hibiscus grandiflorus), St. John's-wort (Hypericum
fasciculatum), mosquito fern (Azolla caroliniana), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), catbrier
and coral greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox and S. walteri), and peppervine (Ampelopsis arborea),
among others. Many of the pond cypress trees within these swamps exhibit excessive
browning of the leaves, with consequent early deciduousness. It is possible that a recent
drought in the area is contributing to this condition, as is a possible drop in the water table.
Several of the Basin Swamps entered were dry or had lower water levels than expected (i.e.,
only ankle deep). Several of the Basin Swamps have recently been selectively cut giving rise
to highly disturbed secondary (or tertiary) forests, or sections or strips of secondary growth
within them. Nonetheless, the overall quality of many of these Basin Swamps is generally fair
to good (some not seen on the ground may rank as high) in terms of their biodiversity, lack
of recent disturbance, and apparent functioning as natural systems. These systems are,
however, mostly completely surrounded by intensive land use activities right up to their edges
that may interfere with normal hydrological flow and operation.











The Basin Swamps typically grade up to higher land that is cleared for a variety of activities,
mostly improved pasture dominated by exotic bahia grass (Paspalum notatum), but dotted
with pawpaw (Asimina reticulata) and often large, widely scattered longleaf pines (Pinus
oalustris). This observation, coupled with the flat topography, indicates that much of the
improved pasture seen was once high quality Mesic Flatwoods. Other areas adjacent to
Basin Swamps (from the appearance of their soil, mostly Sandhill) have been cleared for
surprisingly numerous citrus groves. In areas that still retain natural vegetation, the Basin
Swamp community intergrades abruptly and most commonly with either Baygall and Hydric
Hammock or Mesic Flatwoods and Dry Prairie. It is difficult to accurately ascertain which
communities are entirely natural and what the historic transitions might have been because
of intensive land use throughout the Green Swamp area. Overall, there is much blurring of
natural community types due to succession (much of it undoubtedly secondary), disruption
of hydrology, fire suppression, past logging, general clearing, and other varied land use
activities. Much of the upland vegetation now exists as low to only good quality secondary
growth similar in species composition and structure to that described below for Upland Mixed
Forest.

The Baygall/Hydric Hammock complex is very similar in species composition to the Basin
Swamps, but with pond cypress usually or totally lacking. Thus, southern red maple,
swampbay, sweetbay, loblolly bay, sweetgum, blackgum, water and diamond-leaf oak
(Quercus nira and Q.laurifolia), American elm (Ulmus americana), pop ash, and slash pine
dominate the overstory, with wax myrtle, dahoon holly, fetterbush (Lvonia lucida), gallberry
(Iex alabra), royal fem, swordfern, shield fern (Thelvpteris kunthii and T. dentata), catbrier,
and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) predominant in the simple understory. This community,
where it does occur, is not very well developed, seems to have suffered frequent disturbance
in the past, and is of only good quality.

The Baygall/Hydric Hammock complex grades into fragmented areas of Upland Mixed Forest.
The latter community mainly appears as remnant vegetation adjacent to intensive land use
areas or has houses situated within it. The canopy dominants include both slash and longleaf
pine, laurel, water, and live oak (Quercus hemisphaerica, niara, and Q. virginiana), southern
red maple, sweetgum, black cherry (Prunus serotina), hackberry (Celtis laeviaata), southern
magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), pignut hickory (Cara labra), and cabbage palm. The
sparse to dense understory includes wax myrtle, beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), winged
sumac (Rhus copallina), persimmon (Diospyros virqiniana), fetterbush, dahoon holly, catbrier,
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and southern fox grape (Vtis rotundifolia), often with
abundant saw palmetto (Serenoa repens). The herbaceous layer varies considerably from site
to site but often includes, southern gaura (Gaura anaustifolia), dog fennels (Eupatorium
compositifolium and E. capillifolium), partidgeberry (Mitchellia reDens), wild petunia (Ruellia
caroliniensis), broomsedge and bushy bluestem (Andropogon virginicus and A. alomeratus),
southern dewberry (Rubus trivialis), southern fleabane (Erigeron guercifolius), mistflower
(Conoclinium coelestinum), innocence (Hedotis rocumbens), and Florida elephant's-foot
(Elephantopus elatus), among others. The understory and herbaceous species composition
indicate that this community has been disturbed to varying degrees. The generally small size
of these remnant communities and their apparent secondary growth character with
considerable human disturbance allow for only a poor to good ranking in terms of quality for
most of them. Undoubtedly, higher quality examples remain behind locked gates.

The Mesic Flatwoods and Dry Prairie complex probably represent the largest upland
community type that is still extant within the Green Swamp. There are numerous areas of this
community scattered throughout the project, most of these highly fragmented, of varying
quality, and often adjacent to or used directly as livestock grazing areas. However, all such










sites found turned out to be only 20, 50, or 100 acre remnants of what was likely the most
common and widespread upland "matrix" community within this vast ecosystem. The typical
Mesic Flatwoods within the area consists of an overstory of slash pine (sometimes with
significant stands of pond pine Pinus serotina), usually of 30-50% cover, and often mixed
with a good number of longleaf pine. The much lower understory is often a dense, 3-6' tall,
growth of saw palmetto, with numerous gallberry, wax myrtle, fetterbush, tarflower (Befaria
racemosa), staggerbush (Lonia fruticosa), pawpaw, and winged sumac generously
interspersed. There is either very little ground cover, especially concerning of wiregrass
(Aristda sticta), because of fire suppression, probable overgrazing, and general disturbance,
or there is occasionally much other grass (e.g., broomsedge Andropoaon S.P., lovegrass -
Eragrostis SDD., or scattered wiregrass) but with a reduced understory because of very
frequent burning and/or roller chopping and removal of underbrush to stimulate growth of
grass for livestock. Mainly because of fire suppression coupled with frequent disturbance, there
was little in the way of forbs (i.e., herbaceous dicots) encountered. Some stands of Mesic
Flatwoods appeared to be of rather good to high quality (possibly managed for quail hunting).
In fact, many, seemingly remnant, parcels (because of lack of access it is possible that some
of these flatwoods areas extend for many acres) support significant longleaf pine stands, with
the oldest trees estimated at 65-75 years old. Perhaps the best flatwoods seen is located just
west of the intersection of Rock Ridge/Green Pond and Poyner Roads or approximately 4.1
miles west of the junction of Green Pond Road and Highway 33. This stand had a rather
dense (60-75% cover) overstory of beautiful longleaf pines, a low open growth of saw
palmettos, and good wiregrass. This area is worthy of acquisition, but because it is very close
to recently acquired water management district lands some of it may already be in state
ownership. The area was fenced, but not posted in any way (Charlie Spivey of the GFC has
stated that the land is, to his knowledge, not now in public ownership).

The areas identified as Dry Prairie with the GFC LANDSAT data are primarily thought to be
areas of cut over or frequently burned Mesic Flatwoods (Note: For a thorough discussion of
the possible interrelationship between these two community types, please refer to the 1992
Padgett Branch assessment). Except for a canopy of widely scattered slash and/or longleaf
pines, these area have virtually identical species composition to the Mesic Flatwoods. These
areas are characterized by a very dense, low growth of saw palmettos, scattered individulas
of gallberry, fetterbush, broomsedge, wax myrtle, winged sumac, tarflower, and St. John's-
wort (HDyericum cistifolium), with a sparse herbaceous layer devoid of significant cover of
wiregrass and forbs. The putative Dry Prairie occurs primarily in the southwestern sector,
some along the western edge, and in the southeastern corer of the project, often extensively
intermixed with Basin Swamp and/or Mesic Flatwoods (or improved pasture) communities.

The areas characterized as Depression Marshes often have similar species composition to the
numerous ditches frequently found along roadways within the Green Swamp. The vast
majority of areas suspected of supporting Depression Marsh vegetation were inaccessible
during the three days spent within the confines of this project. In general, this community is
best described as a mixture of weedy, hydric elements that either occur as a natural
assemblage or have come together in excavated areas that occur throughout the area.
Typical elements include common and southern cattail (Tyha latifolia and T. domingensis),
sawgrass, primrose willow (Ludwiia peruviana and L octovalvis), spatter-dock (Nupharlutea),
white waterlily (Nvmphaea odorata), groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia), mild water-pepper
(Polvaonum hydropiperoides), common and grass-leaved arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia and
S. araminea), swamp dock (Rumex verticillatus), soft-rush (Juncus effusus), wax myrtle, dog
fennel, yellow-eyed grasses Xris iugicai and X. brevifolia), St. John's-wort (Hyericum
fasciculatum), dwarf St. John's-wort (H. mutilum), clip-weed (Eclibt alba), chain fern, redroot,
yellow bachelor's button's (Polvyala rugeli), globe-sedge (Cyperus globulosus), meadow











beauty Rhexia nuttallii), and maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), among others. These areas
are quite variable in quality, size, and overall species composition, but the ones examined
closely are rated as only good examples of this community type because of proximity to
disturbance, particularly apparent disruption of the natural hydrology.

Some of the more prominent sand ridges with the highest overall elevation in the Green
Swamp undoubtedly supported some fine examples of Sandhill vegetation. The very few
areas now identifiable as Sandhill because of remnant species composition still support some
fine, albeit widely scattered, specimens of longleaf pine. Other woody species include
occasional turkey, sand live, and bluejack oaks (Quercus laevigs,. geminata, and Q. incana),
and persimmon. The sparse ground cover includes some occasionally fine patches of
wiregrass, buckwheat (Erioaonum tomentosum), gopher apple (Licani michauxii), bracken
fern (Pteridium aguilinum), Florida elephant's-foot, and greeneyes (Berlandiera subacaulis),
among few others. One very fine, possibly virgin, tract of sandhill was seen along Hickman
Road, and, of course, it was fenced and posted. The tract is reached by proceeding east on
Dean Still Road 0.4 miles past its intersection with CR 557 (a.k.a. Old Grade Road) to
Hickman Road. Proceed north on Hickman Road though good to high quality Basin Swamp
for 0.3 miles to reach the very conspicuous sandhill above a classic roadcut through deep
sand and clay. This tract was the best quality upland natural community observed in the
entire Green Swamp project and its acquisition should be pursued (see below).

Adjacent to the above Sandhill community, as well as adjacent to degraded Sandhills and
Mesic Flatwoods in the northwestern area of the project off of Oil Well Road, small patches
of Xeric Oak Scrub occur. These remnant patches have been mostly cleared and converted
to a variety of uses. They are characterized by a low (10-15') scrub oak-dominated overstory
of sand live oak and myrtle oak (Quercus qeminata and Q. mvrtifolia) with intermixed
staggerbush, tarflower, and rusty lyonia (Lvonia ferruqinea). Except for a few lichens
(Cladonia sp..), an occasional clump of wiregrass, and scattered individuals of pinweed
(Leche cemua) and large-fruited beak-rush (Rhvnchospora meaalocarpa), these areas offer
little in terms of herbaceous species. Their low species diversity, small size, and highly
disturbed surroundings, make these areas rate only as good examples of this community
type. Real access to the oak scrub off of Hickman Road would likely reveal a larger species
diversity allowing this latter area to be ranked much higher.

The single FNAI Resource Planning Boundary (RPB) addition along the southwest border of
the original CARL project was examined as best as was feasible considering the total lack of
off-road access. It is recommended that the area south of US Highway 98 be deleted from
further consideration as it is too highly fragmented by development and disturbance. An
earlier recommended FNAI addition, the area north of highway 98 and east of SR 471 appears
as a mosaic of Mesic Flatwoods, Basin Swamps, Baygall, and Upland Mixed Forest. Except
for some scattered areas of intervening improved pasture toward the southern end of the
addition (but still north of highway 98) the natural communities of this area appear in as good
a condition as those areas recommended above for potential acquisition. Overall, the lands
in this addition would rank as fair to good (some areas perhaps as high) in terms of
ecological and natural community quality. It should be further noted that all recommended
FNAI deletions stand as indicated.

It is unfortunate that the bulk of the uplands have been cleared for various endeavors,
because the historic, intricate juxtaposition of upland and wetland communities allowed for
a rich wild- and plant-life resource. Nonetheless, the Green Swamp still represents significant
wildlife habitat and an important hydrological resource. As it stands now, with such an
immense area proposed for possible state acquisition, and with few of those thousands of










acres truly accessible, it gives one the distinct impression that the vast majority of the Green
Swamp is highly disturbed and fragmented. Although from the ground one suspects the
existence of large tracts of undeveloped lands, only from the air (and the fly over was,
unfortunately, cut short by approaching thunderstorms) are large blocks of viable, defensible,
and intact lands revealed. The majority of these are extended Basin Swamps, most likely
secondary growth. Because of both the vastness and the importance of the project, it is
suggested that the areas to be considered further for state acquisition be scaled down. The
Green Swamp Task Force under the direction of the Polk County Board of County
Commission, recently undertook a massive study of the Green Swamp ecosystem. Although
little attention was given to the species composition, structure, or quality of natural
communities in this study, the identified "Core Area" is a reasonable starting point for refining
of acquisition goals. The present assessment further refines the Task Force Core Area
by recommending specific areas that are the most suitable for CARL acquisition. The
major areas of the project that are recommended for possible acquisition include:
1) Basin Swamps within the extreme southeastem corner of the project, bisected by 1-4. This
area is bordered on the north by Dean Still Road, on the south by SR 17, and flanked on the
east by the Lake Wales Ridge (i.e., US Highway 27) and the west by CR 557. 2) Basin
Swamp and isolated uplands (including excellent Sandhill area referred to above) north of
Dean Still Road, south of 474, east-northeast of Brown Shinn Road, and west of the Lake
Wales Ridge. 3) Basin Swamps and Mesic Flatwoods (potentially some Scrub and/or
Sandhill) north of SR 474, south of Lake Louisa State Park, west of Lake Wales Ridge, and
east of massive mining operations (i.e., Jahna Mining, Inc.). 4) Basin Swamps, Mesic
Flatwoods, and small Oak Scrub(s) between Lake Erie Road to the north, the Polk-Lake
County line to the south (this area somewhat bisected by Oil Well Road), SR 33 to the east,
and the old Seaboard Coast Line railroad tracks (now a Rails-to-Trails property) on the west.
5) Area north of Rock Ridge Road (mixed community types). 6) FNAI RPB addition as
detailed on page 5 above.


Summary Table of Natural Communities
(Acreages and percentages are estimates)

Natural Community FNAI rank* Acres % of Total
Basin Swamp G?/S4? 69,888 27%
Mesic Flatwoods/Dry Prairie G?/S4 (G2/S2) 36,238 14%
Baygall/Hydric Hammock G4?/S4? (G?/S4?) 18,119 07%
Depression Marsh G4?/S3 10,354 04%
Upland Mixed Forest G?/S4 5,177 02%
Sandhill G2G3/S2 621 <1%
Scrub G2/S2 78 <1%

Please refer to attached sheet for interpretation of FNAI element ranks.


2. Forest Resources
The natural communities section of this assessment provides a general description of the
forest resources of this project. This section will not repeat that description but will address
the forest resources from a multiple-use and ecosystem management perspective.

The Green Swamp project contains several forest types including cypress swamps, pine
flatwoods, sandhills, and hardwood swamps. According to the USDA Soil Survey, portions
of this project have an average site index (base age 50) of 70 to 90 for slash pine, 60 to 80










for longleaf pine, 60 for sand pine, and 35 to 45 for South Florida slash pine. Site index is an
estimate of site productivity based upon the height a dominant or codominant tree would be
expected to reach within a given time period, in this case 50 years. On this project, for
example, a dominant or codominant slash pine would be expected to reach a height of 70 to
90 feet within 50 years while a longleaf pine might reach heights of 60 to 80 feet. Productivity
for these soils would be considered medium to very high for slash pine, low to high for
longleaf pine, low for sand pine and very low for South Florida slash pine.

As indicated above, portions of this project are comprised of manageable forestlands which
could be utilized to help offset operational costs. Where practical, these resources should be
carefully managed using appropriate silvicultural techniques as recommended by the Division
of Forestry. Natural regeneration should be utilized where practical and care should be taken
to protect any rare or sensitive resources. Where feasible, pasture areas and other sites
should be reforested to the original domain.


3. Vascular Plants
This assessment of vascular plants is based on the project project, data in the FNAI data
base, and site visits by an FNAI botanist/ ecologist on June 26, 27, and 28, 1992.

The following table lists rare species of vascular-plants-recorded from the project. Federal,
state (FL Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services), and FNAI ranks (see Attachment
1 for interpretations) are included.

Species/Common Name FNAI US FL

Bonamia grandiflora G3/S3 LT LE
Florida bonamia
Lechea cemua G3/S3 3C LE
nodding pinweed
Paronvchia chartacea G2G3/S2S3 LT LE
paper-like nail-wort
Prunus oeniculata G2G3/S2S3 LE LE
scrub plum

The existence of four Lake Wales Ridge endemic species on any tract of land is significant.
While all of these species are protected to varying degrees on state-owned lands or on
current CARL projects, they are disappearing from private lands at alarming rates.
Unfortunately, all of these species occur strictly on upland habitats (i.e., Sandhill and/or
Scrub), and these types of areas are not only small but are highly fragmented within this
project. Nevertheless, the maintenance of genetic diversity within these rare, narrowly
distributed, species mandates that all populations are important, especially those at the
periphery of the main Lake Wales Ridge system. Overall, however, the long-term viability of
none of the above species hinges on the populations present in this project. It should also
be noted that in a project of this size, the potential for finding yet other rare plant species,
including those that are more mesic adapted, always exists.


4. Fish and Wildlife
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) reports the following Special Animals occurring on
or near the Green Swamp site: Florida scrub jay (G5T3/S3), gopher tortoise (G3/S3), Eastern
indigo snake G4T3/S3), and osprey (G5/S3S4). Other FNAI Special Animals reported from












the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission database that probably occur on the site include
Sherman's fox squirrel (G5T2/S2), Florida black bear (G5T3/S3), Southeastern American
kestrel (G5T3T4/S3?), limpkin (G5/S3), yellow-crowned night heron (G5/S3?), wood stork
(G5/S2), great egret (G5/S4), snowy egret (G5/S4), little blue heron (G5/S4), tricolored heron
(G5/S4), white ibis (G5/S4), bald eagle (G3/S2S3), short-tailed hawk (G4?/S3), and Florida
sandhill crane (G5T2T3/S2S3).


Wildlife Resource Matrix

The data presented in the wildlife resource matrix below are drawn from the Game and Fresh
Water fish Commission Office of Environmental Services wildlife database. Potential wildlife
useage was determined by correlating the CARL site boundaries with the detailed potential
habitat maps of over thirty species. The habitat maps were generated through species by
species analysis of a variety of factors including occurrence data, species/land cover
associations, habitat area requirements, proximity to known population centers, and avoidance
of select cover types and/or other features.

An entry of "X" in the matrix indicates that the site contains suitable habitat of sufficient area
extent to be of potential importance to the species. A "?" indicates that there are historic
occurrence records for the site or suitable habitat present such that the site is of possible
importance to the species. With reference to wading bird habitat, a colony is considered
"nearby" a site if it is within 15 kilometers for most wading bird species, or within 40 kilometers
for woodstorks.


Common Name
Fox Squirrel
Bobcat
Florida Black Bear
Gopher Tortoise
Scrub jay
Southeastern American Kestrel
Swallow-tailed Kite
bottled Duck
Pumpkin
Wading Bird Habitat (# Colonies Nearby)
Yellow-crowned Night Heron
Wood Stork
Great Egret
Snowy Egret
Little Blue Heron
Tricolored Heron
White Ibis
Bald Eagle
Wild Turkey
Short-tailed Hawk
Sandhill Crane


Entry (see above)
X
X
X
X
?
X
X
X
X
X(7-8)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


Wildlife Resource Map

The wildlife resource map (see page 9) was created by overlaying habitat and distribution
information for 39 rare species, and thus outlines areas where habitat conditions for rare
wildlife species co-occur. Class 1 lands depict areas where habitat for three to four of the
focal species co-occur and are usually large forested tracts that have varying degrees of
natural quality. The analyses included habitat generalists such as wild turkey, bobcat,



















U$I


** ma
qeml' nI n n
*sbm h g i f_:


\ GREEN SWAMP

.WILDLIFE RESOURCE MAP

. .-_.- -















SCLASS 1
M CLASS 2


0


20 km












Cooper's hawk, and black bear that are sensitive to forest fragmentation but also tolerate a
wide range of forested conditions. Although the natural quality of Class 1 lands may be
relatively low, these areas often serve vital functions when viewed from a broader landscape
perspective.

Class 2 lands depict areas where habitat features for five or more focal species co-occur.
These areas generally have much higher natural quality than Class 1 lands since the areas
usually support habitat generalists as well as species with more specific habitat requirements
such as fox squirrel and red-cockaded woodpecker. Class 2 lands also include large tracts
of rare communities such as sandhill, oak scrub, coastal strand, and other areas where at
least five of the rare species occur.

Wildlife Species Lists

The following wildlife species lists indicate those species that may occur on the project site
based on the predominant LANDSAT cover types, known ranges of the species, scientific
literature available, and county in which the project is located.


REPTILES
Scientific Name
Alligator mississippiensis
C. s. osceola
Deirochelys r. chrysea
Pseudemys c. suwanniensis
Pseudemys f. peninsularis
Pseudemys nelsoni
Terrapene carolina bauri
Kinosteron baurii
Kinosternon s. steindachneri
Sternotherus m. minor
Sternotherus odoratus
Gopherus polyphemus
Trionyx ferox
Rhineura floridana
Ophisaurus a. longicaudus
Ophisaurus compressus
Ophisaurus ventralis
Anolis carolinensis
Sceloporus u. undulatus
Sceloporus woodi
Eumeces e. lividus
Eumeces e. onocrepis
Eumeces inexpectatus
Eumeces laticeps
Neoseps reynoldsi
Scincella lateralis
Cnemidophoris sexlineatus s.
Cemophora c. coccinea
Coluber c. priapus
Diadophis p. punctatus
Drymarchon couperi c.
Elaphe guttata g.
Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata
Farancia abacura a.
Farancia erytrogramma
Farancia erytrogramma e.
Heterodon platyrhinos
Heterodon simus
Lampropeltis c. rhombomaculata


Common Name
American alligator
Florida snapping turtle
Rorida chicken turtle
Suwannee cooter
Peninsula cooter
Florida red-bellied turtle
Florida box turtle
Striped mud turtle
Florida mud turtle
Loggerhead musk turtle
Common musk turtle
Gopher tortoise
Rorida softshell turtle
Forida worm lizard
Eastern slender glass lizard
Island glass lizard
Eastern glass lizard
Green anole
Southern fence lizard
Forida scrub lizard
Blue-tailed mole skink
Peninsula mole skink
Southeastern five-lined skink
Broad-headed skink
Sand skink
Ground skink
Six-lined racerunner
Florida scarlet snake
Southern black racer
Southern ring-necked snake
Eastern indigo snake
Corn snake
Yellow rat snake
Eastern mud snake
Rainbow snake
Rainbow snake
Eastern hog-nosed snake
Southern hog-nosed snake
Mole kingsnake


FL Fnkina
SSC_


SSC



E-



SSC













Lampropeltis g. getulus
Lampropeltis g. floridana
Lampropeltis triangulum
Lampropeltis t. elapsoides
Masticophis flagellum f.
Nerodia floridana
Nerodia f. pictiventris
Nerodia taxispilota
Opheodrys aestivus
Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus
Regina alleni
Regina rigid r.
Rhadinaea flavilata
Seminatrix pygaea
Seminatrix p. pygaea
Seminatrix p. cyclas
Stilosoma extenuatum
Storeria d. victa
Tantilla relicta
Tantilla r. relicta
Tantilla r. neilli
Thamnophis s. sackenii
Thamnophis s. similis
Micrurus fulvius f.
Agkistrodon p. conanti
Crotalus adamanteus
Sistrurus miliarius barbouri

*Applicable in lower Florida Keys only.


AMPHIBIANS
Scientific Name
Bufo quercicus
Bufo terrestris
Acris gryllus g. & dorsalis
Hyla cinerea
Hyla femoralis
Hyla gratiosa
Hyla squirella
Umnaoedus ocularis
P. n. nigrita
Pseudacris omata
Gastrophryne carolinensis
Scaphiopus holbrookii h.
Rana aerolata aesopus
Rana catesbeiana
R. c. clamitans
Rana grylio
Rana heckscheri
Rana sphenocephala
Amphiuma means
Desmognathus auriculatus

BIRDS
Scientific Name
Podilymbus podiceps
Phalacrocorax auritus
Anhinga anhinga
Botaurus lentiginosus
Ixobrychus exilis e.
Ardea herodias
Casmerodius albus egretta


Eastern kingsnake
Florida kingsnake
Milk snake
Scarlet kingsnake
Coachwhip
Florida green water snake
Florida banded water snake
Brown water snake
Rough green snake
Pine snake
Striped crayfish snake
Glossy crayfish snake
Pine woods snake
Black swamp snake
North Florida swamp snake
South Rorida swamp snake
Short-tailed snake
Florida brown snake
Rorida crowned snake
Peninsular crowned snake
Central Florida crowned snake
Peninsula ribbon snake
Blue-striped garter snake
North American coral snake
lorida cottonmouth
Eastern diamondback rattlesnake
Pygmy rattlesnake


Common Name
Oak toad
Southern toad
Southern cricket frog
Green treefrog
Pine woods treefrog
Barking treefrog
Squirrel treefrog
Little grass frog
Southern chorus frog
Ornate chorus frog
Eastern narrow-mouthed toad
Eastern spadefoot
lorida gopher frog
Bullfrog
Bronze frog
Pig frog
River frog
Southern leopard frog
Two-toed amphiuma
Southern dusky salamander


Common Name
Pied-billed grebe
Double-crested cormorant
Anhinga
American bittern
Least bittern
Great blue heron
Great egret













Egretta thula t.
Egretta caerulea
Egretta tricolor ruficolis
Bubulcus ibis ibis
Butorides striatus
Nycticorax nycticorax hoactli
Nycticorax violaceus v.
Eudocimus albus
Plegadis falcinellus 1.
Ajaia ajaja
Mycteria americana
Aix sponsa
Anas crecca
Anas rubripes
Anas fulvigula f.
Anas platyrhynchos p.
Anas acuta acuta
Anas discors
Anas clypeata
Anas strepera
Anas americana
Aythya valisineria
Aythya americana
Aythya collaris
Aythya marila mariloides
Aythya affinis
Bucephala clangula americana
Bucephala albeola
Lophodytes cucullatus
Oxyura jamaicensis rubida
Coragyps atratus
Cathartes aura A.
Pandion haliaetus carolinensis
Eanoides forficatus 1.
Elanus caeruleus majusculus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Circus cyaneus hudsonius
Accipiter striatus velox
Accipiter cooperii
Buteo lineatus alleni & extimus
Buteo brachyurus fuliginosus
Buteo jamaicensis
Polyborus plancus audubonii
F. s. sparverius
Falco s. paulus
Falco columbarius c.
Falo peregrinus tundrius
Meleagris gallopavo osceola
Colinus virginianus
Coturnicops noveboracensis n.
Laterallus jamaicensis j.
Railus elegans e.
Rallus limicola I
Porzana carolina
Porphyrula martinica
Gallinula chloropus cachinnans
Fulica americana a.
Aramus guarauna pictus
G. canadensis pratensis
G. canadensis tabida
Charadrius vociferus v.
Himantopus mexicanus m.


Snowy egret
Little blue heron
Tricolored heron
Cattle egret
Green-backed heron
Black-crowned night heron
Yellow-crowned night heron
White ibis
Glossy ibis
Roseate spoonbill
Wood stork
Wood duck
Green-winged teal
American black duck
Mottled duck
Mallard
Northern pintail
Blue-winged teal
Northern shoveler
Gadwall
American wigeon
Canvasback
Redhead
Ring-necked duck
Greater scaup
Lesser scaup
Common goldeneye
Bufflehead
Hooded merganser
Ruddy duck
Black vulture
Turkey vulture
Osprey
American swallow-tailed kite
Black-shouldered kite
Bald eagle
Northern harrier
Sharp-shinned hawk
Cooper's hawk
Red-shouldered hawk
Short-tailed hawk
Red-tailed hawk
Crested caracara
American kestrel
Southeastern kestrel
Merlin
Peregrine falcon
Wild turkey
Northern bobwhite
Yellow rail
Black rail
King rail
Virginia rail
Sora
Purple gallinule
Common moorhen
American coot
impkin
Florida sandhill crane
Greater sandhill crane
Killdeer
Black-necked stilt


SSC*













Tringa melanoleuca
Tringa flavipes
Actitis macularia
Calidris minutilla
Gallinago gallinago delicate
Scolopax minor
Larus delawarensis
Larus argentatus
Stema antillarum a.
Zenaida macroura
Columbina passerina
Coccyzus americanus a.
Crotophaga ani
Tyto alba pratincola
Otus asio floridana
Bubo virginianus v.
A. c. floridana
Strix varia georgica
Chordeiles minor chapman
Caprimulgus carolinensis
Caprimulgus vociferus v.
Chaetura pelagica
Archilochus colubris
Ceryle alcyon a.
Melanerpes erythrocephalus e.
Melanerpes carolinus
Sphyrapicus various
Picoides pubescens p.
Picoides villosus audubonii
Picoides borealis
Colaptes auratus a.
Dryocopus pileatus p.
Empidonax virescens
Sayomis phoebe
Myiarchus crinitus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Tyrannus dominicensis
Progne subis
Tachycineta bicolor
Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Cyanocitta cristata
A. coerulescens c.
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Corvus ossifragus
Parus carolinensis
Parus bicolor
Sitta pusilla
Certhia americana
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Troglodytes aedon
Cistothorus palustris
Regulus calendula
Polioptila caerulea
Sialia sialis
Catharus fuscescens
Catharus minimus
Catharus ustulatus
Catharus guttatus
Turdus migratorius
Dumetella carolinensis
Mimus polyglottos
Toxostoma rufum


Greater yellowlegs
Lesser yellowlegs
Spotted sandpiper
Least sandpiper
Common snipe
American woodcock
Ring-billed gull
Herring gull
Least tern
Mourning dove
Common ground-dove
Yellow-billed cuckoo
Smooth-billed ani
Common barn-owl
Eastem screech-owl
Great horned owl
Rorida burrowing owl
Barred owl
Common nighthawk
Chuck-will's-widow
Whip-poor-will
Chimney swift
Ruby-throated hummingbird
Belted kingfisher
Red-headed woodpecker
Red-bellied woodpecker
Yellow-bellied sapsucker
Downy woodpecker
Hairy woodpecker
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Northern flicker
Pileated woodpecker
Acadian flycatcher
Eastern phoebe
Great crested flycatcher
Eastern kingbird
Gray kingbird
Purple martin
Tree swallow
Northern rough-winged swallow
Blue jay
Rorida scrub jay
American crow
Rsh crow
Carolina chickadee
Tufted titmouse
Brown-headed nuthatch
Brown creeper
Carolina wren
House wren
Marsh wren
Ruby-crowned kinglet
Blue-gray gnatcatcher
Eastern bluebird
Veery
Gray-cheeked thrush
Swainson's thrush
Hermit thrush
American robin
Gray catbird
Northern mockingbird
Brown thrasher













Anthus spinoletta
Bombycilla cedrorum
Lanius ludovicianus
Vireo griseus
Vireo solitarius
Vireo flavifrons
Vireo olivaceus
Vermivora pinus
Vermivora chrysoptera
Vermivora peregrina
Vermivora celata
Vermivora ruficapilla
Parula americana
D. petechia aestiva
Dendroica pensylvanica
Dendroica magnolia
Dendroica tigrina
Dendroica caerulescens
Dendroica coronata
Dendroica virens
Dendroica fusca
Dendroica dominica
Dendroica pinus
Dendroica palmarum
Dendroica castanea
Dendroica striata
Dendroica cerulea
Mniotilta varia
Setophaga ruticilla
Protonotaria citrea
Helmitheros vermivorus
Seiurus aurocapillus
Seiurus motacilla
Oporornis formosus
Geothlypis trichas
Piranga rubra
Piranga olivacea
Cardinalis cardinalis
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Guiraca caerulea
Passerina cyanea
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Aimophila aestivalis
Spizella passerina
Spizella pusilla
Pooecetes gramineus
Passerculus sandwichensis
Ammodramus savannarum pratensis
Melospiza melodia
Melospiza georgiana
Zonotrichia albicollis
Agelaius phoeniceus
Stumella magna
Euphagus carolinus
Quiscalus major
Quiscalus quiscula
Molothrus after
Icterus galbula
Carduelis tristis

* Applicable in Monroe County only.


Water pipit
Cedar waxwing
Loggerhead shrike
White-eyed vireo
Solitary vireo
Yellow-throated vireo
Red-eyed vireo
Blue-winged warbler
Golden-winged warbler
Tennessee warbler
Orange-crowned warbler
Nashville warbler
Northern parula
Yellow warbler
Chestnut-sided warbler
Magnolia warbler
Cape May warbler
Black-throated blue warbler
Yellow-rumped warbler
Black-throated green warbler
Blackburnian warbler
Yellow-throated warbler
Pine warbler
Palm warbler
Bay-breasted warbler
Blackpoll warbler
Cerulean warbler
Black-and-white warbler
American redstart
Prothonotary warbler
Worm-eating warbler
Ovenbird
Louisiana waterthrush
Kentucky warbler
Common yellowthroat
Summer tanager
Scarlet tanager
Northern cardinal
Rose-breasted grosbeak
Blue grosbeak
Indigo bunting
Rutous-sided towhee
Bachman's sparrow
Chipping sparrow
Field sparrow
Vesper sparrow
Savannah sparrow
Grasshopper sparrow
Song sparrow
Swamp sparrow
White-throated sparrow
Red-winged blackbird
Eastern meadowlark
Rusty blackbird
Boat-tailed grackle
Common grackle
Brown-headed cowbird
Northern oriole
American goldfinch












MAMMALS
Scientific Name
Didelphis virginiana pigra
Sorex longirostris I.
Blarina carolinensis
Cryptotis parva floridana
Scalopus aquaticus
Myotis austroriparius
Pipistrellus subflavus s.
Plecotus rafinesquii macrotis
Eptesicus fuscus
Lasiurus cinereus cinereus
Lasiurus borealis borealis
Lasiurus seminolus
Lasiurus intermedius floridanus
Nycticeius humeralis
Tadarida brasiliensis cynocephala
Dasypus novemcinctus mexicanus
Sylvilagus floridanus
Sciurus carolinensis
Sciurus n. shermani
Glaucomys volans
Geomys pinetis
Neotoma floridana
Sigmodon hispidus
Reithrodontomys humulis
Oryzomys palustris
Podomys floridanus
Peromyscus polionotus
Peromyscus gossypinus
Ochrotomys nuttalli
Neofiber alleni
Ursus a. floridanus
Procyon lotor
Mustela frenata
Mephitis mephitis
Spilogale putorius
Lutra canadensis vaga
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Canis latrans
Felis rufus floridanus
Odocoileus virginianus


Common Name
Virginia opossum
Southeastern shrew
Sherman's short-tailed shrew
Least shrew
Eastern mole
Southeastern myotis
Eastern pipistrelle
Rafinesque's big-eared bat
Big brown bat
Hoary bat
Red bat
Seminole bat
Northern yellow bat
Evening bat
Brazilian free-tailed bat
Nine-banded armadillo
Eastern cottontail
Gray squirrel
Sherman's fox squirrel
Southern flying squirrel
Southeastern pocket gopher
Eastern woodrat
Cotton rat
Eastern harvest mouse
Marsh rice rat
Florida mouse
Oldfield mouse
Cotton mouse
Golden mouse
Round-tailed muskrat
Florida black bear
Raccoon
Long-tailed weasel
Striped skunk
Spotted skunk
River otter
Gray fox
Coyote
Bobcat
White-tailed deer


FL Rnkina


SSc
















SSC


*Not applicable in Baker and Columbia counties and Apalachicola National Forest.



5. Water Resources
The Green Swamp Task Force recently released their final report, The Green Swamp A
Scientific Analysis, the most comprehensive study of the system to date. This report is
incorporated into the project file by reference and contains much more detailed information
than is normally provided in a resource assessment. For that reason, the following water
resource assessment is a more generalized overview of the Green Swamp system, and the
reader is directed to the task force report if more specific information is desired.

Water Resources
Within the Green Swamp lie portions of the headwaters of five river systems. Listed in order
of hydrologic importance, these are: Withlacoochee and Little Withlacoochee Rivers,
Oklawaha River, Hillsborough River and Kissimmee River. The Withlacoochee River and its
tributaries account for 79 to 82 percent of the surface water drainage from the swamp. There










are seven major streams that arise near the boundaries of the Green Swamp area: Reedy,
Davenport and Horse Creeks in the Kissimmee River Basin; Peace Creek Canal and Saddle
Creek in the Peace River Basin; Fox Branch in the Hillsborough River Basin; and Jumper
Creek Canal and a major canal that head northwest of Mascotte in the Withlacoochee River
Basin. The hydrological importance of the Green Swamp was long recognized when it was
designated one of only five Areas of Critical State Concern.

Surface drainage from most of the Green Swamp area is generally toward the north and west
and is poor because of the flat topography and lack of well-developed stream channels.
These drainage channels have been altered by many miles of canals and ditches. The canals
and ditches have been dug to follow the natural drainage courses through the shallow
swamps. However, in some places, the ditches have been dug along the edges of the large
swamps and through ridges to connect adjacent swamps. Shortcuts such as these have
bypassed the circuitous natural drainage routes and have straightened and shortened the
courses of the waterways.

Rainfall is the primary source of water to the Green Swamp. The only other known source
of water is a relatively small quantity of groundwater inflow in the vicinity of Dade City. Water
received from rainfall is discharged by streams, groundwater outflow and evapotranspiration.

Water Quality
Water quality in the Green Swamp basin is very good, especially along the five river systems,
where all monitored reaches meet their designated use. Color is naturally dark due to
swampland drainage and associated decomposition of vegetation. This also causes low DO
(dissolved oxygen) and low (acidic) pH, depending on variable flows. Mineral content,
alkalinity and hardness is generally low, except where there is spring flow from the Floridan
Aquifer.

Land use in the basin consists primarily of silviculture, improved pasture, and citrus groves.
Most development is restricted along the relatively few roads that transect this large area.
There are no major cities within the basin. The interior wetlands are largely intact, although
ownership is greatly parcelized. There are few water quality problems in the basin, although
urbanization is fast encroaching on its boundaries, especially from the Orlando area. Many
major residential developments have been proposed for inside the area of the Green Swamp
project. The DER Nonpoint Assessment rates most of the waterbodies within the Green
Swamp basin as threatened due to past hydrological alteration in the basin, and the
pre-recession onslaught of proposed developments.

Groundwater
Subsurface drainage is generally poor. Groundwater levels in the interior of the Green Swamp
remain near the surface most of the time indicating poor subsurface drainage and poor
storage capacity. In the ridges that form the eastern, southern and western boundaries,
groundwater levels fluctuate through a greater range, indicating better subsurface drainage
and greater storage capacity than in the interior. Subsurface drainage is through both the
Floridan and the surficial aquifers, but primarily the Floridan. Groundwater quality in the
surficial aquifer is generally good. However, concentrations of dissolved ions are usually very
low; well below drinking water standards. Groundwater quality in the Upper Floridan Aquifer
is also good.

The "Polk High', as it is generally referred to, is a phenomenon in which groundwater in the
central part of the Florida peninsula moves outward in all directions from an elongated
potentiometric high that extends approximately from central Lake County to southern











Highlands County. The top of the Polk High occurs within the southeastern part of the Green
Swamp area. This important phenomenon functions by way of maintaining the fresh
water/salt water interface, thus minimizing saltwater intrusion into the Floridan Aquifer.

Improper storage or disposal of hazardous wastes poses a serious threat to the groundwater
resources of the state. A review of EPA's CERCUS and DER's "Site List", both of which list
known or suspected hazardous waste sites in Florida, was conducted. Neither of the lists
contained any sites located within the current project boundary. However, the project area
is not known to have been subjected to an environmental audit: a systematic, professional
survey to locate such sites. Most large, remote areas of land are subject to trespass and
indiscriminate dumping which could introduce substances such as asbestos or urea-
formaldehyde from insulation, lead from batteries, used oil or other potentially hazardous
materials. The existence of any hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the
property, was not observed during site inspections from the air or on the roads. The remote,
inaccessible nature of much of the swamp diminishes the likelihood of groundwater
contamination from those areas; however, the high, sandy ridges are areas of concern due
to high local recharge and conversion to agricultural use.

Jurisdiction
The resources of the Green Swamp are subject to regulation by a number of entities at the
local, regional, state and federal levels of government. Lake, Polk, Pasco, Hernando and
Sumter Counties as well as several cities have comprehensive planning and land use
regulatory authority over the Green Swamp. Environmental resources are regulated by five
government entities: EPA, COE, DER, SJRWMD, and SWFWMD. The Environmental
Protection Agency is responsible for regulating point source discharges of pollutants (such
as from mining operations) into surface waters in Florida. Point source dischargers must also
obtain permits from the Department of Environmental Regulation.

Alteration of wetlands requires permits from DER, COE, and the water management districts.
DER's wetland regulatory jurisdiction is determined primarily pursuant to Section 403.817,
Florida Statutes, using the vegetative index in Chapter 17-301.400, Florida Administrative
Code, which delineates the landward extent of waters of the State. DER regulates wetlands
connected to waters of the State, but does not regulate isolated wetlands. The
Withlacoochee, Little Withlacoochee, Oklawaha, Hillsborough and Kissimmee Rivers,
tributaries and contiguous wetlands are Class III waters of the State, meaning that their
intended uses are recreation and the propagation and maintenance of a healthy,
well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. The Withlacoochee River, Little Withlacoochee
River and Oklawaha River have also been designated Outstanding Florida Waters. Special
protection for OFWs is found in Chapter 17-302.700, F.A.C. As an OFW, ambient conditions,
instead of prescribed values, become the water quality standards for the water body.

The water management districts and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdictions
similar to that of DER's. The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the
Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) regulate surface and storm water
systems in the Green Swamp. The SWFWMD also incorporates the regulation of agriculture.
All wetlands over 0.5 acres within the Green Swamp area are regulated by the water
management districts. The water management districts also regulate wetlands smaller than
0.5 acres if endangered species are present. The water management districts have regulatory
authority over certain activities affecting water quality, and the withdrawal of groundwater.
The EPA and U,S. Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over all adjacent wetlands and
isolated wetlands. Also, the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (through DNR)
may exert a claim of sovereign ownership over submerged lands which are. within the ordinary











or mean high water line of a navigable and/or meandered water body. The rivers and
floodplains within the Green Swamp are under the jurisdiction of DER. However, much of the
cypress and hardwood swamps are interspersed among sandy ridges in a ridge/swale
topography. Jurisdiction in these areas may be limited and could only be determined by
site-specific analysis.

Land Acquisition Program Integration and Coordination
Much of the western (non-ACSC) area of the Green Swamp has been purchased by
SWFWMD, or is part of the Withlacoochee State Forest. Any areas targeted for CARL
purchase within the Green Swamp project should be pursued as shared acquisitions with the
Districts and local governments. Much of the water resource value of the Green Swamp could
be more appropriately protected through land use regulations that maintain the existing rural
nature of the area. Acquisition should be reserved for areas with multiple, high resource
values, as is recommended in the Green Swamp Task Force Report.


6. Coastal Resources
Not applicable.


7. Geologic Resources
The Green Swamp site lies within the Lake Uplands physiographic zone. Sloughs, swampy
flatlands, scattered sinkholes and a few sandy ridges comprise the area which is generally
underlain by 20 to 60 feet of Miocene and younger sands and days. Beneath-these
sediments are carbonates of the Floridan aquifer system.

The site lies within the area of highest potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer system
(FAS) inthe Florida peninsula. Generally, the area provides low to moderate recharge to the
FAS, however, site specific areas such as sinkholes could be considered very high recharge
areas. Carbonates of the FAS are exposed within some of these sinks.


8. Summary of Natural Resource Merits
The Green Swamp project (-216,520 acres), it is an extremely complex mosaic of highly
disturbed upland and wetland parcels intermixed with higher quality wetland forests.
Although an accurate figure is impossible to calculate, it is estimated that 90% of the native
upland vegetation within the project has been cleared. While most of the remaining areas
in natural vegetation may be considered as wetlands, the project does contain some widely
scattered upland parcels of good quality. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) reports
at least 4 Special Animals occurring on or near the project.

The primary importance of the Green Swamp project is its significant as a strategic
hydrological resource. The project encompasses the headwaters of five major rivers in the
state and has the highest ground water altitude in the Florida peninsula. The project thus
represents an area critical to the Floridan Aquifer in terms of total, active recharge (i.e., it
maintains the ground water pressure level in Central and South Florida).

Based on FNAI Assessment recommendations (see discussion on page 6), and the Green
Swamp Task Force Report (1992), two non-contiguous areas have been identified within the
Resource Planning Boundary (see attached map). The Phase I areas (126,080 acres) were
selected based on relative intactness of the natural communities.










B. Outdoor Recreation Resources
The extensive wetlands within the project generally limit the recreational opportunities that can be
accommodated to low intensive uses such as hiking, hunting, nature appreciation and natural
resource education. All of these activities would need to take into account wet and dry hydrologic
periods. The more-upland portions of the project will allow, in addition to the above activities,
additional recreational opportunities including camping, horseback riding and picnicking. A major
portion of the Withlacoochee State Trail runs through the project. The trail has significant potential
for horseback riding, hiking, and bicycling. Any upland portions adjacent to the trail in public
ownership would enhance the overall recreational experience of the trail.

The 1989 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan reflects hunting and horseback riding
as having 1995 regional needs for the region in which the project is located.


C. Archaeological and Historical
A review of the information contained in the Florida Site File has determined that there are seven
archaeological sites recorded within the Green Swamp project area. These sites are as follows:

8P0121 Kinsinger Site an Archaic lithic site
8P0122 Hart Hammock multi-component lithic scatter
8PO215 Mark Overstreet Site lithic scatter
8PO1035 Green Valley artifact scatter
8PO1537 Lexington Site lithic scatter
8P01539 Northern Flag Site lithic scatter
8PO2714 1-4 Rest Area A lithic scatter

This relative lack of sites is not considered significant because the extremely large project area
has never been subjected to a systematic, professional cultural resources assessment survey to
locate such sites. Data from environmentally similar areas indicate that there is potential for
additional archaeological sites to be located within the Green Swamp project area.

When compared to other acquisition projects, the archaeological and historical resources value
of the subject tract is difficult to determine because of the size of the project area; however, it is
considered to be moderate.


III. Vulnerability and Endangerment
Vulnerability: Because of the size of the Green Swamp system, the greatest vulnerability is disruption
of wildlife habitat and a decline in water quality of the wetland systems and the rivers that flow from
the swamp resulting from scattered and poorly planned development

Endangerment: The area in which the Green Swamp is located is not experiencing rapid growth, but
there have been several developments proposed within the project boundaries. The endangerment
to the site is related primarily to the location and intensity of possible development.


IV. Acquisition/ Management Goals and Objectives
The following Goals and Objectives for this project are the result of consensus approval of the LAAC
liaison staff. The five enumerated goals represent the CARL acquisition criteria as amended in the
Florida Statutes (1992 HB-315-H), while the objectives define resource concerns known to be specific
to this project and identify appropriate strategies for the management of those resources.


19











1. To conserve and protect environmentally unique and irreplaceable lands that contain native,
relatively unaltered flora and fauna representing a natural area unique to, or scarce within, a region
of this state or a larger geographic area.

a. To the greatest extent possible, the existing natural communities shall be managed to
perpetuate (or restore if necessary) natural species composition and relative abundances,
natural age structure, and natural processes. Areas of old growth forest shall be managed
to retain old growth characteristics. Fire dependent communities have suffered from fire
exclusion and will benefit from the re-introduction of fire, particularly growing-season fire.
Native groundcover should not be disturbed by the construction of plow lines. Instead,
natural fire breaks, existing roads, and black lines should be used to contain prescribed fires.
When practical, natural fires (via lightning strikes) should be allowed to burn if they are within
the parameters of a written prescription; burn plans should incorporate contingency plans for
managing such fires.

b. Non-native, invasive species of plants and animals shall not be introduced, and, when present,
shall be controlled to the greatest extent practical.

c. To the greatest extent practical, facilities (such as buildings, parking lots, etc.) should be sited
in already disturbed areas.

d. This project is comprised of over 50% wetland natural communities. Hydrology should be
allowed to remain as natural as possible and water quality should be maintained or improved.
Where necessary and practical, the natural, preexisting hydrology should be restored by
removing or cutting roads and filling or plugging ditches.

2. To conserve and protect native species habitat or endangered or threatened species.

a. Although an exhaustive survey has not been conducted for vascular plants and animals, the
project is known to harbor 4 FNAI Special Plants (all state-endangered) and 4 Special Animals
are known to occur on or near the project. Occurrences of other listed species are probable.
Special care will be necessary in these communities to insure that any facilities development
is planned and that recreational uses are managed so as not to cause degradation of listed
species habitat.

b. When available, FNAI Element (special plants, animals, and natural communities) location data
should be obtained from the FNAI, preferably on maps such as on copies of USGS
Topographic Quadrangle maps. Up-to-date Special Element data should be incorporated into
management plans and used to assist in management decision-making (such as development
of bum schedules, choice of fire management techniques, and poaching/ collection
prevention).

3. To conserve, protect, manage, or restore important ecosystems, landscapes, and forests, if the
protection and conservation of such lands is necessary to enhance or protect significant surface
water, ground water, coastal, recreational, and timber resources, or to protect fish or wildlife
resources which cannot otherwise be accomplished through local and state regulatory programs.

a. Uses, public or private, that are incompatible or would interfere with the protection,
restoration, or management of the natural or cultural resources for which this project is to be
acquired shall be prohibited.

b. All management activities on CARL lands should include a monitoring component so that










managers can judge the effectiveness of their actions. Management plans, which are required
for all CARL lands, should indicate specifically how and when the results of management
activities will be monitored and how that information will be used to improve subsequent
management activities.

c. Approximately 46% of the land within the original Resource Planning Boundary of the project
is disturbed to the extent that FNAI does not classify it as natural community. An estimated
90% of the uplands have been converted to predominantly pasture and citrus. The majority
of the disturbed areas were once Mesic Flatwoods natural communities. Any disturbed areas
acquired should be restored to their original natural character to the greatest extent possible.
To the greatest extent practical, on-site plant germplasm (seeds and other propagules) should
be used in restoration efforts.

d. Management should stress total resource management with attention given to natural
regeneration of forest resources to the greatest extent practical. Where feasible, sites should
be reforested to the original species.

e. Because the protection and conservation of the wetlands in this project cannot be adequately
accomplished through local, state, or federal regulatory programs, management shall ensure
their protection and, where appropriate, restoration.

f. The project lies within the area of highest potentiometric surface in the Florida peninsula.
Sinkholes could be considered sites of very high recharge and should be identified and
protected. Interpretive displays designed to educate the public about them should not
jeopardize their existence.

g. Vehicles operated by the public shall be restricted to designated areas.

h. Any trash piles or dumped refuse should be removed.

i. This project has the size and resource diversity to qualify for management and use as a state
forest, wildlife management area, wilderness area, or unit of the state park system.

4. To provide areas, including recreational trails, for natural resource-based recreation.

Management should provide for uses and recreational activities that are compatible with the
protection of the rare and sensitive resources. Extensive wetlands over much of the project
necessarily limit public recreational uses to low intensity uses such as nature appreciation/
education and hiking. Hunting could also be accommodated. These activities would be limited
during periods of high water. Uplands within the project would allow for camping, horseback
riding, and picnicking.

5. To preserve archeological or historic sites.

Although the Green Swamp project has not been subjected to a cultural resource assessment
survey, 7 archaeological sites (all lithic/ artifact scatters) have been recorded in the Florida Site
File within the project. Additional sites may occur within the project area. Prior to any land
clearing or ground disturbing activities within the project area, project plans shall be submitted to
the Division of Historical Resources in a timely manner for review and comment. Because this
area is not well known archaeologically, cultural resource assessment surveys of specific areas
may be recommended. In addition, fortuitous finds may occur on this tract and the Division of
Historical Resources should be immediately notified if archaeological or historic remains are
uncovered.


21


_ ^__1___II __


_ I I _^_










V. Location
The Green Swamp CARL acquisition project is located in all or portions of: In Lake County, Township
(T) 22 South (S), Range (R) 24 East (E), Sections (S) 16-22, 27-36; T22S, R25E, S22, 23, 26, 27, 32-35;
T23S, R24E, S1-17, 20-35; T23S, R25E, S2-10, 15-36; T23S, R26E, S 6-8, 16, 21, 29, 32; T24S, R24E,
S1-3, 10-12, 13-15, 22-27, 34-36; T24S, R25E, S1-30, 35, 36; and T24S, R263 S4-10, 15-22, 26-35.

In Polk County, T24S, R25E, S31-34; T25S, R23E, S7, 8, 13-36; T25S, R24E, S1, 1-36; T25S, R25E, S1-
36; T25S, R26E, 1-36; T25S, R27E, S1, 12, 13, 25, 25, 36; T26S, R24E, S1-3, 5-8, 10-15, 17-28; T26S,
R24E, S1-35; T26S, R25E, S1-26, 30, 35, 36; T26S, R26E, S1-36; T26S, R27E, S16, 19, 30, 31; T27S,
R23E, S1, 2; T27S, R24E, S2, 3, 6; T27S, R25E, S1, 2, 12; and T27S, 26E, S1-12, 14-17, 20-23; T27S,
R27E, S6, 7.


VI. Proximity to Other Dedicated Conservation Lands
Based on information in the FNAI data base, other lands managed by the state, federal or local
government, water management districts, or by private organizations for conservation of natural or
cultural resources that are located within about 15 miles of the Green Swamp CARL acquisition project
include: Turkey Lake Park/DRAN CO (14.7 mi. EJ; Lake Apopka Restoration Area/SJRWMP (7.0 mi.
NNE); Little Withlacoochee & Greenswamp Flood Detention Area/ SWFWMD (contig. to W);
Withlacoochee State Forest (0.2 mi. W); Green Swamp WMA/Dow,GFC (contig. to W); Lake Louisa
State Park (contig. to E); Egret Isle Sanctuary/FAS (10.25 mi. ENE); Lake Forest Preserve/SFWMD
(10.25 mi. E); Lake Cain Marsha Co. Park/DRAN CO. (14.0 mi. E); Tenoroc SRA (1.0 mi. S); Catfish
Creek/TNC (14.9 mi. SE); Hillsborough River State Park (12 mi. W); Lower Hillsborough Reservoir
Flood Detention Area/SWFWMD (15.0 mi. WSW); Withlacoochee/Hillsborough Riverine Corridor/
SWFWMD (2.5 mi. W); Little Gator Creek Wildlife & Environmental Area/DOW,GFC (1.5 mi. W); Agri-
Timber Wilderness Park/Pasco Co. (4.2 mi NW); Green Swamp Riverine Corridor/SWFWMD (0.1 mi.
N); Dade Battlefield Memorial State Hist.Site (11.75 mi NW).

VII. Ownership Pattern
There are several large ownerships within the project boundary as well as multiple (several hundred)
small ownerships.


VIII. Cost
To be determined during Project Design, if project receives sufficient votes.


IX. Conformance with Management Plans
This project conforms with: (1) the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan developed
pursuant to s. 375.021; (2) the state lands management plan adopted pursuant to s. 253.03(7); and (3)
the statewide land acquisition plan developed pursuant to s. 259.04(1)(a) [see attached matrix].


X. Resource Planning Boundary

A. Boundary Modifications Recommended by the Florida Natural Areas
Inventory (See attached memo.)

B. Boundary Modifications Recommended by Prospective Management Agencies
(None proposed.)

C. Location Map Showing Resource Planning Boundary (See attached.)








FEDERAL/STATE LEGAL STATUS


FLORIDA NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY


Element Rank Explanations

An fiscal is any exemplary or rare component of the natural environment, such as
a species, plant community, bird rookery, spring, sinkhole, cave, or other ecological
feature. An ilcmjl occurrenceI (EO) is a single extant habitat which sustains or
otherwise contributes to the survival of a population or a distinct, self-sustaining
example of a particular clement. The major function of the Florida Natural Areas
Inventory is to define the state's elements of natural diversity, then collect information
about each element occurrence.

The Florida Natural Areas Inventory assigns 2 ranks for each element. The
global element rank is based on a element's worldwide status; the state element rank is
based on the status of the element in Florida. Element ranks are based on many factors,
the most important ones being estimated number of clement occurrences (EOs), estimated
abundance (number of individuals for species; area for natural communities), range,
estimated adequately protected EOs, relative threat of destruction, and ecological
fragility.

Global Element Rank (priority)

GI Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer
occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) or because of extreme
vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or man-made factor.
G2 Imperiled globally because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less than
3000 individuals) or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some
biological or man-made factor.
GJ Either very rare and local throughout its range (21-100 occurrences or
less than 10,000 individuals) or found locally in a restricted range or
vulnerable to extinction because of other factors.
G4 apparently secure globally (may be rare in parts of range)
GS demonstrably secure globally
GII of historical occurrence throughout range, may be rediscovered (e.g.,
ivory-billed woodpecker)
CX believed to be extinct throughout range
GXC- extirpated from the wild but still known from captivity/cultivation
CG? Tentative rank (e.g., G2?)
GG#G range of rank; insufficient data to assign specific global rank (e.g.,
G2G3)
GCT* rank of taxonomic subgroup such as subspecies or variety; numbers
have same definition as above (e.g., G3TI)
GCQ rank of questionable species ranked as species but questionable
whether it is species or subspecies; numbers have same definition as
above (e.g., G2Q)
GCT#Q same as above, but validity as subspecies or variety is questioned.
GU due to lack of information, no rank or range can be assigned
(e.g.. GUT2).
G! not yet ranked (temporary)

Stale Element Rank (priority)

Definition parallels global clement rank: substitute "S" for "G' in above global
ranks, and "in state* for "globally' in above global rank definitions.

Additional state element ranks:


FEDERAL

LE Listed as Endangered Species in the List of Endangered and Ihrcatcncd
Wildlife and Plants under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
An "Endangered Species" is defined as any species which is in dangce of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

PE Proposed for addition to the List of Endangered and threatened Wildlile
and Plants as Endangered Species.

LT Listed as Threatened Species. A "Threatened Species" is defined as any
species which is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

PT Proposed for listing as Threatened Species.

Cl Candidate Species for addition to the List of Endangered and Ihrcatened
Wildlife and Plants, Category I. Taxa for which the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service currently has substantial information on hand to support
the biological appropriateness of proposing to list the species as
endangered or threatened.

C2 Candidate Species, Category 2. Taxa for which information now in
possession of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that proposing
to list the species as endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate,
but for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats) are
not currently available to support proposed rules at this time.

3A Category 3A. Taxa which are no longer being considered for listing as
endangered or threatened because of persuasive evidence of extinction.

3B Category 3B. Taxa which are no longer being considered for listing as
endangered or threatened because the names do not represent taxa
meeting the Endangered Species Act's definition of "species".

3C Category 3C. Taxa that have proven to be more abundant or widespread
than was previously believed and/or those that are not subject to any
identifiable threat.

AC Agency Concern. Species which are not currently listed or candidates,
but which are a matter of concern to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

LTSA Threatened due to similarity of appearance.

N Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for addition to the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and plants .








Anlmala

LE Listed as Endangered Species by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission. An EndangereJ Species is defined as a species, subspecies,
or isolated population which is resident in Florida during a substantial
portion of its life cycle and so few or depleted in number or so
restricted in range of habitat due to any man-made or natural factors
that it is in immediate danger of extinction or extirpation from the state,
or which may attain such a status within the immediate future unless it
or its habitat are fully protected and managed in such a way as to
enhance its survival potential; or migratory or occasional in Florida and
included as endangered on the United States Endangered and Threatened
Species List. This definition does not include species occurring
peripherally in Florida while common or under no threat outside the
State.

LT Listed as Threatened Species by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission. A Threatened Species is defined as a species, subspecies, or
isolated population which is resident in Florida during a substantial
portion of its life cycle and which is acutely vulnerable to environmental
alteration declining in number at a rapid rate, or whose range or habitat
is declining in area at a rapid rate due to any man-made or natural
factors and as a consequence is destined or very likely to become and
endangered species within the foreseeable and predictable future unless
appropriate protective measures or management techniques are initiated or
maintained; or migratory or occasional in Florida and included as
threatened on the United States Endangered and Threatened Species List.
This definition does not include species occurring peripherally in Florida
while common or under no threat outside the State.

LS Listed as Species of Special Concern by the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission. A Species of Special Concern is defined as a
species, subspecies, or isolated population which warrants special
protection, recognition, or consideration because it occurs disjunctly or
continuously in Florida and has a unique and significant vulnerability to
habitat modification, environmental alteration, human disturbance, or
substantial human exploitation which, in the foreseeable and predictable
future, may result in its becoming a threatened species unless appropriate
protective or management techniques are initiated or maintained; may
already meet certain criteria for consideration as a threatened species but
for which conclusive data are limited or lacking; may occupy such an
unusually vital and essential ecological niche that should it decline
significantly in numbers or distribution other species would be adversely
affected to a significant degree; or has not sufficiently recovered from
past population depletion.

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


LI Listed as Endangered Plants in the Preservation of Native Flora of
Florida Act. "Endangered Plants" means species of plants native to the
state that are in imminent danger of extinction within the state, the
survival of which is unlikely if the causes of a decline in the number of
plants continue, and includes all species determined to be endangered or
threatened pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended.

PB Proposed by the Florida Department of Agriculture as Endangered Plants.

LT Listed as Threatened Plants in the Preservation of Native Flora of florida
Act. "Threatened plants' means species native to tli state that are in
rapid decline in the number of plants within the stale, but ulhich have
not so decreased in such number as to cause them to be endangered.

PT Proposed by the Florida Department of Agriculture for listing as
Threatened Plants.

CE Listed as a Commercially Exploited Plant in the Preservation of Native
Flora of Florida Act. 'Commercially Exploited Plants' means species
native to the state which are subject to being removed in significant
numbers form native habitats in the state and sold or transported for
sale.

PC Proposed by the Florida Department of Agriculture for listing as
Commercially Exploited Plants.

(LT)- Listed threatened as a member of a larger group but not specifically
listed by species name.

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


FATE


Plants

































\ le il*m~wrrr.riu~ ~i L.I j~-_
-/i -k. 11 -i '3
i'-.
.' -ii
%'
~- ~-': 111. n~ r~::~1:~-~
~-'
i-


GREEN SWAMP
LAKE / POLK CO.'S

RESOURCE PLANNING
BOUNDARY (RPB)
,, FNAI ADDITION TO
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
SFNAI DELETIONS FROM
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
CARL STAFF ADDITION TO
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL

S///PHASE I PRIORITY

8/20/92
FNAI ASSESSMENT DELETION


































''- 1 -2

* --


GREEN SWAMP


LAKE / POLK

W RESOURCE PLANNING
BOUNDARY (RPB)
~ FNAI ADDITION TO
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL










managers can judge the effectiveness of their actions. Management plans, which are required
for all CARL lands, should indicate specifically how and when the results of management
activities will be monitored and how that information will be used to improve subsequent
management activities.

c. Approximately 46% of the land within the original Resource Planning Boundary of the project
is disturbed to the extent that FNAI does not classify it as natural community. An estimated
90% of the uplands have been converted to predominantly pasture and citrus. The majority
of the disturbed areas were once Mesic Flatwoods natural communities. Any disturbed areas
acquired should be restored to their original natural character to the greatest extent possible.
To the greatest extent practical, on-site plant germplasm (seeds and other propagules) should
be used in restoration efforts.

d. Management should stress total resource management with attention given to natural
regeneration of forest resources to the greatest extent practical. Where feasible, sites should
be reforested to the original species.

e. Because the protection and conservation of the wetlands in this project cannot be adequately
accomplished through local, state, or federal regulatory programs, management shall ensure
their protection and, where appropriate, restoration.

f. The project lies within the area of highest potentiometric surface in the Florida peninsula.
Sinkholes could be considered sites of very high recharge and should be identified and
protected. Interpretive displays designed to educate the public about them should not
jeopardize their existence.

g. Vehicles operated by the public shall be restricted to designated areas.

h. Any trash piles or dumped refuse should be removed.

i. This project has the size and resource diversity to qualify for management and use as a state
forest, wildlife management area, wilderness area, or unit of the state park system.

4. To provide areas, including recreational trails, for natural resource-based recreation.

Management should provide for uses and recreational activities that are compatible with the
protection of the rare and sensitive resources. Extensive wetlands over much of the project
necessarily limit public recreational uses to low intensity uses such as nature appreciation/
education and hiking. Hunting could also be accommodated. These activities would be limited
during periods of high water. Uplands within the project would allow for camping, horseback
riding, and picnicking.

5. To preserve archeological or historic sites.

Although the Green Swamp project has not been subjected to a cultural resource assessment
survey, 7 archaeological sites (all lithic/ artifact scatters) have been recorded in the Florida Site
File within the project. Additional sites may occur within the project area. Prior to any land
clearing or ground disturbing activities within the project area, project plans shall be submitted to
the Division of Historical Resources in a timely manner for review and comment. Because this
area is not well known archaeologically, cultural resource assessment surveys of specific areas
may be recommended. In addition, fortuitous finds may occur on this tract and the Division of
Historical Resources should be immediately notified if archaeological or historic remains are
uncovered.


21


_ ^__1___II __


_ I I _^_




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