2005219-99.6
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS REPORT FOR THE APPLICATION FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT
FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK MASS GRADE PROJECT SITE, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Submitted to: Mr. David Sauskojus
Southwest Florida Water Management District Tampa Service Center
7601 US Highway 301 Tampa, Florida 33637-6759
Phone: (813) 786-6127
On behalf of:
The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. 1100 Main Street
The Villages, Florida 32159 Phone: 813-963-6400, Ext. 206
Fax: 813-964-8582 January 31, 2014
Submitted by:
______________________________________ ______________________________________ Jennifer L. Rosinski, Ph.D., PWS W. Jeffrey Pardue, C.E.P., M.S., M.B.A.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES ... iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ... 1
2.0 ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ... 4
2.1 Vegetative Communities ... 4
2.2 Uplands ... 7
2.3 Wetlands and Surface Waters ... 8
2.4 Soils ... 9
2.5 Protected Wildlife and Plants... 9
3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT ... 27
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT REVIEW AND ISSUANCE CRITERIA ... 30
4.1 Environmental Conditions for Issuance ... 30
4.2 Elimination or Reduction of Impacts ... 33
4.3 Fish, Wildlife, Protected Species, and Their Habitats ... 34
4.3.1 Habitat Review Factors ... 34
4.4 Water Quantity ... 36
4.5 Public Interest Test ... 36
4.6 Water Quality ... 39
4.7 Secondary Impacts ... 39
4.8 Cumulative Impacts ... 40
5.0 MITIGATION ... 42 APPENDIX A AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK
PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPENDIX B U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CONSULTATION
DETERMINATION FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPENDIX C GOPHER TORTOISE SURVEY FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPENDIX D TABLE ONE: PROJECT WETLAND AND OTHER SURFACE WATER AND IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE TWO: PROJECT ON-SITE MITIGATION SUMMARY
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX F UNIFORM MITIGATION ASSESSMENT METHOD DATA SHEETS FOR THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc iii
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Villages of Fruitland Park Mass Grade project site (Site) is planned for mass grading and stormwater management system (SWMS) construction (Project) to support future development of the Site for residential uses. The proposed Project consists of approximately 779 acres located in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 18, Township 19 South, and Range 24 East, Lake County, Florida (Figure 1.0-1). The Site is located adjacent to County Road (CR) 466-A, west of US. Highway 27. An aerial photograph depicting the project boundary has been included as Appendix A.
An individual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) is being sought through the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) in order to carry out the proposed Mass Grade Project. A pre-application meeting was held with SWFWMD staff (Mr. David Sauskojus and Mr. Rob McDaniel) on January 23, 2014 to discuss the Project.
Sou rces:Esri,De Lorm e , NAVTEQ, USGS,Inte rm a p,
Sou rce: Bou nda ry provided by Fa rne r Ba rle y on 20131216.Topo stre a m e d from ESR I. Proje ct locate d is Lee sbu rg We st Qu a d.
LDP • 1/29/2014 • P:\ATG\2005067\BDA_USE\AR CGIS\Pine _R idge \ER P_201401\Location.m xd FIGUR E 1.0-1.
LO CATION O F THE VILLAGES O F FR UITLAND PAR K PR O JECT SITE,
(SECTIONS 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, TO W NSHIP 19 S, RANGE 24 E), LAKE CO UNTY , FLO R IDA 330
BDA
W . Ca nton Ave., W inter Pa rk ,Environmental Consultants FL 32789 • 407-677-1882& ASSOCIATES, INC. BREEDLOVE, DENNIS
La t: 28° 51'11.24" N Lon: 82° 56'39.47" W
Copyrig h t:© 2013 Na tiona l Ge og ra ph ic Socie ty, i-cub e d
!
°
0 0.25 0.5Mile s
1 inch = 0.5 m ile s
Leg end
The extent of SWFWMD jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters were delineated and field-flagged in accordance with the Florida Unified Wetland Delineation Methodology as stated in Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). On January 8, 2014, the Site was reviewed with Mr. David Sauskojus under Application No. 689726 for a Formal Wetland and Surface Water Determination; the final survey of wetland and surface water boundaries is in preparation to complete Application No. 689726. The wetland and surface water boundaries as agreed upon on January 8, 2014 are utilized herein. A total of 79.08 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 1.43 acres of surface waters (ditches) have been identified within the proposed Site.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 4
2.0 ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
BDA scientists reviewed the Site in order to gather information relative to wetland jurisdictional limits, the vegetative community structure of the site, and existing conditions of the various wetland areas, with respect to hydrologic functions and habitat characteristics. Data were also collected regarding wetland and upland habitat conditions and the occurrence and/or likelihood of occurrence for fish, wildlife, and T&E species on the Site.
The on-site land use and vegetative cover types were classified by BDA scientists through selective ground-truthing during field investigations and aerial photo-interpretation to characterize the habitats and provide the basis for an assessment of the occurrence or potential for occurrence of listed wildlife and plant species. The characterization of the vegetative communities and land use types was based on the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Florida Department of Transportation [FDOT], January 1999) (Figure 2.0-1). The following describes the general composition and conditions of the various community types identified within the project. Botanical nomenclature (scientific names), as presented in this report, is per Wunderlin (Wunderlin, Richard P. and Bruce F. Hansen. 2003. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida, second edition. University Press of Florida. 787 pp.).
2.1 Vegetative Communities
Sourc e s :Es ri,De Lorm e , NAVTEQ, USGS,Interm ap,
Sourc e : Bound ary provid e d by Farne r Barle y on 20131216. W e tland line provid e d by Farne r Barle y on 20140129. 2013 aerial provid e d b y Farne r Barle y.
214 214 641 261 252 631 261 420 740 420 631 410 420 420 420 261 814 310 329 441 631 420 420 310 631 310 420 310 441 310 631/641 329 516 420 641 631 641 310 641 420 329 516 516 329 740 310
!
°
0 350 700 Fe e t 1 inc h = 701.6 fe e t Legen dParc e l Bound ary (779.41 ac)
Vegeta tive Delin eation
214 - Row Crops (556.33 ac) 252 - Dairie s (14.96 ac) 261 - Fallow Cropland (46.19 ac) 310 - He rb ace ous (dry prairie ) (9.90 ac) 329 - Othe r Shrubs and Brushland (4.87 ac) 410 - Upland Conife rous Fore s t (3.06 ac)
420 - Upland Hard wood Fore s t (47.93 ac) 441 - Planted Pine (3.74 ac)
516 - Ditch (1.43 ac)
631 - W e tland Shrub (23.84 ac)
631/641 - W e tland Shrub / Fre s hwater Mars h (1.33 ac)
Table 2.1-1. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System, Representative Acreage and Percent Cover for The Villages of Fruitland Park Project Site, Lake County, Florida.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Table 2.1-1.doc
Code FLUCFCS1 Text Acreage Percent Cover
214 Row Crops 556.33 71.4%
252 Dairies 14.96 1.9%
261 Fallow Crop Land 46.19 5.9%
310 Herbaceous (Dry Prairies) 9.9 1.3%
329 Other Shrub and Brush 4.87 0.6%
410 Upland Coniferous Forest 3.06 0.4%
420 Upland Hardwood Forests 47.93 6.1%
441 Coniferous Plantations 3.74 0.5%
740 Disturbed Land 8.47 1.1%
814 Roads and Highways 4.45 0.6%
516 Ditches 1.43 0.2%
631 Wetland Shrub 23.84 3.1%
631/641 Wetland Shrub / Freshwater Marsh 1.33 0.2%
641 Freshwater Marsh 52.91 6.8%
Total 779.41 556.33
1
2.2 Uplands
The upland vegetation cover and land use types are described below and consisted of Row Crops (214), Dairies (252), Fallow Crop Land (261), Herbaceous (Dry Prairies) (310), Other Shrub and Brush (329), Upland Coniferous Forest (410), Upland Hardwood Forests (420), Coniferous Plantations (441), Disturbed Land (740), and Roads (814).
Row Crops (214) make up the majority of the Site. The crop planted at the time of Site reviews was peanuts. Scattered throughout were beggarticks (Bidens alba), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), dayflower (Commelina sp.), and Virginia pepperweed (Lepidium virginicum).
The Dairies (252), Fallow Crop Land (261), Herbaceous (Dry Prairies) (310), Other Shrub and Brush (329) contained similar vegetation including bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), common ragweed, beggarticks, guineagrass (Panicum maximum), bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), blackberry (Rubus sp.), Canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and amaranth (Amaranthus sp.). Scattered live oak (Quercus virginiana), common persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and mulberry (Morus sp.) occurred throughout. The Dairies (252) cover type also contains remnant buildings, building pads, and roadways.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 8
The Upland Hardwood Forests (420) was dominated by live oak, with a subcanopy of Chinaberrytree and slash pine. The shrub stratum contained winged sumac (Rhus copallinum), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), camphortree (Cinnamomum camphora), common persimmon, and mulberry.
The Disturbed Land (740) areas contained spoil piles overgrown with shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. Dominant species were American pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), beggertickes, and common ragweed. Also present were winged sumac, camphortree, and common persimmon.
Roads (814) includes a maintained dirt road centrally located, currently known as Pine Ridge Dairy Road.
2.3 Wetlands and Surface Waters
The wetland vegetation cover and land use type are described below and consisted of Wetland Scrub/Shrub (631), mixed Wetland Shrub (631) / Freshwater Marsh (641), and Freshwater Marsh (641) and the surface waters within the project area included Ditches (516).
The Wetland Scrub/Shrub cover type was dominated by Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), with herbaceous vegetation including dotted smartweed (Polygonum punctatum), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), and falsefennel (Eupatorium leptophyllum).
frog’s-bit (Limnobium spongia). The edges contained Carolina willow, Peruvian primrosewillow (Ludwigia peruviana), and elderberry (Sambucus nigra subsp. canadensis).
The mixed cover type of Wetland Shrub (631) / Freshwater Marsh (641) included species as noted in each of the cover types. This area contained portions of shrub wetland and portions of marsh wetland intermixed throughout the system. It appears to have been partially excavated historically and a berm remains in the center of the system.
The Ditches (516) cover type consists man-made ditches that flow in response to rainfall events. They were likely constructed to drain the wetlands adjacent to the ditches. Vegetation included tree lined banks with elderberry, Carolina willow, water oak (Quercus nigra), and camphortree. There was little vegetation within the ditches.
2.4 Soils
Soils on the Site are depicted on Figure 2.4-1. The Soil Survey Geographic database created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS for Lake County, Florida, identifies the following soil types as occurring within the project: Sparr sand, 0 to 5% slopes, (01), Apopka sand, 0 to 5% slopes (05), Apopka sand, 5 to 12% slopes (06), Candler sand, 0 to 5% slopes (08), Candler sand, 5 to 12% slopes (09), Immokalee sand (20), Kendrick sand, 0 to 5% slopes (24), Everglades muck, depressional (27), Myakka sand (28), Oklawaha muck (32), Placid sand, depressional (38), Pompana sand (42), Tavares sand, 0 to 5% slopes (45), Orsino sand (46), and Water (99).
2.5 Protected Wildlife and Plants
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 10
Sources:Esri,DeLorm e, N AV TEQ, USGS,Interm a p ,
Source: Bound a ry provid ed by Fa rner Ba rley on 20131216. 2013 a erial provid ed b y Fa rner Ba rley.Soils d erived from N RCS GIS da ta set. 08 09 08 27 28 05 28 27 09 08 45 08 01 32 46 05 45 20 08 09 08 42 06 99 38 24 06 06 27 38 27 27
!
°
0 550 1,100 Feet 1 inc h = 1,100 feet Legend Pa rcel Bound a ry (779.41 ac ) NR CS Soils ID - Desc ription 01 - Sp a rr sand , 0 to 5% slop es (10.9 ac ) 05 - Ap op ka sand , 0 to 5% slop es (39.61 ac ) 06 - Ap op ka sand , 5 to 12% slop es (5.66 ac )08 - Ca nd ler sand , 0 to 5% slop es (364.14 ac )
09 - Ca nd ler sand , 5 to 12% slop es (135.96 ac )
20 - Imm oka lee sand (8.84 ac ) 24 - Kend rick sand , 0 to 5% slop es (0.9 ac )
27 - Evergla d es muck, dep ressiona l (79.39 ac )
28 - Mya kka sand (66.69 ac )
32 - Okla wa ha muck (11.84 ac ) 38 - Pla c id sand , dep ressiona l (5.3 a c )
42 - Pom p a no sand (5.54 ac ) 45 - Tavares sand , 0 to 5% slop es (28.07 ac )
Table 2.5-1 Protected Plants and Animals with Potential for Occurrence on the Villages of Fruitland Park Project Site, Lake County, Florida.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Lake Protected.doc Updated October 25, 2012
Species Habitat of Occurrence
Likelihood of Occurrence Designated Status1 USFWS2 FWC34 PLANTS Bonamia grandiflora Florida bonamia
Scrub, dry pinelands.
Unlikely T —
Chionanthus pygmaeus pygmy fringe-tree
Scrub, sandhill, xeric hammock.
Unlikely E —
Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobeensis Okeechobee gourd
Pond apple swamps, mixed hardwood swamp.
Unlikely E —
Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium scrub buckwheat
Sandhill, scrub.
Unlikely T —
Justicia cooleyi
Cooley’s water-willow
Mesic hardwood hammocks over limestone.
Unlikely E —
Nolina brittoniana Britton’s beargrass
Scrub, sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, xeric hammock.
Unlikely E —
Paronychia chartacea papery whitlow-wort
Scrub, sandhill.
Table 2.5-1 Continued.
Species Habitat of Occurrence
Likelihood of Occurrence Designated Status1 USFWS2 FWC34 Polygala lewtonii Lewton’s polygala
Xeric oak scrub, sandhill.
Unlikely E —
Prunus geniculata scrub plum
Sandhill, xeric oak scrub.
Unlikely E — Warea amplexifolia clasping warea Sandhill. Unlikely E — Warea carteri Carter’s mustard
Sandhill, scrubby flatwoods, inland and coastal scrub.
Unlikely E —
FISH
Acipenser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon
Rivers, estuaries. Not
Applicable FE —
Cyprinodon variegates hubbsi Lake Eustis pupfish
Lakes. Not
Applicable — SSC
Pteronotropis welaka bluenose shiner
Blackwater rivers and streams, spring runs. Not
Table 2.5-1 Continued.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Lake Protected.doc Updated October 25, 2012
Species Habitat of Occurrence
Likelihood of Occurrence Designated Status1 USFWS2 FWC34 AMPHIBIANS Lithobates capito gopher frog
Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill, upland
hardwoods, pine flatwoods, freshwater marsh. Moderate — SSC
REPTILES
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator
Freshwater marsh, cypress swamp, mixed hardwood swamp, shrub swamp, bottomland hardwoods, lakes, ponds, rivers, streams.
High FT(S/A) —
Drymarchon corais couperi eastern indigo snake
Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill, pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, tropical hardwood hammock, hydric hammock, wet prairie, mangrove swamp.
Low FT —
Gopherus polyphemus gopher tortoise
Sandhill, sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub, coastal strand, xeric hammock, dry prairie, pine flatwoods, mixed hardwood–pine forests, ruderal.
Observed — ST
Neoseps [=Plestiodon] reynoldsi sand skink
Rosemary scrub, sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub, scrubby
flatwoods, xeric hammock. Unlikely FT —
Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Florida pine snake
Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill, scrubby pine
Table 2.5-1 Continued.
Species Habitat of Occurrence
Likelihood of Occurrence Designated Status1 USFWS2 FWC34
Pseudemys concinna suwanniensis Suwannee cooter
Rivers, large streams, spring runs, and associated backwaters
and impoundments. Applicable Not — SSC
Stilosoma extenuatum short-tailed snake
Sandhill, xeric hammock, sand pine scrub, xeric oak scrub.
Low — ST
BIRDS
Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub-jay
Xeric oak scrub.
Low FT —
Aramus guarauna Limpkin
Freshwater marsh, mixed hardwood swamp, rivers, streams,
spring runs, lake margins, ruderal. Moderate — SSC
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl
Sandhill, dry prairie, pastures, ruderal.
Low — SSC
Egretta caerulea little blue heron
Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, lakes,
streams, salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats. Observed — SSC Egretta thula
snowy egret
Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, streams, lakes, salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, impoundments, ditches.
Table 2.5-1 Continued.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\Lake Protected.doc Updated October 25, 2012
Species Habitat of Occurrence
Likelihood of Occurrence Designated Status1 USFWS2 FWC34 Egretta tricolor tricolored heron
Salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, tidal creeks, tidal ditches, freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, lakes and ponds.
High — SSC
Eudocimus albus white ibis
Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, salt
marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, ruderal. High — SSC Falco sparverius paulus
southeastern American kestrel
Sandhill, pine flatwoods, dry prairie, pasture, old field.
Observed — ST
Grus canadensis pratensis Florida sandhill crane
Dry prairie, freshwater marsh, pasture.
Moderate — ST
Mycteria americana wood stork
Freshwater marsh, various types of forested wetlands, ponds, salt marsh, mangrove swamp, tidal mud flats, lagoons, flooded pastures.
High FE —
Picoides borealis
red-cockaded woodpecker
Sandhill, pine flatwoods.
Unlikely FE —
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus snail kite
Freshwater marsh, lakes.
Low FE —
Sterna antillarum least tern
Beaches, tidal mud flats, estuarine and marine waters, lakes.
Table 2.5-1 Continued.
Species Habitat of Occurrence
Likelihood of Occurrence Designated Status1 USFWS2 FWC34 MAMMALS Podomys floridanus Florida mouse
Xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub, sandhill.
Low — SSC
Sciurus niger shermani Sherman’s fox squirrel
Sandhill, pine flatwoods, pastures.
Low — SSC
Trichechus manatus latirostris Florida manatee
Estuarine bays and lagoons, seagrass beds, rivers, spring
runs. Applicable Not FE —
_____________________________
1
FE = Federally-designated Endangered; FT = Federally-designated Threatened; FT(S/A) = Federally-designated Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance; ST = State-designated Threatened; SSC = State Species of Special Concern.
2
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
3
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
4
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 18
approved for reclassification as T in June 2011. Final reclassifications for SSC to T or removal from the list and for E or T that were recommended for removal from the list are pending development and approval for implementation of management plans for each species.) The likelihood of occurrence, listed within this table, is based on a comparison of known general habitat requirements by these species with the habitats found on or near the project site, the quantity, quality, and adjacency of these habitats, as well as any observations of these species during field study. The likelihood of occurrence for protected species was rated as high, moderate, low, unlikely, or not applicable based on knowledge of a species’ habitat preference and site conditions. A likelihood of occurrence given as “unlikely” indicates that no, or very limited, suitable habitat for this species exists on the site, but the site is within the documented range of the species; “not applicable” indicates that the habitat for this species does not exist on or adjacent to the site and/or the site is not within the documented range of the species.
The Lake County Federally Listed Species database, located on the USFWS (Critical Habitat portal) website, and the USFWS’s publication County Lists of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed and Candidate Species of the Southeast United States (The Redbook) indicate that critical habitat for the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) has been designated in Lake County, Florida. No suitable habitat for this species occurs on the Site. No federally listed plant species were observed on the Site during the field investigation.
The Site occurs within the consultation area for sand skink (Neoseps [=Plestiodon] reynoldsi), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), and Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens). Detail on these species is included below.
Sand skink (Neoseps [=Plestiodon] reynoldsi) (T, USFWS): The sand skink is listed as T by the
Guide for Sand and Bluetail Mole Skinks (Guidelines) on February 7, 2012. The Guidelines establish a consultation area for the sand skink and bluetail mole skink (Eumeces [=Plestiodon] egregius lividus) that includes the seven counties in which the documented range exists for those species. Lake County is one of those counties; therefore, the project site is within the consultation area. Moreover, the site is within areas that meet USFWS criteria for sand skink surveys based on soil types, counties of occurrence, and elevation. The Guidelines generally describe suitable habitat as specific loose soil types occurring above 82 feet above sea level under natural and degraded cover types. Technical Assistance was requested with USFWS and the USFWS was determined that no suitable habitat for sand skinks occurs on the Site (Appendix B). The Site is an active peanut farm, with a history of other agricultural uses, and areas outside of the row crops are too thickly vegetated to support sand skinks. In addition, the Site is isolated from potentially suitable habitat that could provide a source population for the Site.
Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (T, USFWS): The eastern indigo snake is the
longest of the North American snakes, and it is listed as threatened due to over-collection and habitat loss. Eastern indigo snakes are found in a variety of habitats throughout Florida, from mangrove swamps and wet prairies to sandhill and scrub habitats, and they often winter in the burrows of gopher tortoises. They have relatively large home ranges and apparently require a mosaic of habitats to complete their life cycle, often feeding along wetland edges. Eastern indigo snakes have not been observed on the Site, and the likelihood of occurrence is low based on the rarity of the species and the lack of evidence of presence in the vicinity of the site and the disturbed condition of the Site (row crops). However, they have potential to occur based on the presence of a mix of habitats on and adjacent to the project and the presence of gopher tortoise burrows.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 20
Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake, however the site does not contain xeric habitat and has few (less than 10) gopher tortoise burrows based on a 100% survey of suitable habitat.
Florida Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) (T, USFWS) and Scrub Habitats: The project site is
within the USFWS consultation area for Florida scrub-jays. Available databases contain no records of Florida scrub-jay territories on the project site. The nearest records are located approximately 10.5 miles south-southeast of the Site. The vast majority (85%) of documented Florida scrub-jay dispersals is within two miles of the natal territory, but Florida scrub-jays may occasionally disperse up to five miles to establish territories of their own. Re-colonization of vacant patches of habitat rarely occurs beyond approximately 7.4 miles. Florida scrub-jay territories that are within 7.4 miles of one another are considered to be members of the same metapopulation. This information suggests that the site is not within dispersal distances of recorded Florida scrub-jay territories.
Available land cover databases and Site reviews indicate that low-growing xeric oak scrub vegetation, the required habitat of Florida scrub-jays, does not occur on the Site and this vegetation type has not occurred historically on the site. Soils data indicate that the site is dominated by soil types that may support scrub under natural conditions. Some areas on the edge of the peanut fields were considered marginally suitable as overgrown scrub habitat. A survey was conducted in accordance with the USFWS Florida Scrub-Jay General Survey Guidelines and Protocols and no Florida scrub-jays were observed or responded to the audio recordings. It is unlikely that Florida scrub-jays occur on the Project Site based on survey results, the lack of suitable habitat, and dispersal distance from known territories.
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis ) (FT due to similarity of appearance (S/A), USFWS):
The American alligator is protected as a threatened species due to its resemblance to the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). The American alligator is no longer biologically threatened or endangered, but is protected under the need for continued Federal control on taking and commerce to insure against excessive taking and to continue necessary protections to the American crocodile in the U.S. and foreign countries, and other endangered crocodilians in foreign countries. An American alligator was observed on the Site. The large wetland systems will remain in the post-development condition, so no adverse effect is expected to American alligators.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): The bald eagle is protected by the USFWS under provisions of
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (effective August 9, 2007). Recovery goals have been achieved for this species; therefore, the bald eagle is no longer listed or protected as a “Threatened” species under the ESA of 1973, as amended. The USFWS has implemented National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (National Guidelines) (May 2007) to assist private landowners and others to plan land-use activities in proximity to active bald eagle nests by measures that will minimize the likelihood of causing “disturbance” to nesting bald eagles, as defined under the BGEPA. The FWC also removed the bald eagle from classification and protection as a “Threatened” species under Florida Rule and implemented the Florida Bald Eagle Management Plan (Florida Plan) (effective May 9, 2008). The Florida Plan includes Florida Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (Florida Guidelines) and permit provisions.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 22
order to permit development between 330-ft and 660-ft from the nest tree. Until that time, all activities will comply with the USFWS and FWC guidelines and no activity will be conducted inside the 660-ft buffer during the nesting season (October 1 – May 15).
The FWC database also contains a record of nest No. LA032, which has been inactive since 2008 and is located over 1.8 miles south of the Site. It is unlikely that development activities of the Project will affect the nesting activities of bald eagles, if any, at this nest location.
Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) (E, USFWS): There are no records of a wood stork rookery on the
Site based on the most recent FWC statewide survey in 1999 and based on data available from the USFWS through 2009. The nearest wood stork rookery, based on available databases, is over 16 miles northeast of the Site. Wood storks typically return to the same rookery sites each year to nest, and will travel up to 18.6 miles from rookeries to forage in wetlands and return food to incubating adults and nestlings during the nesting season. Wetlands within 15 miles of known rookeries are considered by USFWS to comprise core foraging areas for nesting wood storks in this area of central Florida. The Site is not within the core foraging area of any wood stork rookeries that have been active within the last 10 years. It appears that the Site would not contribute to the breeding success of known wood stork rookeries because the Site is located outside of core foraging areas. However, wood storks have the potential to forage in wetlands on the Site if hydrologic conditions are suitable. Wetland habitat will remain in the post-development condition both on the Site and in the region; as such no effect on wood storks should result from Project development.
Wading Bird Rookeries (1999): The FWC wading bird rookery database from the 1999 statewide
limpkin (Aramus guarauna), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), and white ibis (Eudocimus albus)], other than wood storks, will fly up to approximately 9.3 miles from the nesting site to forage in wetlands and return food to incubating adults and nestlings. Wetlands within 9.3 miles of the rookeries of listed species of wading birds are considered important to wading bird nesting success. The wetlands on the Site may be utilized by listed wading birds and provide potential foraging habitat for listed wading birds. On Site wetlands may be of significance for breeding success based on the distance of the wetland from known rookeries. The majority (96.3%) of wetland habitat will remain on Site in the post-development condition and is expected to continue to provide foraging habitat for wading birds. Therefore, no effect on wading birds is expected.
Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) (ST, FWC): Two subspecies of American
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 24
Florida Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) (ST, FWC): The Florida sandhill crane is a
resident, breeding, non-migratory subspecies of sandhill cranes. The Site is within the range of Florida sandhill cranes. The greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis tabida) also occurs in Florida as a wintering migrant, arriving in Florida during October and November and beginning spring migration in late February. Florida sandhill cranes nest in shallow, emergent palustrine wetlands, particularly those dominated by pickerelweed and maidencane. They feed in a variety of open, upland habitats, mostly prairies but also human-manipulated habitats such as sod farms, ranchlands, pastures, golf courses, airports, and suburban subdivisions. There are no nest records from the Site, and no nests were observed on the Site. However, the Site provides suitable foraging habitat for sandhill cranes. Some suitable foraging habitat will remain in the post-development condition both on the Site and within the region, and no long-term effects on sandhill cranes should occur as a result of Project development.
Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) (State Threatened [ST], FWC): The gopher tortoise is listed
authorization for implementation of the plan, prior to any type of development work, clearing and grubbing, or tree harvesting activities on the project site.
BDA scientists have conducted a 100% survey of the Site in accordance with the FWC survey protocol and have determined that nine active gopher tortoise burrows occur on or adjacent to the Site (Appendix C). Using the FWC adopted conversion factor (0.5) this would equate to an estimated on Site population of five gopher tortoises. Since the Site cannot be developed without potentially impacting the gopher tortoises a relocation permit application is being submitted to the FWC. The tortoises will be relocated offsite either within existing gopher tortoise preserves elsewhere on The Villages or to a permitted recipient site.
Gopher Frog (Lithobates capito) (State Species of Special Concern [SSC], FWC): The project site is
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 26
Sherman’s Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) (SSC, FWC): Sherman’s fox squirrels range
throughout the Florida peninsula south to the Caloosahatchee River. Optimal Sherman’s fox squirrel habitat has been characterized as mature, fire-maintained longleaf pine-turkey oak sandhills and flatwoods. Preferred habitat has also been described as mature and open pine and pine-hardwood associations. Sherman’s fox squirrels are diurnal, solitary animals whose home ranges may overlap, but separate core home range areas are maintained. Male and female home ranges average 196 acres and 82 acres, respectively. Suitable nesting habitat for the Sherman’s fox squirrels occurs on the Site. This species is relatively common in this region of central Florida. The FWC has issued an incidental take permit to The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. for the Villages of Lake Sumter property already approved under the Villages of Lake Sumter DRI. BDA will consult with the FWC to modify the existing incidental take permit for Sherman’s Fox Squirrels to include the Villages of Fruitland Park. As outlined in that modification request and as has been the practice on the Villages, the following protocol will be followed with respect to the Sherman’s Fox Squirrel:
3.0 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed Project is for mass grading and SWMS construction to support residential use of the Site (Figure 3.0-1). The Project will result in the elimination of 2.98 acres of isolated wetlands (Wetlands A, B, C, D, and E) that will be incorporated into the SWMS and 0.98 acre of ditches that will be filled for residential development. The mass grading, construction and operation of the SWMS will more than replace functions provided by the ditch. Only 1.33 acres of the onsite wetland impacts (Wetland B) will require mitigation since Wetlands A, C, D, and E are all less than 0.5-acre and are not utilized by listed wildlife species (per the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant Handbook Volume I, October 1, 2013, Section 10.2.2.1); the remaining wetlands will not be impacted and will be protected with a minimum 15-foot, 25-foot average upland buffer.
S ourc es:Esri,DeLorm e, NAVTEQ, US GS ,Interm ap,
LDP • 1/30/2014 • P:\ATG\2005067\BDA_US E\ARCGIS \Pine_Ridge\ERP_201401\Im pacts.mx d S ourc e: Boundary provided by Farner Barley on 20131216. Wetland line, developm ent plan and im pact data provided b y Farner Barley on 20140129. 2013 aerial provided b y Farner Barley.
FIGURE 3.0-1.
DEVELOP MENT PLAN AND IMP ACTS ON THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK
P ROJECT SITE, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BDA
330 W. Ca nton Ave., Winter P a rk, FL 32789 • 407-677-1882Environmental Consultants & ASSOCIATES, INC. BREEDLOVE, DENNIS Wetla nd B (1.33 ac ) Ditc h (0.56 ac ) Wetla nd C (0.48 ac ) Wetla nd E (0.46 ac ) Wetla nd D (0.42 ac ) Wetla nd A (0.26 ac ) Ditc h (0.24 ac ) Ditc h (0.18 ac ) Wetla nd F (0.02 ac ) Wetla nd F (0.01 ac )!
°
0 350 700 Feet 1 inc h = 750 feet Leg endParc el Boundary (779.41 ac) Developm ent Plan
Im pa c ts
minimum 15 foot average 25 foot upland buffer. Mitigation will consist of enhancement of the on-site wetlands and maintenance to reduce nuisance and exotic (N/E) vegetation. See Section 5.0 for detail on the mitigation plan.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 30
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT REVIEW AND ISSUANCE CRITERIA
4.1 Environmental Conditions for Issuance
The Handbook (Section 10.1.1) lists seven conditions for the issuance of an ERP. The applicant provides, through this permit application, reasonable assurances that all seven conditions will be met.
1. A regulated activity will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife and listed species, including aquatic and wetland-dependent species, by wetlands and other surface waters.
Development of the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, and listed species, including aquatic and wetland-dependent species. In order to provide an economically feasible Project and meet certain design criteria, impacts to 2.98 acres of wetlands and 0.98 acre surface water (ditch) are unavoidable. The large wetland systems were avoided in Project planning and no impacts will occur to Wetlands G, H, and F. The functions of the ditch feature will be more than replaced by the SWMS; therefore, no significant adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, and listed wildlife are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed development. The large contiguous wetland systems remaining on the Site and in the vicinity of the proposed Project will continue to provide habitat for species that can utilize these areas for feeding, loafing, breeding, and/or nesting.
2. A regulated activity located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such an activity significantly degrades or is located within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), that the regulated activity will be clearly in the public interest.
The mass grading and SWMS construction will prepare the Site for development for residential uses. The Site was chosen for its location near existing Villages development as well as near major roadways. The project has been designed to meet local standards, comply with all local regulations, and the stormwater management criteria of the SWFWMD. The project is not located within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) nor will it significantly degrade an OFW.
3. A regulated activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards set forth in Chapters 62-3, 62-4, 62-302, 62-520, 62-522 and 62-550, F.A.C., including any antidegradation provisions of Sections 4.242(1)(a) and (b), 62-4.242(2) and (3), and 62-302.300 and any special standards for OFWs and Outstanding National Resource Waters set forth in Sections 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., will be violated.
Development of the Site will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The appropriate pollution abatement, storm water attenuation, and any need for flood control will be provided pursuant to the storm water management criteria of the SWFWMD. The storm water management submittal prepared by FBA provides the appropriate engineering calculations and details. The Project is located within the Southern Ocklawaha River Hydrologic Basin and the standards and design criteria for this basin will be met per the agreement between St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and SWFWMD. The engineering submittal from FBA will provide the details.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 32
The Site is not adjacent to, or in close proximity of, a Class II water, nor is it located within areas utilized for shellfish harvesting.
5. The construction of vertical seawalls in estuaries and lagoons will comply with the additional criteria in Section 10.2.6 of the Handbook.
The construction plans for the Site do not include any vertical seawalls. Furthermore, the Site is not located within an estuary or lagoon.
6. A regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources.
Development of the Site will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources. The Project’s storm water design will meet the SWFWMD’s criteria for pollution abatement and storm water attenuation as well as the standards and design criteria for the Southern Ocklawaha River Hydrologic Basin. Therefore, the physical, chemical, and biological treatment processes for stormwater discharge will occur within the proposed stormwater pond. Consequently, no adverse impacts to water quality are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed development.
Other Best Management Practices (BMPs) including, but not limited to, the construction of swales, erosion and sediment control structures, and turbidity barriers will be used to ensure sedimentation pollution will either be eliminated or maintained within acceptable limits. The contractor shall be responsible for providing these temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures during construction or until final controls become effective.
impacts to adjacent wetland systems are not anticipated to occur as a result of the construction of the Project.
7. A regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.
Development of the Site is not anticipated to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands or other surface waters. The Project proposes approximately 2.98 acres of direct wetland and 0.98 acre of direct surface water impact (ditch). The impacts will be fully compensated by the on-site mitigation and the SWMS, within the same drainage basin, thereby avoiding unacceptable cumulative impacts. No mitigation is proposed to offset the ditch impact. The SWMS will meet all water quality and quantity criteria of the SWFWMD to prevent any cumulative impacts to the receiving waters.
4.2 Elimination or Reduction of Impacts
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 34
4.3 Fish, Wildlife, Protected Species, and Their Habitats
Pursuant to the criteria stated in Section 10.2.2 of the Handbook, the project provides reasonable assurance that development of the project site will not cause adverse impacts to:
(a) The abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife, listed species, and the bald eagle (Halieaeetus leucocephalus), which is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 668-668d (April 30, 2004); and
(b) The habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species.
As discussed in Section 2.2 of this report, appropriate measures have been taken to minimize impacts to listed wildlife species. The listed species of wildlife documented on-site were American alligator, gopher tortoise, little blue heron, bald eagle, American kestrel/Southeastern American kestrel. Management plans for these species have been developed in cases where suitable habitat will not remain in the post-development condition to support these species; as such, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The wetlands remaining will continue to provide suitable habitat for wetland-dependent and listed species of wildlife post-development. Fisheries resources are linked to the large central wetland system (Wetland H) which will remain in the post-development condition. In addition, the on-site bald eagle nest will be protected by a 660-foot buffer until permitting with USFWS is complete. Therefore, it is unlikely that development activities of the Site will affect the nesting activities of bald eagles.
4.3.1 Habitat Review Factors
the values of wetlands or other surface waters so as to cause adverse impacts to the abundance, diversity, and habitat of fish, wildlife, and listed species.
A. Condition — Development of the Site will occur primarily in upland communities, except where the wetland and ditch impacts are unavoidable. Both the wetlands and ditch are of poor to moderate quality due to past cattle impacts, agricultural impacts, and presence of nuisance and exotic vegetation.
B. Hydrologic Connection — Wetlands A, B, C, D, E and several ditches are isolated; Wetlands G, H, and F and one ditch are hydrologically connected off-site to the Wiechens Preserve and (via ditches) to Lake Okahumpka.
C. Uniqueness — The areas proposed for impact are not considered unique vegetative communities within Lake County or the region. There are no unique flora or faunal components to the on-site wetlands and ditches based on site investigations. The wetland and ditch have been historically impacted by on-site agricultural activities and cattle.
D. Location — The areas proposed for impact consists of small, isolated wetlands impacted by agriculture and ditches flowing only in response to precipitation events. The Site is located in an area of increasing urban and residential development within Lake County. The adjacent land uses include the Villages residential developments, CR 466A, and the Wiechens Preserve.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 36
of stormwater ponds as part of the SWMS will provide suitable foraging habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife species post-development.
4.4 Water Quantity
Pursuant to Section 10.2.2.4 of the Handbook, the development of the Site will not result in any adverse impacts to water quantity characteristics of the remaining wetlands. The SWMS will be utilized to maintain and further establish the site’s drainage and provide floodwater storage. The engineering submittal prepared by FBA provides appropriate geotechnical and civil engineering analysis as the basis for reasonable assurance there will not be any adverse impacts to the water quantity characteristics of wetlands/surface waters.
4.5 Public Interest Test
Section 10.2.3 of the Handbook provides seven criteria for the SWFWMD to determine whether a Project is not contrary to the public interest or, if such an activity significantly degrades or is within an OFW, that the regulated activity is clearly in the public interest. Summarized below are responses to the seven criteria, which demonstrate the proposed Project is not contrary to the public interest.
1. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others.
The Project has been designed to meet all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. Therefore, development of the Site will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others.
During all on-site investigations, observations were made to determine which wildlife species utilize the site, and which species have the potential to occur onsite. The results of these observations are discussed in Sections 2.2 and 4.1 of this report. Based on these observations, this Site will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitats. Appropriate management strategies will be determined for any listed species, as necessary, if affected by development of the proposed Site.
3. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling.
No navigable water bodies exist on the Site. This Project has been designed in accordance with SWFWMD permitting criteria, which require post-development water volumes and flows to be equal to pre-development water volumes and flows. No harmful erosion or shoaling should occur as a result of the development of the Site. Therefore, this Project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling.
4. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity.
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 38
affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the subject property.
5. Whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature.
Development of the Project will be of a permanent nature.
6. Whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S.
Archeological Consultants, Inc. (ACI) conducted a cultural resource assessment study (CRAS) in June, July and December of 2013 (Appendix E). ACI located two archeological occurrences (AO) and one archeological site (AS) within the boundaries of the Site. The AS was reviewed to determine its eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP). ACI determined that the AS was not eligible for listing in NRHP and that no additional investigation should be required. ACI concluded that Project development will not impact any resources listed, determined eligible, or potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Should any objects be revealed during construction having historical or archeological value, the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources (DHR) will be immediately notified. Therefore, this Project is not expected to adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources.
7. The current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity.
development will result in 2.98 acres of wetland and 0.98 acre of ditch impact (<5%). Any loss of functions being performed by the wetlands and ditch proposed to be impacted will be offset by the mitigation plan and/or replaced by development of the SWMS.
4.6 Water Quality
Pursuant to Section 10.2.4 of the Handbook, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance the regulated activity will not violate water quality standards in areas where water quality standards apply. The SWMS to be constructed for the proposed project will meet the requirements and standards of the SWFWMD, and BMPs will be utilized to ensure water quality criteria will not be violated. These factors are addressed in the stormwater management plan prepared by FBA.
4.7 Secondary Impacts
Section 10.2.7 of the Handbook provides four criteria for the SWFWMD to determine whether a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource. Responses to the four criteria are summarized below and demonstrate the development of the Site will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource.
1. Impacts to Water Quality
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 40
Development of the Site should not cause adverse impacts to the foraging, denning, or nesting sites of wildlife species. American alligator and little blue heron are species listed in Table 10.2.7-1 of the Handbook and were observed on the Site. Wetlands and upland buffers will remain following Site development. In addition, suitable upland habitat will remain in the region, most notably at the adjacent Wiechens Preserve. Therefore, the development of the Site will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the upland habitat for aquatic and wetland-dependent listed species.
3. Impacts to Historical and Archaeological Resources
The Site was reviewed for cultural resources and was determined to not contain any resources or sites eligible for listing in the NRHP. Should any objects be revealed during construction having historical or archeological value, the DHR will be immediately notified. Therefore, this Project is not expected to adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources.
4. Impacts to Wetland and Surface Water Functions as a Result of Future Phases or System Expansions
This is not a phased Project. At this time, no additional phases or expansion of the proposed SWMS beyond what is currently proposed is anticipated; therefore, adverse secondary impacts of this type are not anticipated.
4.8 Cumulative Impacts
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc 42
5.0 MITIGATION
The Project proposes to impact 3.90 acres of SWFWMD jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters located within the Project site for development of residential areas known as The Villages of Fruitland Park. The majority of the wetlands and surface waters (2.57 acres) to be impacted are exempt from mitigation requirements under the SWFWMD Applicant Handbook sections 10.2.2.1 and 10.2.2.2. The wetlands and surface waters have been altered and degraded as the result of the agricultural activities, primarily cattle grazing, runoff from row crops, and agricultural ditching and berming within the wetlands.
The wetland functions and values were determined utilizing the Uniform Mitigation Analysis Method (UMAM) as outlined in Chapter 62-345, F.A.C. Data sheets that have been completed in support of this analysis are included as Appendix F for review and verification. The loss of the functions and values provided by the impacted wetland area that require mitigation was determined to be 0.71 units based on condition of the impact area, its location, and the community structure. Summary of the Functional Loss is as follows:
Functional Loss
Assessment Area/ID Delta Acreage Functional Loss
Wetlands B 0.53 1.33 0.71
Total Functional Loss 0.71
Functional Gain
Assessment Area / ID Delta Acreage Time
Lag Risk
Functional Gain
Wetland Enhancement – F, G, H 0.10 75.10 1.10 1.25 5.46
Total Functional Gain 5.46
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
APPENDIX A
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF
Sources:Esri,De Lorm e , NAVT EQ, USGS,Inte rm ap,
Source: Bound ary provid e d by Farne r Barle y on 20140120. 2013 aerial provid e d by Farne r Barle y.
!
°
0 600 1,200
Fe e t
1 inch = 1,200 fe e t
Legend
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
APPENDIX B
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DETERMINATION FOR
THE VILLAGES OF FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE
P:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
APPENDIX C
GOPHER TORTOISE SURVEY FOR THE VILLAGES OF
FRUITLAND PARK PROJECT SITE
Sou rces:Esri,De Lorm e , NAVTEQ, USGS,Inte rm a p,
Sou rce: Bou nda ry prov ided by Fa rne r Ba rle y on 20131216. We tla nd line prov ided by Fa rne r Ba rle y on 20130621 a nd 20131105. 2013 a e ria l prov ided b y Fa rne r Ba rle y.T&E census data acqu ire d b y BDA v ia GPS; 20131217 th rou g h 20131219.
[
¶
[
¶
[
¶
[
¶
[
¶
[
¶
[
¶
[
¶
[
¶
[
¶
GT - 9 GT - 8 GT - 7 GT - 6 GT - 5 GT - 4 GT - 3 GT - 2 GT - 1 GT - 10 T4 T5 T6 T7 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T1 6 T15 T2 7 T 41 T 42 T 43 T 44 T3 3 T3 5 T3 4 T3 2 T36 T31 T3 0 T 45 T2 9 T2 8 T18 T19 T1 7 T 2 T 3 T20 T 1 T2 1 T 55 T52 T 59 T 8 T5 1 T26 T 56 T5 3 T 61 T4 0 T54 T2 2 T49 T2 3 T39 T 64 T 63 T 66 T 65 T67 T24 T62 T2 5 T 46 T60 T50 T 48 T 58 T 47 T 57 T3 8 T37!
°
0 350 700 Fe e t 1 inch = 700 fee tLegen d
Pa rcel Bou ndary (779.41 ac)
Go pher To rto ise Burro w s
[
¶
Activ e[
¶
Ina ctiv eP:\Admin\Projects\2005219\Villages of Fruitland Park fka PineRidge\Permits\SWFWMD_ERP\ERP-app (Repaired).doc
APPENDIX D
TABLE ONE: PROJECT WETLAND AND OTHER SURFACE
WATER AND IMPACT SUMMARY
TABLE 1 - PROJECT WETLAND (WL) AND OTHER SURFACE WATER (SW) AND IMPACT SUMMARY WL & SW ID UMAM ASSESSMENT AREA NAME(S) WL & SW TYPE WL & SW SIZE (acres) WL & SW NOT IMPACTED (acres) TEMPORARY WL & SW IMPACTS PERMANENT WL & SW IMPACTS MITIGATION ID IMPACT SIZE (acres) IMPACT TYPE IMPACT SIZE (acres) IMPACT TYPE A A 641 0.26 0.00 0.26 F No mitigation required B B 631/641 1.33 0.00 1.33 F On-site enhancement C C 641 0.48 0.00 0.48 F No mitigation required D D 641 0.42 0.00 0.42 F No mitigation required E E 641 0.46 0.00 0.46 F No mitigation required F F 631 16.69 16.69 0.00 ─ N/A G G 631 6.66 6.66 0.00 ─ N/A H H 641 51.75 51.75 0.00 ─ N/A
Ditches Ditches 516 1.43 0.45 0.98 F No mitigation
required PROJECT
TOTALS: 79.48 75.55 ─ 3.93
Comments:
Codes (multiple entries per cell not allowed):
Wetland & Surface Water ID: Include ID on submitted wetland and surface water impact maps Wetland Type: from an established wetland classification system
Form #62-330.060(1) - Joint Application for Environmental Resource Individual Permit/ Authorization to Use
State-Owned Submerged Lands/ Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
Incorporated by reference in subsection 62-330.060(1), F.A.C. (Effective Date) Section C, Page 2 of 4 TABLE 2 - PROJECT ON-SITE MITIGATION SUMMARY
MITIGATION ID UMAM ASSESSMENT AREA NAME(S) TARGET TYPE
CREATION RESTORATION ENHANCEMENT WETLAND PRESERVE UPLAND PRESERVE OTHER AREA (acres) (Acres) AREA (acres) AREA (acres) AREA (acres) AREA (acres) AREA (acres) F F 631 16.69 G G 631 6.66 H H 641 51.75 PROJECT TOTALS 75.10 COMMENTS:
Codes (multiple entries per cell not allowed):