Native Habitat Inventory Final Report 2004 - St. Lucie County

St. Lucie County Native Habitat Inventory 

Final Report 

June 2004 

Submitted by 

Pandion Systems, Inc. 

www.pandionsystems.com 

In association with 

GIS Associates, Inc. 

www.gis-associates.com

St. Lucie County Native Habitat Inventory 

Submitted to 

St. Lucie County 

6120 Glades Cutoff Road 

Ft. Pierce, FL 34981 

by 

Pandion Systems, Inc. 

5200 NW 43 rd St. 

Suite 102-314 

Gainesville, FL 32606-4482 

(352) 372-4747 phone 

(352) 372-4714 fax 

www.pandionsystems.com 

In association with 

GIS Associates, Inc. 

2158 NW 5 th Ave. 

Gainesville, FL 32603 

(352) 384-1465 phone 

(352) 384-1467 fax 

www.gis-associates.com 

June 2004

Table of Contents 

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ i 

Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................... ii 

Glossary ............................................................................................................................ iii 

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... v 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 

Project Overview ............................................................................................................ 1 

Natural Communities of St. Lucie County – Landscape and Geographical Setting ....... 2 

Countywide Overview ................................................................................................ 4 

Native Habitat Lost and Preserved 1992-2002 ....................................................... 4 

Site Data Summaries ............................................................................................... 5 

Conversion of FLUCCS to FNAI ......................................................................... 14 

Methods and Results ....................................................................................................... 16 

Overview ....................................................................................................................... 16 

Native Habitat Lost and Preserved Between 1992 and 2002 ....................................... 16 

Summary of GIS Methods: Creation of 1992 and 2002 Land Cover GIS Layers .... 16 

GIS Database Development; ................................................................................. 16 

GIS Analysis, Statistical Calculations, and Modeling for Ecological Decision- 

Support .................................................................................................................. 17 

Comparison of Current Techniques to the 1992 Inventory .................................. 22 

Inventory of Existing Native Upland and Wetland Communities ............................ 26 

Quantitative Assessment of the Areas of Existing Native and Wetland 

Communities in the County and the Amount of Loss of Habitat Since 1992....... 26 

Identification of Lands Preserved Since 1992 and the Acres and Types of Natural 

Communities in Each Preserve ............................................................................. 31 

Site Data Summaries ..................................................................................................... 41 

Overview ................................................................................................................... 41 

Collect Existing Inventories ...................................................................................... 41 

Identify Potential Sites for Surveying and Recommendations for Site Selection .... 41 

Requesting Landowner Permission........................................................................... 41 

Field Data Collection ................................................................................................ 44 

Field Data Management and Analysis ...................................................................... 45 

Conversion of FLUCCS to FNAI .................................................................................. 47 

Site Inventories and Reclassification ........................................................................ 47 

Intersection with FLUCCS ....................................................................................... 47 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 48

Site Data Summaries and Ranks ................................................................................... 57 

A Ranked Sites ............................................................................................................... 57 

Site Number: 4 ......................................................................................................... 57 

Site Number: 9 ......................................................................................................... 64 

Site Number: 24 ....................................................................................................... 68 

Site Number: 25 ....................................................................................................... 75 

Site Number: 41 ....................................................................................................... 81 

Site Number: 42 ....................................................................................................... 87 

Site Number: 43 ....................................................................................................... 94 

Site Number: 44 ....................................................................................................... 98 

Site Number: 50 ..................................................................................................... 102 

Site Number: 51 ..................................................................................................... 108 

B Ranked Sites ............................................................................................................. 114 

Site Number: 3 ....................................................................................................... 114 

Site Number: 7 ....................................................................................................... 119 

Site Number: 11 ..................................................................................................... 125 

Site Number: 13 ..................................................................................................... 132 

Site Number: 14 ..................................................................................................... 138 

Site Number: 15 ..................................................................................................... 144 

Site Number: 18 ..................................................................................................... 150 

Site Number: 20 ..................................................................................................... 156 

Site Number: 28 ..................................................................................................... 162 

Site Number: 30 ..................................................................................................... 168 

C Ranked Sites ............................................................................................................ 174 

Site Number: 12 ..................................................................................................... 174 

Site Number: 16 ..................................................................................................... 178 

Site Number: 17 ..................................................................................................... 183 

Site Number: 19 ..................................................................................................... 188 

Site Number: 26 ..................................................................................................... 193 

Site Number: 27 ..................................................................................................... 199 

Site Number: 31 ..................................................................................................... 205 

Site Number: 32 ..................................................................................................... 211 

Site Number: 34 ..................................................................................................... 217 

Site Number: 48 ..................................................................................................... 223 

Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 229 

Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 231 

Appendices ..................................................................................................................... 235 

Appendix A. Explanation of Species and Natural Community Ranks ......................... 235 

Appendix B. Rare Species Observed ........................................................................... 239 

Appendix C. Invasive Exotic Plants Observed ............................................................ 240 

Appendix D. Natural Communities Observed in the County. ..................................... 241 

b

Appendix E. List of Rare Species that Potentially Occur within St. Lucie County ..... 242 

Appendix F. List of Natural Communities that Potentially Occur within St. Lucie 

County. ........................................................................................................................ 252 

Appendix G. Copy of Site Permission Letter .............................................................. 254 

Appendix H. Mapping Discussion............................................................................... 257 

Appendix I. Conversion of FLUCCS Categorized to FNAI Natural Communities - 

Tables and Histograms ............................................................................................... 259 

c

List of Tables 

Table 1. Population Demographics for St. Lucie County. ................................................. 3 

Table 2. Comparison of Area Preserved by County as of December 2003 ....................... 5 

Table 3. Ecological Summaries of Sites. ........................................................................... 7 

Table 4. Site Ranking Criteria – County Uplands Inventory. .......................................... 11 

Table 5. Site Quality Ranks. ............................................................................................ 14 

Table 6. Estimated Acreages of FNAI Natural Communities in St. Lucie County in 1991 

Compared to 1996 (1992 KBN Report, Table 2-3). ................................................. 24 

Table 7. Percent Loss of St. Lucie County Natural Communities Between 1986 and 

1991........................................................................................................................... 25 

Table 8. Acres Lost in Natural Areas Between 1992 and 2002 by FLUCCS Type. ....... 27 

Table 9. 2002 Natural Land by Polygon Acreage. ........................................................... 30 

Table 10. Summary of FLUCCS Types and Acreage Present in Each Conservation Area. 

................................................................................................................................... 32 

Table 11. Comparison of the Amount of Each FLUCCS Type Conserved as Compared to 

All Natural Lands Available in 2002. ....................................................................... 38 

Table 12. Example of Calculation of Overall Ecological Value for a single site ............ 46 

Table 13. Community Conversion from FLUCCS to FNAI for Potentially Natural 

FLUCCS Categories. ................................................................................................ 49 

Table 14. Community Conversion from FLUCCS to FNAI for Natural FLUCCS 

Categories. ................................................................................................................ 52 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Locations of the A, B and C Ranked Sites. ........................................................ 9 

Figure 2. St. Lucie County 1992 Natural Lands. ............................................................. 19 

Figure 3. St. Lucie County 2002 Natural Lands. ............................................................. 20 

Figure 4. St. Lucie County Natural Lands Lost Between 1992 and 2002. ...................... 21 

Figure 5. 2002 Countywide Non-Public Natural Areas. .................................................. 30 

Figure 6. Florida Natural Area Inventory’s Areas of Conservation Interest as the Initial 51 

Sites Considered for Inventory. ................................................................................ 42 

Figure 7. Locations of Inventoried Sites ........................................................................... 43 

d

Acknowledgements 

Pandion Systems would like to thank Vanessa Bessey, the Environmental Resource 

Manager and the St. Lucie County project manager, for her guidance and input on the 

project. Thanks are also given to Dennis Murphy, Steve Fousek, and Diana Waite of the 

Public Works Department; and Paul Williams and Cheryl Friend of the City of Fort 

Pierce. Thanks also to Ed Blaine and Janet Merkt of Community Development and 

Growth Management Division Works Department for providing GIS information on the 

sites. The team would like to thank the landowners for their cooperation in the study. 

i

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ACI – Area of Conservation Interest 

CAT # – Category number, see Category I and Category II in the glossary 

ESL – Environmentally Sensitive Lands 

ESRI – Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 

FDOR – Florida Department of Revenue 

FLEPPC – Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council 

FLEPPC rankings: Category # – See Category I and Category II in the glossary 

FLUCCS – Florida Land Use Cover Classification System 

FNAI – Florida Natural Areas Inventory 

FNAI ranking: G# and S# – See the glossary 

FWC – Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (formerly GFC) 

G# - See the glossary and Appendix A 

GFC – Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (renamed FWC in July 2001) 

GIS – Geographic Information System 

LC – Land Cover 

LU – Land Use 

PNA – Potential Natural Areas 

S# – See the glossary and Appendix A 

SFWMD – South Florida Water Management District 

TNC – The Nature Conservancy 

ii

Glossary 

ACI – Area of Conservation Interest as designated by Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 

Areas of Conservation Interest (ACIs) are sites that support currently unprotected 

examples of important natural resources. These sites have not been field-verified. Sites 

ranked C were felt to have a lower potential ecological quality than those ranked B based 

on the quality, size, and rarity of their natural communities. 

Category I – Defined by FLEPPC as, “Invasive exotics that are altering native plant 

communities by displacing native species, changing community structures or ecological 

functions, or hybridizing with natives.” This definition does not rely on the economic 

severity or geographic range of the problem, but on the documented ecological damage 

caused. 

Category II – Defined by FLEPPC as, “Invasive exotics that have increased in 

abundance or frequency but have not yet altered Florida plant communities to the extent 

shown by Category I species.” These species may become ranked Category I if 

ecological damage is demonstrated. 

Developed – Areas no longer supporting natural vegetation. Examples would be 

buildings and roads. 

FWC – Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

FLEPPC – Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. A non-profit non-governmental 

organization that works toward building public awareness about the serious threat 

invasive plants pose to native ecosystems, securing funding and support for control and 

management of exotic plants, and developing integrated management and control 

methods to prevent the spread of exotic pest plants throughout the United States. 

FLUCCS – Florida Land Use Cover Classification System. Developed by Florida 

Department of Transportation. 

FNAI – Florida Natural Areas Inventory. This non-profit organization is administered by 

Florida State University. They gather, interpret, and disseminate information critical to 

the conservation of Florida's biological diversity. 

G# – FNAIs global rank. Based on an element's worldwide status. See Appendix A for 

more details. 

Herb – A plant with no persistent woody stem above ground. 

Mesic – Applied to an environment that is neither extremely wet or extremely dry. 

Natural lands – Those areas that retain significant elements of the original natural 

system. These elements are composition, structure, and function. 

iii

S# – FNAIs state rank. Based on the status of the element in Florida. See Appendix A for 

more details. 

Semi-natural lands – Vegetation altered by human influence or management in the past 

but retaining much of the elements of a natural community. However, they are missing at 

least one significant element of the original natural system. These elements are 

composition, structure, and function. 

Site – The 30 discrete areas selected for surveying during this project. 

Species Area Relationship – The number of species in an area will increase with the size 

of the area. Originally derived from studies of oceanic islands, but this concept also 

applies to habitat islands. (Definition from Instant Notes in Ecology, p.189) 

Xeric – Applied to a dry environment, as opposed to a wet or intermediate environment. 

Definitions from Florida Geographic Digital Library, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of 

Ecology, Instant Notes in Ecology, FWC’s Closing the Gaps in Florida’s Wildlife Habitat 

Conservation System. 

iv

Executive Summary 

The overall objective of this project is “to meet the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan 

requirements that certain inventories and evaluations of the County’s existing natural 

conditions be conducted to implement programs that are intended to preserve and protect 

those resources. To assist the County in meeting its goals for the preservation of native 

upland and wetland habitat, the full range of these natural communities within St. Lucie 

County must be identified. This study will be utilized to evaluate the success of the 

County’s environmental programs and policies and to assist the County’s Land 

Acquisition Selection Committee in selecting the highest priority sites for preservation.” 

This county-wide native habitat inventory updates the 1992 inventory (KBN 1992) and 

identifies changes in native habitat. It will be used to assist the County’s Land 

Acquisition Selection Committee in selecting the highest priority sites for preservation 

via the Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) Program. 

The St. Lucie County ESL Program was established in 1991 pursuant to County 

Comprehensive Plan directives requiring an increase in the acreage of native upland 

habitat preserved in St. Lucie County. The ESL Program was designed to further several 

policies related to the protection of the County's natural resources while fulfilling the 

following habitat preservation requirements set forth in the Conservation Element of the 

County's Comprehensive Plan. The goals of the Environmentally Significant Lands 

Program are: 

• Preservation of native upland habitat 

• Preserve unique ecological communities 

• Protect endangered and threatened species 

• Safeguard drinking water quality 

• Enhance natural flood protection 

• Improve passive resource-based recreation opportunities 

The first three goals are addressed in this project. 

The County’s Comprehensive Plan has specific targets for natural area protection, for 

example, by 1995 increase native habitat preservation by at least ten (10%) percent. The 

long-term goal is to preserve 25% of the 1991 native upland habitat acreage, or about an 

additional 12,500 acres. 

The specific objectives of this study are: 

• To evaluate and quantify losses in native habitat since 1992. 

• To identify publicly-owned conservation lands within the county, and inventory 

and quantify the natural communities on these properties. 

• To identify and prioritize lands for preservation through on-site inventories and a 

geographic information systems (GIS) based analysis. On-site inventories will 

quantify, map, classify, and qualitatively assess the natural communities present. 

v

The GIS analysis will assess landscape-level variables such as connectivity, patch 

size, and other measures of ecological integrity. 

Pandion Systems, Inc. in association with GIS Associates, Inc. initiated this study in 

January 2003. An interim technical report (St. Lucie Native Habitat Inventory Final 

Technical Report) was completed in April 2003. This report evaluated the losses in 

native habitat since 1992 and identified the type and amount of natural areas (as of 2002) 

protected through public or private conservation ownership or easements. During the 

period of June to August 2003, on-site inventories were made of natural lands considered 

suitable for preservation. 

The County ESL Program goal is to increase the acreage of native habitat preserved as 

well as preserve unique communities and species. As of 2002, there were 19,417 acres of 

public conservation land within the County (St. Lucie County ESL020303 shapefile). 

Some key protected areas are interspersed with areas under intensive development 

pressure such as the coastal and island areas, the high ancient dunes along US 1, as well 

as the St. Lucie River and its tributaries. A minimum of 3,052 acres of natural areas was 

lost between 1992 and 2002. 

In addition to the direct loss of acres of native habitat, there is increased fragmentation of 

the remaining natural lands outside of public ownership. Only about half (52%) of the 

natural lands left are greater than 100 acres in size. The small areas cost more per acre to 

acquire and manage, often have a greater percentage of undesirable edge, fewer species, a 

reduced likelihood of long-term persistence, and reduced management options due to 

external constraints (e.g., fire and residential areas). 

The quantitative assessment of the acres of natural area lost and conserved indicated there 

were 93,385 acres of potential natural area within the county. An initial subset was 

selected that included all areas designated as Areas of Conservation Interest or Potential 

Natural Areas by FNAI (51 sites and 44,031 acres). This list was further reduced to 35 

sites with the assistance of the Steering Committee and their knowledge of the county. 

Several more sites were eliminated due to lack of landowner-permitted access. In the end, 

30 sites (40,142 acres) were surveyed representing different vegetative communities and 

locations in the County. The vegetative communities of the sites ranged from coastal 

uplands to wet flatlands. The sites ranged in size from 1 acre to 28,789 acres. A 

summary of the ecological characteristics including content and context for all the sites is 

provided. 

A series of 5 quality measures (Vulnerability, Rarity, Connectedness, Completeness, and 

Manageability) is given for each FNAI vegetative community type on the site. Each is 

ranked from 1 to 5. The 30 sites surveyed were evenly split among A, B, and C quality 

sites. 

vi

The Site Data Summaries and Ranks section presents summaries of the conditions of the 

natural communities at each of the 30 sites surveyed. Each summary provides: 

• Site Rank 

• Site Size 

• Acres of Edge 

• Percent of Edge to Core 

• Ecological Core by Natural Community 

• Key Features 

• Importance to the County Ecological Integrity 

• Connectivity to Other Natural Areas 

• Proximity to Non-Natural Features 

• Hydrology 

• Natural Community Rankings 

• Site History/Habitat Disturbance 

• List of Rare Plants and/or Animals Observed 

• List of Invasive Exotic Species Observed 

• Ownership Information 

• Notes 

• Recommendations/Management Requirements 

• Natural Community Map 

• Rare Species Map 

• Invasive Exotic Species Map 

The anticipated uses of the results of this survey and countywide natural community map 

include: 

• Project reviews 

• Assessments of the vegetative and wildlife resources within the County 

• Determination of mitigation necessary during future land development 

• Identification of priority land acquisition areas 

• Identification of future wetland mitigation sites 

• Identification future wildlife corridors 

• Identification of future blueways and greenways 

• Identification of a wide range of protective conservation strategies 

This project provides the County with a comprehensive ecological survey that identifies 

and characterizes the vegetative communities and also assesses the ecological integrity of 

these vegetative resources in the County. 

vii

Introduction 

Project Overview 

The overall objective of this project is “to meet the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan 

requirements that certain inventories and evaluations of the County’s existing natural 

conditions be conducted to implement programs that are intended to preserve and protect 

those resources. To assist the County in meeting its goals for the preservation of native 

upland and wetland habitat, the full range of these natural communities within St. Lucie 

County must be identified. This study will be utilized to evaluate the success of the 

County’s environmental programs and policies and to assist the County’s Land 

Acquisition Selection Committee in selecting the highest priority sites for preservation.” 

This county-wide native habitat inventory updates the 1992 inventory (KBN 1992) and 

identifies changes in native habitat. It will be used to assist the County’s Land 


via the Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) Program. 

The St. Lucie County ESL Program was established in 1991 pursuant to County 

Comprehensive Plan directives requiring an increase in the acreage of native upland 

habitat preserved in St. Lucie County. The ESL Program was designed to further several 

policies related to the protection of the County's natural resources while fulfilling the 

following habitat preservation requirements set forth in the Conservation Element of the 

County's Comprehensive Plan. The goals of the Environmentally Significant Lands 

Program are: 

• Preservation of native upland habitat 

• Preserve unique ecological communities 

• Protect endangered and threatened species 

• Safeguard drinking water quality 

• Enhance natural flood protection 

• Improve passive resource-based recreation opportunities 

The first three goals addressed in this project. 

The County’s Comprehensive Plan has specific targets for natural area protection, for 

example, by 1995 increase native habitat preservation by at least ten (10%) percent. The 

long-term goal is to preserve 25% of the 1991 native upland habitat acreage, or about an 

additional 12,500 acres. 

The specific objectives of this study are: 

• To evaluate and quantify losses in native habitat since 1992. 

• To identify publicly-owned conservation lands within the county, and inventory 

and quantify the natural communities on these properties. 

1

• To identify and prioritize lands for preservation through on-site inventories and a 

geographic information systems (GIS) based analysis. On-site inventories will 

quantify, map, classify, and qualitatively assess the natural communities present. 

The GIS analysis will assess landscape-level variables such as connectivity, patch 

size, and other measures of ecological integrity. 

The anticipated uses of the results of this survey and countywide natural community map 

include: 

• Project reviews 

• Assessments of the vegetative and wildlife resources within the County 

• Determination of mitigation necessary during future land development 

• Identification of priority land acquisition areas 

• Identification of future wetland mitigation sites 

• Identification future wildlife corridors 

• Identification of future blueways and greenways 

• Identification of a wide range of protective conservation strategies 

This project provides the County with a comprehensive ecological survey that identifies 

and characterizes the vegetative communities and also assesses the ecological integrity of 

these vegetative resources in the County. 

Pandion Systems, Inc. in association with GIS Associates, Inc. initiated this study in 

January 2003. An interim technical report (St. Lucie Native Habitat Inventory Final 

Technical Report) was completed in April 2003. This report evaluated the losses in 

native habitat since 1992 and identified the type and amount of natural areas (as of 2002) 

protected through public or private conservation ownership or easements. During the 

period of June to August 2003, on-site inventories were made of natural lands considered 

suitable for preservation. 

This report describes the methodology utilized in the study. It identifies the type and 

acreage of habitat lost since 1992 and identifies the type and acreage of habitat in existing 

conservation lands (state, county, and private). Priority sites for preservation are 

identified and descriptions with detailed natural community classification maps for each 

site are provided. 

Natural Communities of St. Lucie County – Landscape and 

Geographical Setting 

St. Lucie County is located on the southeast coast of Florida. It is bounded on the north 

by Indian River County and on the south by Martin County and to the west by 

Okeechobee County. The County’s east coast is comprised of a series of barrier islands 

separated from the mainland by the Indian River Lagoon. 

2

The population of St. Lucie County has increased nearly 400% in 30 years (Table 1). 

This has resulted in a loss of native habitat. KBN (1992) reported a loss of 19,267 acres 

of natural lands between 1986 and 1991. Between 1992 and 2002 there were an 

additional 3,052 acres of natural areas lost. For a total of 22,319 acres lost (22.4%) over 

only 16 years. There has been an effort to preserve some of the pieces through 

acquisition or conservation easements. This has resulted in 19,417 acres being 

conserved. The conservation of additional lands is sought through the Environmentally 

Sensitive Lands program. The priority sites described in this report will aid in 

determining future potential land acquisitions. 

Table 1. Population Demographics for St. Lucie County. 

Data from the St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce web site (Lenze 2002) 

Pop. 

1970 

Percent 

Increase 

Pop. 

1980 

Percent 

Increase 

Pop. 

1990 

Percent 

Increase 

Pop. 

2000 

Percent 

Projected 

to Increase 

2010 

Population 

Projection 

50,836 72% 87,182 72% 150,171 29% 194,100 23% 238,000 

The natural communities of these priority sites are described and qualitatively assessed in 

the Site Data Summaries and Ranks section. Natural Communities are defined as “a 

distinct and reoccurring assemblage of plants, animals, fungi, and microorganisms 

naturally associated within each other and their physical environment” (FNAI 1990, p 1). 

The physical environment includes soils, water regimes, fire patterns, and topography. 

Natural Communities are influenced by human activities such as alteration of flooding 

and fire patterns and intensive land management. 

The natural resources present within St. Lucie County are the remnants of a much larger 

system. The continued persistence of these resources is, in large part, a function of area. 

Generally, the number of species in a given area will increase with increasing area 

(Mackenzie et al. 1998, p 189). Thus, planning and managing for the long term 

persistence of a biological element (e.g., a species or natural community) requires the 

knowledge of what is in existence (e.g., inventory) and their minimum biological 

requirements. 

This report provides some of this information through the site data summaries and GIS 

data and analysis. However, even with this information, for nearly all species and natural 

communities, there is uncertainty about their minimum biological requirements for longterm 

persistence. Thus, long-range planning to protect biological diversity is often done 

by making inferences of what is present, or likely present, and using some general 

principles (such as the species-area relationship described above) to build a framework on 

which to plan sustained existence of these ecological elements. This is the rationale 

behind much of the geographic analysis done (i.e., Florida ecological greenways and 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s strategic habitat conservation 

areas) for large-scale ecological planning. 

3

The species-area relationship does not mean that only large areas should be valued or 

protected. There are many instances where small areas can be of very high ecological 

value and even without landscape scale connectivity should be protected. This is 

especially true where there is a very rare species or a unique habitat (i.e., endemics). 

Countywide Overview 

Native Habitat Lost and Preserved 1992-2002 

The County ESL Program goal is to increase the acreage of native habitat preserved as 

well as preserve unique communities and species. As of 2002, there were 19,417 acres of 

public conservation land within the County (St. Lucie County ESL020303 shapefile). 

Some key protected areas are interspersed with areas under intensive development 

pressure such as the coastal and island areas, the high ancient dunes along US 1, as well 

as the St. Lucie River and its tributaries. 

An indicator of development is the number of parcels per unit area. In the eastern third of 

the county (roughly east of the western boundary of Port St. Lucie) there are 129,000 

parcels. This is 98% of all of the parcels in the entire county. This suggests there is 

intensive development of the entire eastern third of the county. A subset of this area, the 

southeastern corner, as framed by the northern and western extents of Port St. Lucie, 

contains 71% of the parcels (94,000) within less than 20% of the county. However, 

within this portion of the county there are several large natural areas remaining (e.g., 

Savannas Reserve – nearly 500 acres and the series of conservation lands stretching south 

from Bear Point – over 800 acres). 

The western two-thirds is less developed. The land is used for intensive agriculture such 

as cattle grazing and citrus groves. However, within this landscape are large patches 

(>500 acres) of natural to semi-natural habitat, mainly in unimproved cattle pasture and 

wetlands. These large areas are central elements to the proposed Florida ecological 

greenway network (Florida 1999-2001) within the Treasure Coast region. 

The intensive development pressure in the eastern third of the county accounts for most 

of the 3,052 acres of natural areas lost between 1992 and 2002. Most of this was within 

or immediately adjacent to urban areas, especially Port St. Lucie. 

In addition to the direct loss of acres of native habitat there is increased fragmentation of 

the remaining natural lands outside of public ownership. Only about half (52%) of the 

natural lands left are greater than 100 acres in size. The small areas cost more per acre to 

acquire and manage, often have a greater percentage of undesirable edge, fewer species, a 

reduced likelihood of long-term persistence, and reduced management options due to 

external constraints (e.g., fire and residential areas). 

To calculate areas of native habitat lost and conserved between 1992 and 2002 two GIS 

coverages were created. An approximate historic landcover of the county in 1992 was 

4

first created. Then a current 2002 land cover was created. For each coverage, all 

polygons (more than 132,000) were classified as natural or non-natural. The difference 

between these two coverages provided the acres of natural habitat lost and the number of 

acres conserved over the time period. 

By 2002, 19,417 acres of land had been conserved. However, in comparison to the 

surrounding counties this is quite low (Table 2). Also, the natural areas that remain are 

highly fragmented. 

Table 2. Comparison of Area Preserved by County as of December 2003 

Source: FNAI Managed Areas shapefile December 2003 

County Total Acres within 

the County 

Total Acres 

Conserved 

Percent of the 

County Conserved 

St. Lucie 391,700 19,417 5 

Indian River 318,080 >100,000 31 

Okeechobee 493,440 >75,000 15 

Martin 355,200 >66,000 19 

Site Data Summaries 

The County ESL Program goals of increasing acreage of native habitat preserved as well 

as preservation of unique communities and species requires the use of both countywide 

and more site-specific, localized ecological information to make wise land-use and land 

planning decisions. This need for site-specific information was the basis for conducting 

this inventory. 

The 30 sites (40,142 acres) that were surveyed represented different vegetative 

communities and locations in the County. The vegetative communities of the sites 

ranged from coastal uplands to wet flatlands. The sites ranged in size from 1 acre to 

28,789 acres. Table 3 provides a summary of the ecological characteristics including 

content and context for all the sites. Figure 1 provides a map of the A, B, and C-ranked 

sites. 

Four sites (4, 9, 43, and 44) were not accessible by ground due to constraints of owner 

access (31,499 acres). They were assessed via helicopter by county staff. All four of these 

sites are expected to be of high quality based on other data sources (e.g., Fernauld 1989, 

Johnson and Muller 1990, KBN 1992) and the aerial reconnaissance. 

In the eastern third of the county the natural resources on a site were most affected by 

development, whereas, in the western two-thirds of the county they were influenced by 

intensive agriculture (e.g., cattle grazing and citrus groves). This is true for both uplands 

and wetlands. Agricultural activities directly impact an area by replacing or removing the 

overstory, removing small scale topographic variation, collapsing the original 

multilayered vegetation structure into fewer layers, altering species richness and 

5

composition through selective grazing and an artificial fire regime (usually fire 

suppression). However, in some cases these agricultural uses, such as cattle grazing, 

have also benefited the site by maintaining the open treeless condition typical of prairies. 

Since the site surveys were conducted for only a short period of time and during only one 

season, observations of the occurrence of Federally and/or State Listed plants and 

animals on these sites were limited. In spite of the limitations, 17 species of rare plants 

and animals were observed on 18 sites. There were also 31 invasive exotic plant species 

observed on 25 sites. 

Seventeen (17) of these sites are contiguous or in close proximity to public conservation 

lands (Table 3). The contribution of these lands and their ability to provide linkages and 

act as buffers for existing conservation lands should be given should be given 

consideration due to the degree of fragmentation of natural lands in the county. 

There is a network of ecological greenways (Florida 1999-2001) proposed for the entire 

state of Florida. Several portions flow through St. Lucie County. Along the western 

county boundary is a large proposed greenway that starts in the Everglades and runs 

north. One hundred and eighty-two thousand (182,000) acres of the proximate portions of 

this greenway are already in public ownership (Allapattah Flats, the Dupuis 

Reserve/Corbett Wildlife Management Area, Bluefield Ranch, Fort Drum Marsh/Blue 

Cypress Conservation Areas) and could be connected through the conservation of all or 

portions of sites 9 and 4. There is another proposed greenway along the St. Lucie River 

that includes portion of sites 20 and 50. 

6

Table 3. Ecological Summaries of Sites. 

Maximum Overall Ecological Value is 1. Generally A sites had an ecological value>0.5. No data on rare or exotic species was 

collected for helicopter sites (na). 

Site 

No 

Site 

Rank 

Overall 

Ecological 

Value 

(RCC) 

Total 

Acres 

Acres 

of Edge 

Habitat 

Percent 

of 

Total 

as 

Edge 

Proximity to 

Existing 

Conservation 

Lands 

Number 

of Rare 

Species 

Observed 

Number of 

Invasive 

Exotic 

Species 

Observed Outstanding Natural Communties 

3 B 0.61 345.0 107.0 31.0 2640' 5 7 Bottomland Forest 

12 C 0.53 360.0 153.0 42.0 >2640' 0 0 

13 B 0.44 2275.0 417.0 18.0 >2640' 0 2 

14 B 0.52 1325.0 285.0 22.0 >2640' 0 6 

15 B 0.44 169.0 106.0 63.0 >2640' 1 2 

16 C 0.20 161.0 101.0 63.0 >2640' 0 3 

17 C 0.40 123.0 54.0 44.0 >2640' 0 2 

18 B 0.43 659.0 284.0 43.0 >2640' 1 1 

19 C 0.57 157.0 93.0 59.0 2640' 3 5 

7

Site 

No 

Site 

Rank 

Overall 

Ecological 

Value 

(RCC) 

Total 

Acres 

Acres 

of Edge 

Habitat 

Percent 

of 

Total 

as 

Edge 

Proximity to 

Existing 

Conservation 

Lands 

Number 

of Rare 

Species 

Observed 

Number of 

Invasive 

Exotic 

Species 

Observed Outstanding Natural Communties 

41 A 0.75 134.0 103.0 77.0

Figure 1. Locations of the A, B and C Ranked Sites. 

3 

4 

19 

18 

7 

15 

14 

12 

13 

9 

11 

24 25 

26 

27 

28 

30 

31 

32 

20 

17 

16 

34 

41 

42 

48 

51 

50 

43 

44 

Legend 

A ranked sites 

B ranked sites 

C ranked sites 

* 

9

The Site Data Summaries and Ranks section presents summaries of the conditions of the 

natural communities at each of the 30 sites surveyed. Each summary provides: 

• Site Rank 

• Site Size 



• Ecological Score By Natural Community 





• Hydrology 






• Notes 





Field surveys occurred in June through August 2003. The survey effort for a given site 

ranged from a few hours to several days, depending upon the acreage of the site and 

complexity. The rare species lists are comprehensive but should not be considered 

exhaustive due to the single season of sampling and the field time constraints. 

Additionally, the information presented should be viewed as a snapshot describing that 

natural community at one-point-in-time. Natural communities are dynamic and are 

affected by long and short-term climactic changes (i.e., drought), natural processes (e.g., 

fire), and time, as a consequence the plants and animals present within the natural 

community may shift over time. 

A series of 5 quality measures (Vulnerability, Rarity, Connectedness, Completeness, and 

Manageability) is given for each FNAI vegetative community type on the site. Each is 

ranked from 1 to 5 (Table 4). These criteria were divided into 2 subsets. The Rarity, 

Connectivity, and Completeness (RCC) values are measures of the content value of the 

site. The Vulnerability and Manageability (VM) values area measure of human-induced 

risk to the site and the likelihood of restoring and maintaining the site. 

10

Table 4. Site Ranking Criteria – County Uplands Inventory. 

1) Vulnerability 

This criteria addresses the likelihood of events which might degrade or destroy the site. 

2) Rarity 

This criteria incorporates the rarity of each of the site's community types, the rarity of the 

species it provides habitat for, and the uniqueness of the site's special features, such as 

geological formations or champion trees. Rarity must be viewed at several scales: county, 

state, and global. 

3) Connectedness 

This criteria concerns how the site links to related elements of the landscape. Does it lie 

within or constitute a link between segments of an actual or potential wildlife corridor, a 

green space zone, or a trail system? Is it an inholding or a buffer for another natural area? 

How do the habitats relate to those nearby? 

4) Completeness 

This is basically an index of the site's ecological quality. Are the ecological communities 

representative examples with a full complement of species? How diverse are the habitats? 

The flora? The fauna? Has the site been degraded? To what degree? Are the "missing" 

species gone forever or is the basic integrity of the system still intact enough that there is 

realistic potential for reintroductions? 

5) Manageability 

This is an assessment of long-term viability. Is the site big enough? Would its reservation 

and the maintenance of its species be compatible with present and future neighboring 

land uses? Are degraded habitats in restorable condition? Would it be practical to do 

prescribed burning in fire-maintained habitats? Would there be problems with trespassers 

or neighbors? How expensive would it be to manage the land properly 

Scoring System for Site Priority Ranking - County Uplands Inventory 

Vulnerability 

1 -- Preservation guaranteed by deed restriction, easement, or established regulatory 

authority. 

2 -- Respected by conservation-minded landowner. Some regulatory protection. Very low 

development potential. 

3 -- Owner has no sale or development plans. Heirs may be inclined to sell. Borderline 

case as to regulatory protection. Located in low-growth area. Marginal development site. 

4 -- Owner likely to sell or develop, but action not imminent. No significant regulatory 

protection. Located in high-growth area. Good development site. 

11

5 -- Slated for development or prime real estate currently up for sale. No significant 

regulatory protection. 

Completeness 

1 -- Poor habitat. Low species and community diversity. Seriously degraded. Too tiny 

and/or isolated to maintain normal flora and fauna. 

2 -- Fair habitat. Moderate species and community diversity. Degraded, but restorable. 

Might be capable of supporting populations of relatively tolerant species. 

3 -- Good habitat. Good diversity of species or communities. Slight degradation. 

Probably capable of maintaining populations of most typical species. 

4 -- Excellent habitat. Diverse species, communities, and successional stages. Practically 

all appropriate species except rarities and large predators present and thriving. Excellent 

potential for reintroduction of most missing species. 

5 -- Outstanding habitat. Diverse species, communities, and natural successional stages, 

including a number of rarities. Large enough to maintain long-term 

disturbance/succession matrix. Sizeable gene pools due to size and or links to similar 

habitat areas. Potential for retention or reintroduction of full normal flora and fauna, 

including large predators. 

Rarity 

1 -- Common community types in poor to average condition. Habitat types widespread 

throughout county. No rare animals or plants. No significant occurrences of anything 

ranked higher than 4 on FNAI's state scale. No significant geological features or wildlife 

sites. No trees of extraordinary size or age. 

2 -- Typical community types still represented by extensive acreages in the county. A few 

Uncommon species, but no significant occurrences of anything ranked higher than 3 on 

FNAI's state scale. No major geological features or wildlife sites. No mature forests or 

outstanding examples of natural communities. 

3 -- Good examples of natural communities. Habitat types well represented statewide, but 

scarce in the county. A few rare species, but not many ranked 2 on FNAI's state scale and 

none ranked higher. Geological features or wildlife sites of moderate value. Some old 

growth, but no large tracts or stands of "living museum" quality. 

4 -- Excellent examples of natural communities, some of them scarce. A number of rare 

species, but none dependent upon this site for survival. Several species FNAI ranks 1 or 2 

on state scale. No significant occurrence for a globally endangered (G1) species or 

community. Important geological feature or wildlife site. Extensive tract of old growth. 

One of the best sites of its kind the county. 

12

5 -- Rare community type. Extraordinary example of a natural community. Diverse array 

of superb habitats, several of them scarce. Many rare species, including a number FNAI 

ranks 1 or 2 on state and/or global scales. Critical habitat for a globally endangered 

species (G1). Unique geological feature or wildlife site. Nationally significant. 

Manageability 

1 -- Too small and/or degraded for maintenance or reestablishment of normal ecosystem 

processes, such as periodic burning or flooding. Highly vulnerable to uncontrollable 

external impacts. 

2 -- Location and/or extent of degradation would make management difficult and 

expensive. Questionable whether protection/restoration programs would be fully 

successful. 

3 -- Could be maintained in or restored to good condition, but would require vigiliant 

management. Location and/or historic use suggests chronic problems with trespassers 

and/or neighbors. Special programs such as exotic plant removal or hydrological 

restoration required. Difficult location for management. 

4 -- Habitats in good condition, but requiring regular attention, such as prescribed 

burning. Effective buffering from most external impacts possible. Location and 

surrounding land uses reasonably convenient for management. 

5 -- Low-maintenance habitat types in excellent condition. Inherently well buffered from 

most external impacts. Location minimizes problems with trespassers and neighbors and 

facilitates management access. 

Connectedness 

1 -- Isolated from natural habitats of significant size by a large expanse of unsuitable 

habitat or a virtually impenetrable barrier (from standpoint of organisms inhabiting site). 

No significant connecting corridors. Not situated strategically for interconnection of 

natural areas or trail systems. 

2 -- Isolated from natural habitats of significant size by a moderate expanse of unsuitable 

habitat. No significant connecting corridors. Not situated strategically for interconnection 

of natural areas or trail systems. 

3 -- Isolated from natural habitats of significant size by an expanse of marginally suitable 

habitat. Narrow connecting corridors. Useful situation for interconnection of natural areas 

or trail systems. 

4 -- Not broadly joined to large areas of natural habitat, but close or connected by 

significant existing or potentially restorable habitat corridors. Good situation for 

connection of natural areas or trail systems. 

13

5 -- Directly contiguous with large areas of natural habitat along extensive boundaries. 

Critical situation for interconnecting natural areas or trail systems. 

The 30 sites surveyed were evenly split among A, B, and C quality sites (Table 5). The 

quality of the sites was determined by their ranking of 5 ecological criteria of Rarity, 

Connectivity, Completeness, Vulnerability, and Manageability. 

Table 5. Site Quality Ranks. 

Site Quality Rank Number of sites Total Acres Site Numbers 

A 10 32628* 4, 9, 24, 25, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51 

(3841) 

B 10 6549 3, 7, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 28, 30 

C 10 858 12, 16, 17, 19, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 48 

*With the removal of one large site (Site 4) the total acres of A quality sites is reduced to 3841. 

A-ranked sites generally had one or more of the following features: high quality natural 

communities, rare or endemic species, rare natural communities, large size. C-ranked 

sites generally had one or more of the following features: very small size, small 

proportion of natural to non-natural areas, few or no rare species, few or no rare natural 

communities. B-ranked sites were intermediate of these two extremes. 

There were some exceptions. For example, although sites 25 and 51 are 10 acres or less 

in size, the presence of narrow endemics and imperiled natural communities warranted a 

high rank. Sites 12 and 14 are large sites that had no outstanding features and the nonnatural 

portions of the sites were heavily impacted, thus these sites were not considered A 

sites. 

Conversion of FLUCCS to FNAI 

A proportionality relationship between the Florida Land Use Cover Classification System 

(FLUCCS) categories and FNAI natural communities system was developed. This 

relationship was developed utilizing the 1995 FLUCCS classification for the county and 

the FNAI classification from the 30 sites inventoried. 

FLUCCS System 

The 1995 FLUCCS Classification from South Florida Water Management District was 

used as the starting point for the conversion since it was the most recent consistent 

countywide coverage with good resolution in natural areas, a well-defined state standard, 

and periodically updated. 

14

One of the drawbacks to FLUCCS is that it is mapped at a fairly large scale (in 0.25 acre 

blocks for developed lands and 1 acre blocks for undeveloped lands) and thus often has 

inclusions of dissimilar land uses. This results in what appear to be unusual changes in 

land use or community types (e.g., Temperate Hardwoods (425) to Blackwater Stream), 

however, this is an artifact of the mapping methods (Appendix H). 

The FLUCCS categories for natural areas tend to be broad while the FNAI categories are 

more narrow. This often results in one FLUCCS type being classified as more than one 

FNAI natural community type (a one to many relationship). For example, a FLUCCS 

type of Pine Flatwoods (411) was reclassified into 15 different FNAI natural community 

types. 

FNAI Classification 

In the field, vegetation and site features were used to determine the appropriate FNAI 

natural community for a given habitat. Specifically, a combination of soils, topography, 

hydrology, vegetation, and ecological processes was used to determine the FNAI 

Category. Natural areas were always assigned an FNAI category, but in some instances 

the agreement was not perfect. In these cases, comments and caveats were noted on the 

site summaries. 

The site data mapped and collected for each of the 30 sites includes: 

Identification of the FNAI vegetative community types observed on each 

site 

Sum of the total acres of each FNAI community within the site 

Sum of the number of occurrences for each FNAI community within the 

site 

Potentially natural and developed areas (e.g., pastures, fields, roads, structures, retention 

ponds) were usually not assigned an FNAI classification since there are none that apply. 

The lack of FNAI categories for non-natural areas resulted in some FLUCCS 

classifications being retained. 

In some instances, where the potentially natural area was still largely functioning as an 

intact ecosystem (e.g., unimproved pasture), an FNAI type(s) was provided. These 

potentially natural areas often cover large areas (sometimes hundreds of acres at a single 

site) and they often replaced a wide variety of historic community types. Consequently, 

the list of FNAI types provided for a single FLUCCS type was often extensive and no 

clear dominant FNAI type may be apparent. 

15

Methods and Results 

Overview 

This project contained three main tasks: 1) To evaluate and quantify losses in native 

habitat since 1992; 2) To identify publicly-owned conservation lands within the county; 

and 3) To identify and prioritize lands for preservation through on-site inventories and 

GIS analysis. The methods and results are presented below. The first two tasks are 

presented together because of similar methodology. 

Native Habitat Lost and Preserved Between 1992 and 2002 

Summary of GIS Methods: Creation of 1992 and 2002 Land Cover GIS Layers 

There are two major GIS components to this project: 1) GIS database development; and 

2) GIS analysis, statistical calculations, and modeling for ecological decision-support. 

GIS Database Development; 

A geographic information system (GIS) database was developed. The Project Team 

collected and standardized the available GIS data from various sources, converted those 

to an ESRI shapefile format, and reprojected them into a project standard map projection 

and coordinate system. The Pandion Team met with each of the following agencies to 

obtain required data and obtain an understanding of data structure, accuracy, and other 

relevant information: 

• St. Lucie County Community Development Department 

• Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 

• South Florida Water Management District 

• Department of Environmental Protection 

Additional data sources were: 

• University of Florida – Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL) 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

• Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) 

• Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) 

Existing layers collected for analysis and mapping included: 

• County and municipal boundaries 

• 1990, 1995, and 2000 Digital Ortho Quarter Quads (Infrared Aerial Photography) 

• 1992 LandSat Thematic Mapper Imagery 

• Existing land use / land cover (LU/LC), (1994-1995 data from SFWMD) 

• Parcel boundaries (Florida Department of Revenue’s Land Use Codes) 

• Detailed soils 

• Pre-development vegetation (developed using detailed soils) 

16

• Hydrology, wetlands and uplands 

• Topography (elevation) 

• Road centerlines and railroads 

• Conservation and other public lands (existing and proposed) 

• FNAI Element Occurrences (rare & endangered plants, animals, & communities) 

• FNAI Areas of Conservation Interest (A, B, and C) 

• FNAI Potential Natural Areas (PNA) 

• FNAI Managed Areas (MA) 

• FWC Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas 

• FWC Biodiversity Hot Spots 

The GIS analyses and mapping to support this project and the final deliverable were done 

using ESRI software (ArcGIS 8.x and ArcView 3.3). The final project database was 

documented with metadata and organized into a digital map atlas on CDROM for 

distribution. 

GIS Analysis, Statistical Calculations, and Modeling for Ecological Decision-Support 

The primary need for GIS analysis in this project was for building 1992 and 2002 

landuse/landcover update coverages and change analysis of natural areas over this time 

period. 

Creation of 1992 and 2002 Land Cover Data Layers 

No maps of the 1992 KBN study exist to show the areas considered lost or preserved or 

what was considered natural in 1991. Thus, a new 1992 baseline FLUCCS layer was 

developed. A 2002 FLUCCS layer was also developed. These two layers were used to 

calculate the acreage lost over that 10-year period and to quantify the habitats on the 

existing conservation lands. 

Methodology 

1992 Natural Land Cover Map Layer Development Methodology 

1. Began with SFWMD 1994/95 Land Use/Land Cover (LU/LC) GIS Layer 

(classified using FLUCCS). 

2. Overlaid 2002 Parcel layer, and flagged polygons classified as urban or 

agricultural in the 1994/95 LU/LC layer with an improvement built between 1992 

and 1994/95. 

3. Using St. Lucie County’s 1999/2000 aerial photos, visually checked every urban 

or agricultural polygon in the 1994 LU/LC layer with an improvement built 

between 1992 and 1995, to determine whether it was disturbed between 1992 and 

1994/95. If the improvement was built on a very large parcel in a rural area, the 

17

Project Team made a judgment call on whether the improvement appeared 

substantial enough to have caused a potentially natural area in 1992 to have been 

reclassified as disturbed (or if it would have already been classified as agricultural 

or pasture, for example). 

4. Dissolved final natural area polygons on FLUCCS classification, removing 

internal lines created from overlaying the parcel map (Figure 2). 

5. Added and calculated Acreage field. 

2002 Natural Land Cover Map Layer Development Methodology 

1. Began with SFWMD 1994/95 Land Use/Land Cover (LU/LC) GIS Layer 

(classified using FLUCCS). 

2. Overlaid 2002 Parcel layer, and flagged polygons that were classified as natural in 

the 1994/95 LU/LC layer. But did not flag polygons classified as urban or 

agricultural in the 2002 parcel layer [according to the Florida Department of 

Revenue’s (FDOR’s) Land Use Classifications]. Also flagged natural polygons 

with an improvement built since 1992. 

3. Using St. Lucie County’s 1999/2000 aerial photos, visually checked every natural 

polygon (according to the 1994/95 LU/LC layer), to determine whether it was still 

natural or has been disturbed since 1994/95. Spent extra time reviewing the 

polygons flagged using the parcel data. 

4. Flagged natural polygons overlaying parcels with improvements built since 1999, 

and reclassified most of those as built. If the improvement was built on a very 

large parcel in a rural area, the Project Team made a judgment call on whether the 

improvement would have disturbed the natural community (or communities) 

enough to reclassify the polygon from natural to built. 

5. Dissolved final natural area polygons on FLUCCS classification, removing 

internal lines created from overlaying the parcel map (Figure 3). 

6. Added and calculated Acreage field. 

The acreage of the 1992 and 2002 Natural Land Cover Maps were summarized by Level 

3 FLUCCS Classification. Loss was calculated by subtracting the 2002 acreage totals by 

FLUCCS from the 1992 acreage totals by FLUCCS (Figure 4). 

18

Figure 2. St. Lucie County 1992 Natural Lands. 

19

Figure 3. St. Lucie County 2002 Natural Lands. 

20

Figure 4. St. Lucie County Natural Lands Lost Between 1992 and 2002. 

21

Discussion of Methodology 

The limitations of the above mapping methods are as follows: 

1. The FLUCCS and FDOR LU/LC classification systems were created for different 

reasons, and therefore inconsistent classification methods made an overlay 

analysis of the two difficult. The FDOR classification of a large parcel of 

improved pasture would be agricultural, but there could be many natural wetland 

polygons overlaying that one large parcel. For this reason, a visual inspection of 

each polygon was required. 

2. Regressing the 1994/95 SFWMD LU/LC to 1992 using the ‘year built’ field in the 

parcel data was problematic for the same reasons as discussed in the first 

limitation. Simply identifying parcels with a ‘year built’ between 1992 and 

1994/95 was insufficient, and a visual inspection and subsequent “judgment call” 

was necessary. 

Other data layers collected for use in this effort could not be used. Those layers and the 

reasons they could not be used are: 

1. The 1988 SFWMD LU/LC mapping methods were dramatically different from 

those used to create the 1994/95 layer. For example, large expanses of the 

western portion of the County were classified as agricultural land, while the 

1994/95 layer identified pockets of natural lands. Consequently, there was more 

natural acreage in the 1994/95 map than the 1988 map. In addition, the 1988 

classification did not use the FLUCCS categories used by the 1994/95 layer. 

2. The 1992 Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite imagery was intended as an 

additional check of 1992 natural areas (along with the parcel data). It was only 

available at a 60-meter resolution, which was much too coarse to identify any 

detail. 

The strength of this method is that it is not a sampling technique (see Comparison of 

Current Techniques to the 1992 inventory below), it is an inventory technique so it does 

not require assumptions about whether the sampled area is representative of the county. 

Also, no size limitations were imposed on the areas considered natural. However, such a 

constraint could easily be evaluated using GIS. Also, no judgments were made on the 

ecological quality or value of these natural areas. 

Comparison of Current Techniques to the 1992 Inventory 

The 1992 inventory used a sampling method, rather than a complete inventory, to 

calculate the acres of natural lands in 1986 and 1991 and the acres lost between these two 

times. According to the 1992 KBN report (page 1-5) the method was to “translate the 

GFC classification into FNAI categories according to a percentage formula based on 

1991 aerial photography interpretation and ground-truthing.” Then KBN “developed 

percent loss estimates for each natural community for the 1986-1991 period by 

comparing sets of representative sample sections on the 1986 GFC Landsat habitat map 

and the 1991 Real Estate Information Services (REDI) map aerials.” Finally, 

“calculations were completed by subtracting the loss acreages derived through this 

22

process from the natural community totals derived from the GFC data to arrive at a 

percent loss estimate.” This analysis showed that the rate of conversion of native habitats 

varied dependent upon the type of habitat from less than one percent for mangrove 

swamp to more than 40 percent for dry prairies and dome swamps. 

The limitations to such a technique include: 

1. The 1986 GFC habitat data is not an inventory but a modeled layer. The habitat 

types were estimated from the spectral characteristics of the 1986 Landsat 

Thematic Mapper satellite imagery. Only a small subset of the image pixels were 

ground-truthed statewide, and this sample may or may not be representative of the 

County. This can cause significant errors in habitat classification and subsequent 

loss calculations. 

2. The Landsat data is captured at a 30-meter resolution, which is too coarse to 

visually identify any details on the ground. 

3. KBN sampled only a portion of the entire county and extrapolated from that 

sample to the entire county. This is a good technique if the sample is truly 

representative of the entire county. However, if the sample is not representative 

(e.g., skewed) this would result in errors in the habitat classifications and in the 

subsequent loss calculations. There is insufficient information in the KBN report 

to evaluate the evenness of this technique. 

4. The small natural areas (of 1-2 acres) may not have been captured in such a 

technique due to limitations of time and data resolution (of both the Landsat 

imagery and the REDI maps). Thus the total amount of natural area is most likely 

underestimated and the amount of loss less accurate. 

For all of these reasons there are differences between the 1992 KBN report (Tables 6 and 

7) and this report in the total number of acres of natural area and the habitat loss rates. 

23

Table 6. Estimated Acreages of FNAI Natural Communities in St. Lucie County in 

1991 Compared to 1996 (1992 KBN Report, Table 2-3). 

1986 a 

Acreage 

1991 b 

Acreage 

Percent Lost 

Over 5-Year 

Period 

Uplands 

Scrub 5,541 5,064 8.6 

Xeric Hammock 555 540 2.8 

Beach Dune c 22 21 5.0 

Coastal Berm c 17 16 7.5 

Coastal Strand c 22 21 2.5 

Maritime Hammock 1,502 1,406 6.4 

Shell Mound 16 16 0.0 

Dry Prairie 23,935 13,428 43.9 

Mesic Flatwoods 8,948 7,105 20.6 

Scrubby Flatwoods 8,685 5,645 35.0 

Prairie Hammock 1,502 1,352 10.0 

Total Upland Acreage 50,745 34,613 31.8 

Wetlands 

Wet Prairie 3,916 3,536 9.7 

Wet Flatwoods 8,685 8,251 5.0 

Hydric Hammock 7,603 7,154 5.9 

Floodplain Forest 1,543 1,491 3.4 

Floodplain Swamp 1,430 1,416 1.0 

Floodplain Marsh 6,527 5,509 15.6 

Swale 2,246 2,246 0.0 

Slough 582 576 1.0 

Strand Swamp 3,329 3,296 1.0 

Bayhead (Bog) 1,047 1,037 1.0 

Depression Marsh 6,815 6,358 6.7 

Dome Swamp 594 348 41.5 

Saltmarsh (Tidal Marsh) 1,197 1,179 1.5 

Mangrove Swamp (Tidal Swamp) 3,370 3,350 0.6 

Total Wetland Acreage 48,884 45,745 6.4 

Total Natural Habitat Acreage 99,629 80,362 19.3 

a 

b 

c 

Derived from Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) Landsat data. 

Calculated from data derived from FGFWFC Landsat data multiplied by loss percentages developed by 

comparison with 1991 aerial photography. Rounded off to the nearest acre. 

Because these habitats typically occur in strips too narrow for Landsat detection, their acreages are 

underestimated. 

24

Table 7. Percent Loss of St. Lucie County Natural Communities Between 1986 and 

1991. 

Source: KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc., 1991 

Natural Community 

Number of 

Sections Sampled 

Range of 

Percent Loss 

in Sample 

Sections 

Average 

Percent Loss 

Scrub 52 0 - 50 8.6 

Xeric Hammock 48 0 - 33 2.8 

Beach Dune 8 0 - 10 5.0 

Coastal Berm 4 5 - 10 7.5 

Coastal Strand 8 0 - 5 2.5 

Maritime Hammock 10 0 - 15 6.4 

Shell Mound 2 0 - 0 0.0 

Dry Prairie 55 3 - 95 43.9 

Mesic Flatwoods 18 3 - 50 20.6 

Scrubby Flatwoods 5 25 - 75 35.0 

Prairie Hammock 36 10 - 10 10.0 

Wet Prairie 78 0 - 100 9.7 

Wet Flatwoods 8 0 - 10 5.0 

Hydric Hammock 88 0 - 75 5.9 

Floodplain Forest 5 1 - 4 3.4 

Floodplain Swamp 8 0 - 2 1.0 

Floodplain Marsh 9 5 - 100 15.6 

Swale 6 0 - 0 0.0 

Slough 36 1 - 1 1.0 

Strand Swamp 36 1 - 1 1.0 

Bayhead (Bog) 36 1 - 1 1.0 

Depression Marsh 45 5 - 80 6.7 

Dome Swamp 72 33 - 50 41.5 

Saltmarsh (Tidal Marsh) 8 0 - 3 1.5 

Mangrove Swamp (Tidal Swamp) 10 0 - 1 0.6 

25

Inventory of Existing Native Upland and Wetland Communities 

Quantitative Assessment of the Areas of Existing Native and Wetland Communities in the 

County and the Amount of Loss of Habitat Since 1992 

There are 391,700 acres within the entire county and 93,385 acres are potentially natural 

lands in 2002. Thus about 23% of the county is potentially natural in 2002. 

Methods 

Using aerial and GIS information gathered and built in Task 1 the loss of native habitats 

was identified and quantified. The natural areas lost were the difference between the 

created 2002 and 1992 layers (Table 8). The definition of loss was: any natural areas in 

1992 (according to SFWMD classification methods) converted to a predominantly urban 

or agricultural use in 2002. Areas that were already non-natural in 1992 (i.e., intensive 

agriculture or urban) and simply changed to a different non-natural use (residential, 

commercial, etc.) were not considered lost. No judgments were made as to the ecological 

values of the natural areas in 1992 or 2002. 

Matrix illustrating parameters for Loss vs. No Loss scenarios 

1992 Natural 1992 Non-Natural 

2002 Natural No loss No Loss 

2002 Non-Natural Loss No loss 

Results and Discussion 

In 1992 there were 97,254 acres of potentially natural areas and in 2002 there are 93,385 

aces of potentially natural area for a loss of 3,052 acres (7%) over 10 years. The total 

loss and rate of loss may be lower than might be expected, due in part to the definition of 

loss. 

However, the loss of habitat is not simply a matter of numbers of acres lost. It is a more 

complex interaction of patch size and shape, connectivity and proximity to other natural 

areas, and the type, quality, and function of the natural communities. It is well 

established that smaller areas and isolated patches have lower resiliency and species 

diversity. 

There are exceptions to the concept that bigger and more connected and more diverse is 

better. For example, there are some community types that occur as small patches within 

a larger mosaic (i.e., Dome Swamps in the Mesic Flatwoods, Scrub on ridge top, 

Maritime Hammock) and there are species that occur in only very restricted ranges such 

that all patches of any size are valuable (e.g., Lakela’s mint). 

26

Table 8. Acres Lost in Natural Areas Between 1992 and 2002 by FLUCCS Type. 

Number 

Polygons 

293 

141 

197 

328 

FLUCCS 

Code 

FLUCCS Name 

Acres in 

1992 

Acres in 

2002 

Acres Lost 

between 1992 

and 2002 

Percent Lost 

between 1992 

and 2002 

310 Herbaceous 2,223 2,098 321 Palmetto Prairie 322 Coastal Scrub 125 6% 

1,380 1,241 139 10% 

498 481 16 3% 

329 Other Shrub and Brush 1,700 1,418 282 17% 

94 330 Mixed Rangeland 2,165 1,924 241 11% 

5,297 411 Pine Flatwoods 20,275 18,986 1,289 6% 

127 4119 Pine Flatwoods - Melaleuca infested 995 989 6 1% 

11 412 Longleaf Pine-Xeric Oak 664 664 0 0% 

561 413 Sand Pine 2,176 2,099 77 4% 

7 414 Pine-Mesic Oak 113 113 0 0% 

1 419 Other Pines 6 6 0 0% 

1,410 422 Brazilian Pepper 4,586 4,138 448 10% 

60 424 Melaleuca 291 290 1 0% 

952 425 Temperate Hardwoods 3,768 3,636 132 4% 

328 426 Tropical Hardwoods 1,404 1,329 75 5% 

43 427 Live Oak 323 315 9 3% 

12 428 Cabbage Palm 86 86 0 0% 

51 432 Sand Live Oak 128 126 2 1% 

482 434 Hardwoods-Conifer Mixed 2,850 2,654 197 7% 

32 437 Australian Pine 21 21 0 0% 

179 438 Mixed Hardwoods 764 751 13 2% 

3,195 510 Streams and Waterways 6,508 6,403 105 2% 

23 523 Lakes >10 and

Number 

Polygons 

49 

385 

1,318 

FLUCCS 

Code 

FLUCCS Name 

Acres in 

1992 

Acres in 

2002 

Acres Lost 

between 1992 

and 2002 

Percent Lost 

between 1992 

and 2002 

532 Reservoirs >100 and 10 and

Number 

Polygons 

FLUCCS 

Code 

FLUCCS Name 

Acres in 

1992 

104 645 Submergent Aquatic Vegetation 744 

TOTALS 97,254 

Acres in 

2002 

Acres Lost 

between 1992 

and 2002 

Percent Lost 

between 1992 

and 2002 

744 0 0% 

93,385 3,869 4% 

29

Despite these exceptions, most species and communities are more stable, diverse, and 

persistent in large, connected natural areas rather than small and isolated remnants. These 

remnants are created by the interspersion of intensive land uses with natural areas. They 

have lower ecological value and have likely lost much of the function, diversity and ability to 

sustain most populations. 

Of the 93,385 acres of natural areas estimated to be remaining in the county in 2002, 19,271 

(21%) are less than 20 acres in size and only 48,608 acres (52%) are greater than 100 acres in 

size. This indicates that nearly half of the privately held natural areas in the county are 

remnants and likely to have limited functionality and a decreased likelihood of long-term 

viability and persistence. 

Table 9. 2002 Natural Land by Polygon Acreage. 

Note that these polygons may be adjacent to conservation lands or they may be in close 

proximity to each other. 

Number of 

Polygon Size Occurrences 

(29887 total) 

Number of Acres 

(93385 total) 

Percent of total 

Natural Acres in 2002 

< 20 acres 3,539 19,272 21 

=> 20 and 100 acres 175 48,608 52 

Figure 5. 2002 Countywide Non-Public Natural Areas. 

2002 Countywide Non-Public Natural Areas 

Percentage of Occurences and Percent Area by Broad Acreage Size Class 

90.00 

80.00 

82.36 

70.00 

Percent 

60.00 

50.00 

40.00 

52.05 

Percentage of Occurences 

Percentage of Acreage 

30.00 

27.29 

20.00 

10.00 

20.64 

13.57 

0.00 

0.32 

< 20 acres 20 to 100 acres > 100 acres 

Broad Acreage Size Class 

30

Identification of Lands Preserved Since 1992 and the Acres and Types of Natural 

Communities in Each Preserve 

In 2002 there are 93,385 acres of potentially natural area in St. Lucie County and 19,417 

acres (21%) are already in public ownership or conservation easements. Thus, approximately 

5% of the county (19,417 of 391,000 acres) is in conservation ownership (including 

easements). 

Methods 

Existing natural areas (as of 2002) protected through public or private conservation 

ownership or easements were identified using a combination of the St. Lucie County 

Environmentally Sensitive Lands layer, the FNAI Managed Area layer, and the SFWMD 

Save Our Rivers layer. This provided the acreages of individual conservation areas as well 

as countywide (Table 10). 

Results and Discussion 

In 2002 there is public ownership or conservation easement on 21% of the potentially natural 

areas in the County but not all habitat types are equally protected. In comparison to what is 

still natural, some habitats are quite well protected and others are not. 

One measure of how well protected a specific habitat type is, can be done by comparing the 

amount that is available with the amount that is preserved for that habitat type. Habitat types 

that have very little acreage preserved compared to what is available would be considered 

underrepresented in public ownership. Those that have a lot of acreage preserved compared 

to what is available would be considered well represented. 

For example, in 2002 there are 18,986 acres of Flatwoods available in the County and 2,038 

acres are conserved. The 18,986 acres constitute 20% of the County’s current natural areas 

and the 2,038 acres conserved constitute 11 % of the currently conserved areas. Thus 

Flatwoods are underrepresented in County ownership by nearly 50%. 

There are 28 FLUCCS categories that are significantly underrepresented in conservation 

ownership (by 48% or more) and should be the focus of additional acquisition. The 

remaining FLUCCS categories are well represented in public ownership (Table 11). 

However, being well represented does not mean that additional acquisition in not desirable. 

Some of these well represented habitat types (i.e., Coastal Scrub, Maritime Hammock, and 

Sand Pine) are so imperiled or the species within them are so endangered that they should 

continue to be acquired. 

31

Table 10. Summary of FLUCCS Types and Acreage Present in Each Conservation 

Area. 

Only natural areas with Conservation Areas are shown 

SITE NAME FLUCCS Descriptions FLUCCS 

Code 

Total 

Acres 

Ancient Oaks Pine Flatwoods 411 0 

Temperate Hardwoods 425 26 

Hardwood Conifer Mixed 434 19 

Avalon Embayments open 541 7 

Avalon State Park Tropical Hardwoods 426 18 

Embayments open 541 45 

Mangrove Swamps 612 73 

Avalon Tract Coastal Scrub 322 2 

Tropical Hardwoods 426 17 

Bear Point Coastal Scrub 322 7 


Bear Point II Mangrove Swamps 612 40 

Blind Creek Coastal Scrub 322 30 



Blind Creek Beach Coastal Scrub 322 11 



Bluefield Mitigation Bank Pine Flatwoods 411 1 

Freshwater Marsh 641 653 

Bluefield Ranch Other shrub and Brush 329 2 

Pine Flatwoods 411 81 

Longleaf Pine-Xeric Oak 412 30 

Sand Pine 413 16 

Pine - Mesic Oak 414 7 


Streams and Waterways 510 0 

Wetland Forested Mixed 630 66 


Wet Prairies 643 61 

Crossroads Pine Flatwoods 411 0 

Mixed Hardwoods 438 0 

32


Code 

Total 

Acres 

Stream and Lake Swamps 615 49 

Cypress Creek Streams and Waterways 510 0 

Inland Ponds and Sloughs 616 13 


Dollman Tract Coastal Scrub 322 17 




FPL Conservation 

Easement Coastal Scrub 322 78 

Reservoirs 500 acres 531 26 

Wetland Forested Mixed 630 23 

Impoundment 14B Tropical Hardwoods 426 8 


Impoundment 5 Embayments open 541 2 


Indrio Blueway Buffer Tropical Hardwoods 426 105 


Indrio/North Savannas Pine Flatwoods 411 198 


Sand Live Oak 432 0 


Reservoirs < 10 acres 533 28 


33


Code 

Total 

Acres 

Freshwater Marshes – cattail 6412 4 

Jack Island Embayments open 541 87 


John Brooks Park Coastal Scrub 322 106 



Kings Island Mangrove Swamps 612 56 

Middle Cove Coastal Scrub 322 0 



Middle Cove South Mangrove Swamps 612 2 

NFSLR Herbaceous 310 10 






Lakes < 10 acres 524 1 

Reservoirs 10 - 100 acres 534 16 




Wet Prairies with Pine 6439 225 

NFSLR-Phase2 Pine Flatwoods 411 0 



North Fork Audubon 

Conservation Lands Temperate Hardwoods 425 8 


North Savannas Pine Flatwoods 411 5 


Oak Hammock Pine Flatwoods 411 39 


Ocean Bay Coastal Scrub 322 24 


34


Code 

Total 

Acres 



Paleo Hammock Temperate Hardwoods 425 80 

Pepper Park Coastal Scrub 322 10 



Pepper Park Addition Embayments open 541 67 


Platt's Creek Mitigation 

Site Stream and Lake Swamps 615 6 

Project 10B Embayments open 541 0 


Queens Island Tropical Hardwoods 426 174 




River Watch POA 

Easement Embayments open 541 0 


Riverbend Pine Flatwoods 411 126 

Reservoirs 100-500 acres 532 116 





Savannas Herbaceous 310 0 


Savannas Buffer Preserve Herbaceous 310 2 





Savannas Reserve Coastal Scrub 322 1 



35


Code 

Total 

Acres 



Embayments not open 542 194 





Emergent Aquatic Vegetation 644 25 

Submergent Aquatic Vegetation 645 116 


Savannas State Reserve Herbaceous 310 0 

Palmetto Prairies 321 56 





Embayments not open 542 30 



Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 617 2 



Emergent Aquatic Vegetation 644 1 



South Savannas Sand Pine 413 41 




Spruce Bluff Pine Flatwoods 411 42 




St Lucie Pinelands Pine Flatwoods 411 0 

Reservoirs 100-500 acres 532 15 

36


Code 

Total 

Acres 

Mixed Wetland Hardwoods 617 0 



Ten Mile Creek 

Attenuation Facility Stream and Lake Swamps 615 82 


Walton Scrub Homestead Sand Pine 413 17 

37

Table 11. Comparison of the Amount of Each FLUCCS Type Conserved as Compared to All Natural Lands Available in 

2002. 

Bold negative numbers indicate that a FLUCCS is underrepresented in public ownership. 

FLUCCS 

Number 

FLUCCS Description 

Acres 

Available for 

Natural 

Lands 

Percent 

of 

Available 

Natural 

Lands 

Acres 

Conserved 

Percent of 

Conserved 

Lands 

Percent of 

Representation in 

Conserved Lands as 

Compared to Available 

Natural Lands 

310 Herbaceous 2,098 2.2 94 0.5 -79 

321 Palmetto Prairies 1,241 1.3 0 0.0 -100 

322 Coastal Scrub 481 0.5 235 1.2 135 

329 Other Shrub and Brush 1,418 1.5 45 0.2 -85 

330 Mixed Rangeland 1,924 2.1 0.0 -100 

411 Pine Flatwoods 18,986 20.3 2038 10.5 -48 

Pine Flatwoods - melaleuca 

infested 989 1.1 37 0.2 -82 

412 Longleaf Pine - Xeric Oak 664 0.7 301 1.5 118 

4119 

413 Sand Pine 2,099 2.2 799 4.1 83 

414 Pine-Mesic Oak 113 0.1 7 0.0 -71 

419 Other Pine 6 0.0 0.0 -100 

422 Brazilian Pepper 4,138 4.4 220 1.1 -74 

424 Melaleuca 290 0.3 0.0 -100 

425 Temperate Hardwoods 3,636 3.9 233 1.2 -69 

426 Tropical Hardwoods 1,329 1.4 592 3.0 114 

427 Live Oak 315 0.3 1 0.0 -98 

428 Cabbage Palm 86 0.1 0.0 -100 

432 Sand Live Oak 126 0.1 3 0.0 -87 

434 Hardwoods - Conifer 2,654 2.8 54 0.3 -90 

38

FLUCCS 

Number 


Acres 

Available for 

Natural 

Lands 

Percent 

of 

Available 

Natural 

Lands 

Acres 

Conserved 

Percent of 

Conserved 

Lands 

Percent of 




Natural Lands 

Mixed 

437 Australian Pine 21 0.0 5 0.0 17 

438 Mixed Hardwoods 751 0.8 0.0 -100 

510 Streams and Waterways 6,403 6.9 208 1.1 -84 

523 Lake 10 - 100 ac 100 0.1 0.0 -100 

524 Lakes 500 ac 1,633 1.7 430 2.2 27 

532 Reservoir 100-500 ac 3,062 3.3 136 0.7 -79 

533 Reservoirs 10 - 100 ac 2,901 3.1 73 0.4 -88 

534 Reservoirs

FLUCCS 

Number 


Acres 

Available for 

Natural 

Lands 

Percent 

of 

Available 

Natural 

Lands 

Acres 

Conserved 

Percent of 

Conserved 

Lands 

Percent of 




Natural Lands 

Cypress - pine - cabbage 

palm 346 0.4 0.0 -100 

624 

630 Wetland Forested Mixed 884 0.9 393 2.0 114 

641 Freshwater Marshes 7,243 7.8 1586 8.2 5 

6411 

Freshwater Marshes 

sawgrass 244 0.3 3 0.0 -94 

6412 Freshwater Marshes cattail 594 0.6 60 0.3 -52 

642 Saltwater Marshes 1 0.0 0.0 -100 

643 Wet Prairies 6,025 6.5 449 2.3 -64 

6439 Wet Prairies with pine 3,525 3.8 1750 9.0 139 

Emergent aquatic 

644 vegetation 26 0.0 26 0.1 381 

645 Submergent aquatic 

vegetation 744 0.8 667 3.4 332 

40

Site Data Summaries 

Overview 

This county-wide native habitat inventory will be used to assist the County’s Land 


via the Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) Program. This series of tasks consisted 

of collecting and reviewing existing data sources, identifying potential sites, requesting 

access permission, developing field data, conducting the field inventory, and data 

management and analysis. 

Collect Existing Inventories 

GIS and non-GIS ecological resource information for St. Lucie County and the Treasure 

Coast region was identified and collected. The information sources were accessed in 

several ways including: 

• Review of County’s files including GIS data and reports 

• Review of SFWMD, FWC and FNAI data and files 

• Discussions with the Steering Committee 

• Review of the gray and peer-reviewed literature 

The purpose of identifying and reviewing existing data sources was to create an 

understanding of the existing natural resources previously identified within St. Lucie 

County. The Bibliography provides a list of sources and databases used in this study. 

Identify Potential Sites for Surveying and Recommendations for Site Selection 

The quantitative assessment of the acres of natural area lost and conserved indicated there 

were 93,385 acres of potential natural area within the county. From this all existing 

public lands were excluded. Then an initial subset was selected, it included all areas 

designated as Areas of Conservation Interest or Potential Natural Areas by FNAI (51 

sites and 44,031 acres) Figure 6. The list of potential sites was further reduced to 35 sites 

with the assistance of the Steering Committee and their knowledge of areas that had been 

developed since the 2000 aerial photography, were in the process of being developed, or 

likely to be developed in the near future. 

Requesting Landowner Permission 

Based on parcel data, the owners of the 35 sites were identified. A letter describing the 

purpose of the study and requesting site access to conduct the survey was sent to all 2,830 

landowners within these 35 sites (Appendix H). Property owners were asked to respond 

if site access was not granted. Responses from the landowners were recorded. Those 

parcels on which landowner permission was denied were identified as such in the GIS 

shapefiles that were used for the ground inventories. This prevented accidental trespass 

by the field team. On some sites no ground access was permitted. On others there was a 

41

mixed landowner response. Ultimately 30 sites (40,142 acres) were inventoried, four by 

helicopter (31,499 acres) and 26 on the ground (8,643 acres) (Figure 7). 

Figure 6. Florida Natural Area Inventory’s Areas of Conservation Interest as the 

Initial 51 Sites Considered for Inventory. 

* 

Legend 

FNAI ACI - A 

FNAI ACI - B 

FNAI ACI - C 

42

Figure 7. Locations of Inventoried Sites 

3 

24 25 

26 

27 

28 

30 

31 

32 

51 

34 

41 

4 

19 

20 

42 

43 

7 

18 

17 

16 

44 

* 

15 

14 

48 

12 

13 

9 

11 

50 

43

Developing Field Data Collection Materials 

For each site a series of ArcPad GIS data layers was created to be utilized by the field 

personnel during the field inventory. The data layers were site boundaries, FLUCCS 

polygons, landowner permission, aerial photography, and roads. There was also a custom 

built data sheet that was used to collect the field data directly into the computer. These 

were loaded onto a field-hardened laptop computer that was GPS capable. 

Field Data Collection 

Prior to beginning the field verification phase, field biologists reviewed the information 

on site characteristics, the field data collection requirements, and the criteria for assessing 

natural community quality. In addition, field biologists reviewed the ecological content 

for each site using the preliminary GIS maps (e.g., FLUCSS classification, preliminary 

FNAI classification, known rare species occurrences, and aerial photography) on the field 

computer. 

The field personnel used these data layers to locate the site, orient on the site, avoid areas 

in which ground access was not permitted, and collect the tabular and spatial data directly 

on the laptop. Thus, for each site new data layers were created that showed the 

delineation and classification of each of the FNAI natural communities on sites, the GPS 

location of any rare and/or exotic species. The tabular data that supports this spatial data 

was collected simultaneously and linked to the spatial. Thus the natural community 

quality components, key features, management recommendations and the like could be 

collected for each polygon as needed. 

The field team conducted detailed surveys of the vegetative community types at the 30 

sites. The purpose of the field surveys was to classify and qualitatively assess the type 

and condition of natural vegetative communities. Vegetative communities were 

classified according to FNAI classification (FNAI 1990) and assessed according to 5 

ecological criteria (see Table 5) 

Site surveys occurred from June to August 2003. Survey time on a given site ranged 

from a few hours to several days depending upon the acreage of the site and its 

complexity. The rare species lists are comprehensive, but should not be considered 

exhaustive due to the single season of sampling and the field time constraints. 

Additionally, the information presented should be viewed as a snapshot describing that 

natural community at one-point-in-time. Natural communities are dynamic and are 

affected by long and short-term climactic changes (i.e., drought), natural processes (e.g., 

fire), and time. As a consequence of natural succession the plants and animals present 

within natural community may shift over time. 

The following information was collected and for each site. 

• Site Rank 

• Site Size 


44


• Ecological Score by Natural Community 





• Hydrology 






• Notes 





For sites where ground access was not possible (sites 4, 9, 43, and 44) a helicopter survey 

of the site was conducted by St. Lucie County staff. 

Field Data Management and Analysis 

This data was downloaded from the field laptop to a desktop computer and reviewed for 

accuracy, consistency, and errors. The data was then analyzed in ArcGIS 8.x to generate 

the overall ecological values and the maps. 

Each site was ranked as an A, B, or C site based on its overall ecological value. The 

maximum possible value was 1.0. The higher the value the higher the ecological quality 

of the site. Those sites scoring above 0.5 were considered potential A sites. 

The Overall Ecological Value is the sum of the rarity, connectivity, and completeness 

scores weighted by area, then indexed by area, and finally compared to the total possible 

value. Table 12 below demonstrates how these calculations were done. In this example 

the site has on overall ecological value of 0.54. 

45

Table 12. Example of Calculation of Overall Ecological Value for a single site 

Raw Scores Scores Weighted by Area 

Indexed 

by Area 

Sum of 

Index 

Maximum 

Possible 

Score 

Overall 

Ecological Value 

46 

Natural 

Community 

Rarity 

Connectivity 

Completeness 

Acres 

R*Acres 

Conn*Acres 

Comp*Acres 

Sum of 

RCC*Acres 

Avg RCC 

(e.g. 159/(24*3)) 

Wet Prairie - 1 2 3 2 10 20 30 20 70 

Wet Prairie – 2 2 3 2 5 10 15 10 35 

Wet Prairie – 3 3 1 2 7 21 7 14 42 

Wet Prairie – 4 3 1 2 2 6 2 4 12 

24 159 2.2 5 

Mesic Flatwoods - 1 4 4 3 2 8 8 6 22 

Mesic Flatwoods – 2 4 4 3 5 20 20 15 55 

Mesic Flatwoods – 3 4 2 4 7 28 14 28 70 

Mesic Flatwoods - 4 2 3 4 20 40 60 80 180 

34 327 3.2 5 

5.4 10 0.54

“Edge is the place where plant communities meet or where successional stages or 

vegetative conditions within plant communities come together” (Thomas 1979). The 

edge is attractive to generalist species but most rare species are habitat specialists and are 

attracted to a narrow habitat, such as interior forest. Edges increase access to core 

habitats for feral animals, invasive exotic species, and human-related activities (e.g., offroad 

vehicles). Thus a high percentage of edge is generally undesirable in natural areas. 

The edge calculation provided makes two assumptions. First, that the entire perimeter of 

a site is non-natural. Second, that the effect of the edge extends 230 feet interiorly. Edge 

extends interiorly 2-3 times the canopy height of the tallest vegetation at maturity (Harris 

1984). The south Florida slash pine is 115 feet tall at maturity thus twice that height is 

230 feet. The south Florida slash pine was chosen because it is a common element in 

many of the forest ecosystems. In some ecosystems (e.g., prairies and marshes) this will 

exaggerate the amount of edge. 

The data collected and the results of these analyzes are summarized in the Site Data 

Summaries and Ranks section. 

Conversion of FLUCCS to FNAI 

Site Inventories and Reclassification 

The 30 sites (40,142 acres) that were selected for this project were chosen based on their 

potentially high quality natural areas. Each site was inventoried and all natural areas 

were mapped and reclassified into FNAI Natural Communities (10.2 percent of the 

county was sampled (40,142 of 391,700 acres)). Four sites (sites 4, 9, 43, and 44) were 

inventoried via helicopter. 

Intersection with FLUCCS 

The FNAI Natural Community maps for all the sites were intersected with the 1995 

FLUCCS coverage for the these sites, using ArcGIS 8.3. This generated a map and table 

that had both the FLUCCS and the FNAI classification for all sites (4371 polygons). 

From this table, areas that are developed were excluded from further analysis since no 

FNAI Natural Community type would apply. The data was then sorted and summarized 

by FLUCCS type (37 types). Then for each of these 37 FLUCCS types the FNAI 

classification was sorted and summarized. Then the data was divided into FLUCCS 

categories that were potentially natural and FLUCCS categories that were natural (Tables 

13 and 14). 

The Natural and Potentially Natural FLUCCS designations are grouped separately 

because of their different relationship between FLUCCS and FNAI Types. The 

boundaries of Potentially Natural FLUCCS type are often determined by human 

47

influences rather than natural influences. That is, they are often established over wide 

areas and across many historic habitat types. For example, a single pasture may be 

established in an area that once contained scrub on the deep sandy hill tops then graded 

into scrubby flatwoods on the downslope then transitioning to mesic flatwoods on the 

slightly richer flats and then graded to hardwood hammock with the richer soils and 

finally to bottomland forest as it approaches the creek. In this example the single pasture 

would be reclassified into 5 FNAI community types that range from high dry uplands to 

riverine associated bottomlands. This results in a less clear relationship between the 

FLUCCS to FNAI classifications. 

For example, there are 14 potentially natural FLUCCS types (Table 13). Twelve of these 

have a one-to-many relationship with the FNAI classification. Of these 12, only in 2 

cases (16.7%) does a single FNAI type account for 70% or more of that FLUCCS type. 

In other words, there is a predominate FNAI type for only 2 FLUCCS types. 

Contrast this to the natural FLUCCS types (Table 14) of which there are 23 FLUCCS 

types. Sixteen have a one-to-many relationship, and for 11 (68.8%) of these there is a 

clearly predominate FNAI type. This tighter relationship is due to the fact that, although 

the natural communities in FLUCCS are broader than in FNAI, they are still well-defined 

and delineated along natural boundaries and thus strong corollaries can be drawn between 

the two classification systems. Also, for these natural areas, even though several FNAI 

types may be listed for a single FLUCCS type, they are often closely related FNAI types 

(i.e., those that would naturally co-occur or intergrade into each other) or those that are 

generally similar in appearance but differ in the details (e.g., depression marsh and basin 

marsh). 

For each of the 37 FLUCCS types (Tables 13 and 14), a proportionality relationship was 

developed with the FNAI types. For each FLUCCS type, the areal amount (acreage) 

assigned to each FNAI type was calculated. For example, 913 acres of FLUCCS type 

Sand Pine (413) were sampled. Seventy-eight (78) percent of the time (719 of 913 acres) 

the field teams classified it as FNAI type Scrub and the other 22 percent of the time as 

another FNAI type (Table 14). Thus there is a one-to-many relationship between the 

FLUCCS and the FNAI types and that relationship is also hierarchical (i.e., FNAI type 

Scrub is a more likely substitute than Mesic Flatwoods for this FLUCCS type). The 

hierarchical relationship is represented by the percentages. 

Discussion 

As stated above, FLUCCS natural area types tend to be broad whereas FNAI types tend 

to be more narrowly defined, thus there is not a one to one relationship between FLUCCS 

and FNAI types. Instead, often a single FLUCCS type may be assigned many FNAI 

Natural Community types (a one to many relationship). However, there are often strong 

relationships. For example, Longleaf Pine-Xeric Oak was reclassified to Scrub 96% of 

the time. 

48

It is important to recognize that this proportionality relation indicates the likelihood of 

which natural communities may be within the county and where they may reside. Actual 

occurrences of natural communities should be verified in the field. Although an attempt 

was made to have a representative field sample of all community types within the county, 

it should be noted that some FNAI Natural Community types that are likely to occur 

within the county are not depicted on this natural community map. This is a result of the 

fact that they were not sampled during the survey. 

Further discussion on methods, limitations, and artifacts, and how they impacted this 

project can be found in Appendix H. 


FLUCCS Categories. 

Highlighted cells indicate a contribution greater than twenty percent. 

FLUCCS FLUCCS Description 

211 

212 

Sum of 

acres 

Percent of 

acres 

FNAI Assigned 

Agriculture - Improved 

Pasture MF/Dry Prairie 222.14 1.98 

MF/Mesic Flatwoods 1,930.38 17.23 

WF/Hydric Hammock 4.23 0.04 

WF/Wet Flatwoods 0.24 0.00 

WF/Wet Prairie 191.37 1.71 

NA - Agriculture 1,417.25 12.65 

NA - Pasture 7,437.32 66.39 

TOTAL ACRES 11,202.93 

Agriculture - Unimproved 

Pasture BW/Basin Marsh 0.68 0.02 

BW/Basin Swamp 17.05 0.49 

BW/Depression Marsh 33.76 0.97 

MF/Mesic Flatwoods 864.10 24.78 




NA - Unimproved 

Pasture 121.50 3.48 

NA - Pasture 2,016.62 57.83 


49


213 

Sum of 

acres 

Percent of 

acres 

FNAI Assigned 

Agriculture - Woodland 

Pasture MF/Mesic Flatwoods 22.71 100.00 

TOTAL ACRES 22.71 

310 Herbaceous NA - Agriculture 0.03 100.00 


321 Palmetto Prairies BW/Depression Marsh 5.39 0.92 

MF/Dry Prairie 22.24 3.81 


MF/Scrubby Flatwoods 1.68 0.29 




NA - Pasture 72.68 12.46 


329 Other Shrub and Brush BW/Depression Marsh 13.21 2.30 






330 Mixed Rangeland MF/Mesic Flatwoods 595.56 40.37 

422 Brazilian Pepper 




NA - Pasture 346.28 23.48 

NA - Pasture 72.00 4.88 


CU/Maritime 

Hammock 1.42 0.31 

FW/Bottomland Forest 0.32 0.07 

50


FNAI Assigned 

Sum of 

acres 

Percent of 

acres 


MF/Prairie Hammock 64.88 14.33 




XU/Scrub 0.09 0.02 

NA - Agriculture 104.95 23.19 

NA - Pasture 31.56 6.97 


424 Melaleuca MF/Mesic Flatwoods 5.48 2.40 

SW/Baygall 114.31 50.14 



523 Lakes >10 and


FNAI Assigned 

Sum of 

acres 

Percent of 

acres 


6412 Freshwater Marshes –Cattail BW/Basin Marsh 56.04 24.69 







Categories. 


FLUCCS FLUCCS Description FNAI Assigned 

Sum of 

Acres 

Percent 

of Acres 

411 Pine Flatwoods BW/Basin Marsh 4.13 0.10 


BW/Depression 

Marsh 13.57 0.33 

FW/Bottomland 

Forest 71.64 1.73 

L/Flatwoods Lake 0.43 0.01 



MF/Prairie 

Hammock 36.48 0.88 

MF/Scrubby 

Flatwoods 51.02 1.23 

SW/Baygall 32.16 0.78 

WF/Hydric 

Hammock 46.46 1.12 

WF/Wet Flatwoods 1,018.36 24.62 


XU/Scrub 10.45 0.25 

XU/Xeric Hammock 25.24 0.61 


NA - Pasture 17.16 0.41 


412 Longleaf Pine - Xeric MF/Scrubby 12.26 3.46 

52


Oak 

Sum of 

Acres 

Percent 

of Acres 

FNAI Assigned 

Flatwoods 

XU/Scrub 342.07 96.54 


413 Sand Pine CU/Coastal Strand 9.95 1.09 

CU/Maritime 

Hammock 1.12 0.12 

FW/Bottomland 

Forest 0.26 0.03 

FW/Floodplain 

Marsh 0.10 0.01 



XU/Scrub 719.34 78.71 


NA - Pasture 41.29 4.52 


414 Pine-Mesic Oak 

425 Temperate Hardwoods 

427 Live Oak 

428 Cabbage Palm 

WF/Hydric 

Hammock 91.70 100.00 


BW/Depression 

Marsh 2.88 0.28 

FW/Bottomland 

Forest 16.96 1.64 

FW/Floodplain 

Forest 17.95 1.74 

MF/Prairie 

Hammock 23.37 2.26 

R/Blackwater Stream 4.77 0.46 

WF/Hydric 

Hammock 954.17 92.36 


NA - Pasture 6.29 0.61 


WF/Hydric 

Hammock 85.07 100.00 


WF/Hydric 

Hammock 14.70 100.00 


432 Sand Live Oak BW/Basin Marsh 2.18 17.48 

MF/Scrubby 


XU/Scrub 6.78 54.33 

53


Sum of 

Acres 

Percent 

of Acres 


Hardwoods-Conifer 

434 Mixed BW/Basin Swamp 47.41 6.00 

BW/Depression 

Marsh 8.02 1.01 

FW/Bottomland 

Forest 108.27 13.71 


SW/Baygall 121.16 15.34 

WF/Hydric 

Hammock 349.70 44.27 


XU/Scrub 9.94 1.26 


510 Streams and Waterways MF/Mesic Flatwoods 21.84 100.00 


611 Bay Swamps SW/Baygall 26.28 100.00 

615 

617 

Stream and Lake Swamps 

(Bottomland) 

Mixed Wetlands 

Hardwoods 


FW/Floodplain 

Forest 43.89 13.73 


SW/Baygall 264.36 82.71 

WF/Hydric 

Hammock 6.19 1.94 

NA -Pasture 0.06 0.02 


BW/Depression 

Marsh 14.48 3.42 

SW/Baygall 328.44 77.57 

WF/Hydric 

Hammock 17.33 4.09 



621 Cypress BW/Basin Swamp 1,100.42 80.16 

SW/Baygall 120.85 8.80 



624 

Cypress-Pine-Cabbage 

Palm BW/Basin Swamp 345.64 100.00 


630 Wetland Forested Mixed 

WF/Hydric 

Hammock 6.09 5.56 


54


Sum of 

Acres 

Percent 

of Acres 


641 Freshwater Marshes BW/Basin Marsh 53.89 2.31 


BW/Depression 

Marsh 1,928.35 82.80 



WF/Hydric 

Hammock 4.44 0.19 



NA - Pasture 17.72 0.76 

NA - Pasture 39.45 1.69 


643 Wet Prairies BW/Basin Marsh 11.42 0.55 


BW/Depression 

Marsh 319.96 15.34 




WF/Hydric 

Hammock 27.98 1.34 


WF/Wet Prairie 1,509.74 72.38 


NA - Pasture 79.26 3.80 


6171 

6172 

6219 

Mixed Wetland 

Hardwoods – Willows 

BW/Depression 

Marsh 5.28 100.00 


Mixed Wetland 

Hardwoods – Mixed 

Shrubs BW/Basin Marsh 1.40 1.71 


BW/Depression 

Marsh 56.31 68.78 




Cypress with Wet 

Prairies 

BW/Depression 

Marsh 3.60 6.52 


55


Sum of 

Acres 

Percent 

of Acres 


Freshwater Marshes - 

6411 Sawgrass BW/Basin Marsh 32.05 21.95 

BW/Depression 

Marsh 111.68 76.48 



6439 Wet Prairies with Pine BW/Basin Marsh 3.83 2.09 


BW/Depression 

Marsh 17.38 9.46 


MF/Scrubby 



NA - Pasture 0.15 0.08 


56

Site Data Summaries and Ranks 

A Ranked Sites 

Site Number: 4 

Site Rank: A Total Acreage: 28,789 

Edge Acreage: NA Percent Core to Edge: NA 

Table 1. Ecological Criteria Scores by Natural Community Type. This is an areaweighted 

average value score for each natural community present on site. Numbers in 

bold have significant above average resource value (>3.0). Natural Communities in bold 

have at least two of the content resource values (rarity, connectivity, and completeness) 

above average (>3.0). Overall Ecological Value = 0.67 

FNAI Natural 

Community Rarity Connectivity Completeness Vulnerability Manageability 

BW / Basin 

Swamp 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

BW / 

Depression 

Marsh 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

MF / Dry 

Prairie 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

MF / Prairie 

Hammock 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

MF / Scrubby 

Flatwoods 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

SW / Baygall 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

WF / Hydric 

Hammock 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

WF / Wet 

Flatwoods 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

WF / Wet 

Prairie 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

XU / Scrub 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

Unassigned 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Key Features – This is a large tract that contains hundreds of acres of the stateimperiled 

Scrub and Wet Prairie natural communities. These rare communities often 

contain equally rare species such as Large-flowered rosemary, nodding pinweed, Florida 

scrub jays, Florida mice, Florida scrub lizards, Sherman’s Fox Squirrel, snowy orchid, 

57

southeastern kestrel, Florida sandhill crane, and pygmy rattlesnake. The tract is large 

enough to support viable populations of all but the most ranging Florida wildlife species. 

Importance – This site forms an important part of the Florida ecological 

greenways network. This large contiguous block of natural and semi natural habitat is 

unique within the county and could provide both sufficient habitat for many native plants 

and animals as well as serving as a corridor to large conservation lands just outside the 

county (Allapattah Flats and Fort Drum Marsh) 

Connectivity – Within 500 feet of existing conservation lands. 

Proximity to Urban Areas – Greater than a half mile from an urban center. 

Proximity to primary and secondary roads – Within 500 feet of a major roadway. 

Table 2. Community Types present on site and their rankings. 

FNAI Natural Community Acreage FNAI Rank Global FNAI Rank State 

BW / Basin Swamp 3457.8 G4? S3 

BW / Depression Marsh 2233.6 G4? S3 

MF / Dry Prairie 22.2 G2 S2 

MF / Mesic Flatwoods 3975.7 G? S4 

MF / Prairie Hammock 3972.0 G4 S3 

MF / Scrubby Flatwoods 55.8 G3 S3 

SW / Baygall 954.0 G4 S4 

WF / Hydric Hammock 2206.1 G4 S4 

WF / Wet Flatwoods 1811.4 G4 S4 

WF / Wet Prairie 1638.8 G3 S2 

XU / Scrub 602.2 G2 S2 

Unassigned 289.6 

Ownership/Notes – Permission for ground access was not available for this site 

thus a helicopter survey was conducted. The site summary provided here is limited in 

nature due to the limitations of such a survey method. There are 32 landowners. The 

largest landowners are Adams Ranch (10377 acres), Vavrus (5783 acres), Ru-Mar Inc. 

(3868 acres), Rodriguez (3700 acres), and Wescott Groves (1050 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – This site is primarily used for 

cattle grazing and is expected to have a reduced and altered ground cover flora due to 

selective grazing and pasture management practices. Restoration of the ground cover 

could prove difficult due to the large areas impacted, the long duration of impact, and the 

limited amount of surrounding native vegetation to serve as source material. 

58

Site 4 Legend 

Legend 

BW/Basin Swamp 

BW/Depression Marsh 

MF/Dry Prairie 

MF/Mesic Flatwoods 

MF/Prairie Hammock 

MF/Scrubby Flatwoods 

NA - Canal and Road 

NA - Developed 

NA - Grove 

NA - Pasture 

SW/Baygall 

WF/Hydric Hammock 

WF/Wet Flatwoods 

WF/Wet Prairie 

XU/Scrub 

unassigned 

59

Site 4N. FNAI Natural Communities 

Location Map 

* 

60

Site 4C. FNAI Natural Communities 

Location Map 

* 

61

Site 4S. FNAI Natural Communities 

Location Map 

* 

62


Site Rank: A Total Acreage: 2097 

Edge Acreage: 457 Percent Core to Edge: 22 






FNAI Natural 


BW / 

Depression 

Marsh 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

MF / Scrubby 

Flatwoods 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

SW / Baygall 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

WF / Wet 

Flatwoods 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

XU / Scrub 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

NA - 

agriculture 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

NA - 

agriculture - 

pasture 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

Importance – This site forms an important part of the Florida ecological 

greenways network. This large contiguous block of natural and semi natural habitat is 

unique within the county and could provide both sufficient habitat for many native plants 

and animals as well as serving as a corridor top large conservation lands just outside the 

county. 

Connectivity – Greater than a half mile from existing conservation lands. 


Proximity to primary and secondary roads – Greater than a half mile from a 

major roadway. 

64






SW / Baygall 119.7 G4 S4 


XU / Scrub 84.8 G2 S2 

NA - agriculture 56.1 

NA - agriculture - pasture 1071.5 




largest landowner is Fanjul (1070 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – This site is primarily used for 

cattle grazing and is expected to have a reduced and altered ground cover flora due to 

selective grazing and pasture management practices. Restoration of the ground cover 

could prove difficult due to the large areas impacted, the long duration of impact, and the 

limited amount of surrounding native vegetation to serve as source material. 

65

Site 9. FNAI Natural Communities 

Location Map 

* 

Legend 




NA - agriculture 

NA - agriculture - pasture 

SW/Baygall 


XU/Scrub 

66



Edge Acreage: 180 Percent Core to Edge:38.5 






FNAI Natural 


BW / Basin 

Marsh 2.0 3.9 2.8 2.0 3.2 

MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 1.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 

MF / Scrubby 

Flatwoods 1.4 3.6 1.6 2.8 3.2 

WF / Wet 

Flatwoods 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.7 

WF / Wet 

Prairie 2.8 3.1 3.2 1.6 1.9 

XU / Scrub 1.1 4.0 2.5 4.0 3.9 

XU / Xeric 

Hammock 2.9 4.0 2.9 3.8 4.0 

NA - developed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Key Features – This site is incredibly heterogeneous and diverse, with several 

good quality plant communities, including a large tract of Mesic Flatwoods that grade 

into Wet Flatwoods, Wet Prairie, Depression Marsh, and Basin Marsh. There is also a 

large Basin Marsh. The eastern edge is fringed with Scrub and Xeric Hammock, which 

contain at least three rare species: scrub lizards, Conradina grandiflora, and Lechea 

cernua. 

Importance – This area is noteworthy as a large natural area, probably still with 

ecosystem-level function, especially as a wetland. The large Basin Marsh is especially 

nice. Even though rare species were only documented from the Scrub (and firesuppressed 

Xeric Hammock), some of the communities are very good quality (the rest are 

still mostly decent) and it is possible that detailed seasonal inventories would find that 

there are a few species here that are not common in the region. 



68


Hydrology – The hydrology has been altered fairly extensively overall, but there 

are still many large portions with functional water flow. There are major paved highways 

and a whole network of developed dirt roads (often with small adjacent borrow canals – 

the soil was used to make the roads), all of which likely fragment the hydrological 

function. Still, the communities are relatively good condition. 

Table 2. Community Types present on site and their rankings 


BW / Basin Marsh 96.723 G? S4? 





XU / Scrub 22.185 G2 S2 

XU / Xeric Hammock 27.682 G3 S3 

NA - developed 2.726 

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – The development of roads fragmenting the 

area has probably been the greatest disturbance. Off road vehicles have also created a 

whole network of trails in most areas, but with the exception of one area near the 

northwest corner, the damage has been fairly minimal. There are a lot of exotics, 

especially near the edges. 

Table 3. Listed Species observed 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal 

Status 

Largeflower False 

Rosemary 

State 


FNAI Rank 

Global/State 

Conradina 

grandiflora none T G3/S3 

Gopherus 

polyphemus none SSC G3/S3 

Gopher Tortoise 

Nodding Pinweed Lechea cernua none T G3/S3 

Florida Scrub 

Lizard Sceloporus woodi none none G3/S3 

Endemic 

to Florida 

Table 4. Invasive Exotic Species observed. 

Common Name Scientific Name FLEPPC 




Rosary Pea Abrus precatorius Cat I none none 

Woman's Tongue Albizia lebbeck Cat I none none 

Paper Mulberry Broussonetia papyrifera Cat II none none 

Carrotwood Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cat II noxious none 

Federal 


69





Federal 


Air Potato Dioscorea bulbifera Cat I noxious none 

Cogongrass Imperata cylindrica Cat I noxious noxious 

Lantana Lantana camara Cat I none none 

Lead Tree Leucaena leucocephala Cat II none none 

Old World Climbing 

Fern Lygodium microphyllum Cat I noxious none 

Melaleuca Melaleuca quinquenervia Cat I prohibited noxious 

Sword Fern Nephrolepis cordifolia Cat I none none 

Guinea Grass Panicum maximum Cat II none none 

Torpedo Grass Panicum repens Cat I none none 

Guava Psidium guajava Cat I none none 

Natal Grass Rhynchelytrum repens Cat II none none 

Bowstring Hemp Sansevieria hyacinthoides Cat II none none 

Chinese Tallow Tree Sapium sebiferum Cat I noxious none 

Schefflera Schefflera actinophylla Cat I none none 

Brazilian Pepper Schinus terebinthifolius Cat I prohibited none 

Caesarweed Urena lobata Cat II none none 

Wedelia Wedelia trilobata Cat II none none 

Ownership/Notes – This site is nice overall. The flatwoods are of pretty low 

diversity and rather dense, but there is so much of it. The Basin Marsh is particularly 

beautiful. There are 165 landowners with the largest being Klatt (284 acres) 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Exotics should be removed; in 

some spots they are fairly dense. The major highways present the greatest threat to 

continued ecosystem functioning, but perhaps connective water flow passages could be 

installed. Many of the dirt roads in the large flatwoods tract to the southwest could 

probably be abandoned (in some cases, this would necessitate grading back into the 

canals) to improve water flow. The Scrub regions will need to be burned to maintain 

them and promote the rare species. 

70


Legend 

BW/Basin Marsh 



NA - developed 

NA - developed - residential 



XU/Scrub 

XU/Xeric Hammock 

71

Site 24. Rare Species 

[´ 

hg 

[´ 

hg 

[´ 

[¨[´ 

hg 

Legend 

hg Conradina grandiflora 

[ Gopherus polyphemus 

[¨ Lechea cernua 

hg 

[¨ 

[´ Sceloporus woodi 

hg 

hg[ ḧg hghg [¨ 

[¨ 

[¨[¨ 

hg hg 

hg 

[ [ 

[ [ 

hg 

[´ [¨!. 

!. !.!. !. !.hg !. 

[ 

hg 

hghg 

[¨[¨ 

[¨ 

[¨ 

72

Site 24. Invasive Exotic Species 

¡£ 

¡£ l 

¡£ # qp 

QP !' QP 

¡£ 

¡£ lqp 

\!d 

l 

l 

!d !Y qp 

l 

l[» [» 

QP qp 

\ $+ 

¡£ qp 

\ 

¡£ Legend 

¡£ \ qp 

¡£ Abrus precatorius 

# Albizia lebbeck 

$+ Broussonettia papyrifera 

XY Cupaniopsis anacardioides 

á 

Dioscorea bulbifera 

QP Imperata cylindrica 

nm Lantana camara 

ÑÐ Leucaena leucocephala 

¡¦ Lygodium microphyllum 

¡£ 

\ ÑÐ l Melaleuca quinquenervia 

qp 

[_ Nephrolepis cordifolia 

¡£ 

\ Panicum maximum 

[» Panicum repens 

¡¦ 

º Psidium guajava 

qp 

!d nm 

!' Rhynchelytrum repens 

Úð Sansevieria hyacinthoides 

tu Sapium sebiferum 

áº 

qp 

\ 

qp qp ^ Schefflera actinophylla 

\ ¡£\ 

qp 

qp qp Schinus terebinthifolius 

\ 

qp 

!Y ¡£ Urena ¡£ lobata 

¡£ 

á 

¡£ !' 

l [_ ¡£ 

qpnm 

qp qp 

!d Wedelia trilobata qp 

qpÚð ¡£ qp 

XY 

!' qp nm 

qpl 

qp 

l 

l 

l 

¡£ qp 

[» 

l 

l qp 

[» 

qp 

\ nm 

!' qp 

^qp 

\ 

^qp 

qp 

qp 

tu 

l 

l 

l 

lqp 

!d 

l 

[» 

l 

73


Site Rank: A Total Acreage: 5.8 

Edge Acreage: 5.8 Percent Core to Edge: 100 






FNAI Natural 


XU / Scrub 4.0 4.2 2.0 3.0 4.0 

Key Features – This site is predominantly fire-suppressed Xeric Hammock now, 

with a few small patches of more open Scrub. There are 3 rare plant species here: 

Conradina grandiflora, Dicerandra immaculata, and Lechea cernua. There are also 

gopher tortoises and scrub lizards. 

Importance – Scrub, as a dry upland, has largely been developed throughout the 

County. This area is noteworthy because it contains several rare species, including a 

globally endangered plant. It is adjacent to a conservation area (to the south), so this site, 

despite its small size, would be part of a much larger, significant natural area. There is 

also quite a bit more Scrub (disturbed but undeveloped) to the north, which actually had 

more of the rare plants (because it was more open). 




Hydrology – The entire site is dry, well-drained sand. 




Site History/Habitat Disturbance – Fire-suppression has led to much of the Scrub 

becoming Xeric Hammock. Along the northern edge (mostly off-site) there has been a 

lot of off-road traffic and some dumping. This disturbance, though, has maintained the 

Scrub in an open state. 

75

Table 3. Listed Species observed. 





FNAI Rank 


Scrub Hickory Carya floridana none none none Y 

Largeflower False Conradina 

Rosemary grandiflora none T G3/S3 

Dicerandra 

Lakela's Mint immaculata E E G1/S1 

Gopherus 

Gopher Tortoise polyphemus none SSC G3/S3 


Florida Scrub 


Endemic 

to Florida 











Federal 


Ownership/Notes – This site is highly recommended for acquisition, including 

more to the north that is outside of the inventoried area. The Dicerandra alone makes 

this site important, and some of the Scrub is still in good condition as well to the north. 

There are 3 landowners. The largest landowner is Schneider (4.4 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Off-road vehicles should be 

excluded. Periodic prescribed fire is needed to return Xeric Hammock to Scrub and 

maintain the openings required by the rare plant species. Exotics should be removed, but 

they are relatively low density here. 

76


Location Map 

* 

Legend 

XU/Scrub 

77


[ 

[ 

[´ 

[ 

[ 

[¨ 

!. 

!. 

!. 

!.!. 

!. 

!. 

!. hg !. 

Legend 


!. Dicerandra immaculata 




78


qp 

qp 

\ 

\¡£ 

qp 

qp¡£\ 

qp 

¡£ 

¡£ 

nm 

qp 

¡£ !' 

¡£ qp 

Legend 





qp Schinus terebinthifolius 

79









FNAI Natural 


XU / Scrub 3.0 5.0 3.4 3.2 3.4 

XU / Xeric 

Hammock 3.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 

Key Features – This site is a fairly even mix of decent quality Scrub and Xeric 

Hammock (mostly fire-suppressed Scrub) along a railroad right-of-way. There are at 

least 4 rare species present here: scrub lizards, Chamaesyce cumulicola, Conradina 

grandiflora, and Lechea cernua. 

Importance – This area is noteworthy because it contains a lot of good quality 

Scrub remnants with several rare species. It is adjacent to a conservation area, which 

appears to be largely wetlands. Scrub, as a dry upland, has largely been developed 

throughout the county. 


Proximity to Urban Areas – Site is within the city of Fort Pierce. 


Hydrology – The entire site is dry, well-drained sand. Along the southwest edge, 

it drops down to a nearby wetland. The railroad probably has only minimal impact on 

drainage. 



XU / Scrub 104.9 G2 S2 


81

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – A railroad runs down the middle of this site. 

There are off-road vehicle trails all along the western portion. There is a major paved 

road not far to the east, so there are many developed housing lots along the east side. 

Overall, the west side is the nicest quality, but the east side also has all of the rare species 

and some decent spots. Numerous exotics are scattered all along the site, but they are 

especially diverse and dense in spots along the east side (in conjunction with cleared lots 

and spreading cultivated exotics). Historically, this was probably all Scrub, but firesuppression 

has turned much of it into Xeric Hammock. 




Coastal Dune Chamaesyce 



FNAI Rank 


Sandmat 

cumulicola none E G2/S2 

Largeflower False Conradina 

Rosemary grandiflora none T G3/S3 

Gopherus 



Florida Beargrass 

Nolina 

atopocarpa none T G3/S3 

Florida Scrub 


Giant Airplant 

Tillandsia 

utriculata none E none 

Endemic 

to Florida 






Federal 








Ownership/Notes – There are 64 landowners. The largest landowners are FEC 

Railroad (15 acres) and Wild (10 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Off-road vehicles should be 

excluded. The more open portions, which are where the rare species are generally found 

in greatest numbers, should be maintained through prescribed burning. Xeric Hammock, 

at least on well-drained sand, is self sustaining but could be restored to Scrub with more 

frequent burning. Remove exotics. 

82


Location Map 

* 

Legend 

NA - developed - RR tracks 

XU/Scrub 


83

SIte 41. Rare Species 

Legend 

qp Chamaesyce cumulicola 




!0 Nolina atopocarpa 


ih Tillandsia utriculata 

[¨ 

ih [¨ 

[¨ [´ 

[ïh [´ 

[´[¨[¨ 

[¨ 

[´ 

[¨ 

[ [´[¨ [´ 

[¨ !0 

[¨ [´ 

[¨ 

[¨ 

qp 

qp 

[´ ḧg 

hg 

84


¡£ 

!' qp 

l 

¡£ 

¡£ qp 

¡£ qp 

¡£ 

qp¡£!'\!' Úð 

Úð Úð 

¡£ qp !'¡£ 

Legend 


l Melaleuca quinquenervia 




qpqpl l qp Schinus terebinthifolius 

l 

85


Site Rank: A/B Total Acreage: 105 







FNAI Natural 


MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 1.1 3.9 2.0 3.2 3.2 

MF / Prairie 

Hammock 3.8 4.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 

WF / Wet 

Prairie 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 

Key Features – This site is very heterogeneous, and diversity is good. It contains 

Prairie Hammock, which is a community rarely seen elsewhere. 

Importance – This area is noteworthy primarily because of its heterogeneous 

diversity. Plant communities include primarily Mesic Flatwoods (but fairly different 

compositionally on the east and west sides), with Prairie Hammock in the northeast 

portion, and scattered depressional wetlands. It is also contiguous to conservation lands 

to the east, which makes this site valuable as part of a larger natural area. No rare plants 

were seen here, but the site is large enough and diverse enough to probably still have 

some ecosystem-level function, including the possibility of harboring a few species that 

are not common in the region. 


Proximity to Urban Areas – Site is within the city of Fort Pierce. 


Hydrology – The hydrology has been altered by the canals to the north, east, and 

west. Within the site, hydrology seems to still be functional, with the whole area draining 

into a depressional slough in the middle portion. 

87






Site History/Habitat Disturbance – Fire suppression has led to many portions 

being overly dense. The northwest corner is particularly poor, with a developed road, 

dumped trash, and numerous exotics forming dense thickets. The entire west finger is 

pretty thick with numerous exotics; as a thin strip with housing developments to the north 

and south, the abundance of exotics, and degradation of natural remnants (logged and/or 

cleared in spots), all probably signify that the western-most portion is not worth 

preserving. The main body, however, despite scattered exotics (thick along the edges, 

especially the southwest edge) is intact. 






FNAI Rank 


Gopher Tortoise Gopherus none SSC G3/S3 

polyphemus 

Endemic 

to Florida 






Federal 




Australian Pine Casuarina equisetifolia Cat I prohibited none 

Wild Taro Colocasia esculenta Cat I none none 







Golden Bamboo Phyllostachys aurea Cat II none none 


Schefflera Schefflera actinophylla Cat I none none 




88

Ownership/Notes – The west part is in poor condition and the west edge of the 

main area is in poor condition and full of exotics. Overall, though, this site is pretty nice, 

especially along the east part. There are 12 landowners. The largest landowner is In Town 

Development Co. (90 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Removal of exotics should be the 

focus of restoration efforts, although the western edge will require a large effort. There 

are fire breaks in the west portion of the main site, prescribed burning is recommended. 

The east portion has a small access road, which should be controlled to prevent dumping 

and off-road vehicles. 

89


Location Map 

* 

Legend 




NA - developed - canal 



90


[ 

[ 

[ 

[ 

Legend 


91


# qp qpl 

¡£ qp 

\!d 

!Y "e l 

á # 

# qp \¡£ 

áqp 

!d 

\!d 

!Y [¨ ¡£ á 

l^ 

l 

¡¦ qp 

\!d 

¡¦ qp l 

l 

ol¡¦ 

qpqp 

!d l 

[_ Úð qp 

!d 

l 

l 

l 

Legend 

l 



o Casuarina equisetifolia 

"e Colocasia esculenta 

á Dioscorea bulbifera 


l 

[_ 

Melaleuca quinquenervia 

Nephrolepis cordifolia 


[¨ Phyllostachys aurea 


^ Schefflera actinophylla 


!Y Urena lobata 

!d Wedelia trilobata 

92









FNAI Natural 


CU / Maritime 

Hammock 5.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 

XU / Scrub 5.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 

Key Features – This site contains some of the last large contiguous or near 

contiguous blocks of Maritime Hammock and coastal Scrub communities in the county. 

These rare communities often contain equally rare species such as large-flowered 

rosemary, nodding pinweed, inkberry, coastal hoary pea, Florida scrub jays, Florida mice, 

Florida scrub lizards, Sherman’s Fox Squirrel, barbed-wire cactus, fragrant prickly-apple, 

and reddish peperomia. This tract in combination with the adjacent existing conservation 

lands would likely be large enough to support viable populations of many of the rare 

plants and animals. 

Importance – In addition to containing some of the last large blocks of Maritime 

Hammock and coastal Scrub communities in the county, the protection of this site would 

also benefit the adjacent existing conservation lands. It would increase the total acreage, 

as well as create more core area that would be buffered from the effects of the edge (i.e. 

invasive exotic species and feral pets). It would also provide a buffer from development 

that often precludes active management (e.g. prescribed fire). 


Proximity to Urban Areas – Between a quarter and a half mile from two urban 

centers. 




CU / Maritime Hammock 77.8 G4 S2 

XU / Scrub 168.0 G2 S2 

94




largest landowner is Romanello (27 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – If this site is acquired an 

intensive ground survey for rare species should be conducted. The Scrub will require 

infrequent but intense stand-replacing prescribed fire. 

95


Legend 

CU/Maritime Hammock 

XU/Scrub 

Location Map 

* 

96









FNAI Natural 


CU / Maritime 

Hammock 5.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 

XU / Scrub 5.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 

Key Features – This site contains some of the last large contiguous or near 

contiguous blocks of Maritime Hammock and coastal Scrub communities in the county. 

These rare communities often contain equally rare species such as large-flowered 

rosemary, nodding pinweed, inkberry, coastal hoary pea, Florida scrub jays, Florida mice, 

Florida scrub lizards, Sherman’s Fox Squirrel, barbed-wire cactus, fragrant prickly-apple, 

and reddish peperomia. This tract in combination with the adjacent existing conservation 

lands would likely be large enough to support viable populations of many of the rare 

plants and animals. 

Importance – In addition to containing some of the last large blocks of Maritime 

Hammock and coastal Scrub communities in the county, the protection of this site would 

also benefit the adjacent existing conservation lands. It would increase the total acreage, 

as well as create more core area that would be buffered from the effects of the edge (i.e. 

invasive exotic species and feral pets). It would also provide a buffer from development 

that often precludes active management (e.g. prescribed fire). 


Proximity to Urban Areas – Within 500 feet of an urban center. 




CU / Maritime Hammock 68.9 G4 S2 

XU / Scrub 298 G2 S2 

98




largest landowners are FEC Railroad (22 acres) and FPL (17 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – If this site is acquired an 

intensive ground survey for rare species should be conducted. The Scrub will require 

infrequent but intense stand-replacing prescribed fire. 

99


Legend 


XU/Scrub 

Location Map 

* 

100

101


Site Rank: A–southwest portion, B- remainder Total Acreage: 344 







FNAI Natural 


BW / Basin 

Marsh 1.9 1.6 2.1 1.1 2.3 

BW / Basin 

Swamp 2.9 1.0 4.9 2.9 4.9 

BW / 

Depression 

Marsh 2.0 1.0 4.1 3.0 4.1 

L / Flatwoods 

Lake 4.0 1.3 4.0 2.0 3.0 

MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 3.5 2.3 4.6 3.5 3.8 

Key Features – This site has a complex mosaic of several good quality plant 

communities, including Mesic Flatwoods (some portions are nearly Dry Prairie and 

others are very Sandhill-like), grading into Wet Flatwoods, Wet Prairie, Depression 

Marsh, and Basin Marsh. 

Importance – The integrity of some of the vegetation on this property is intact. This 

area is noteworthy primarily because the southwest portion is a relatively large, fairly 

intact natural area, probably still with ecosystem-level function. Even though no rare 

species were documented, the communities are very good quality, and it is highly 

probable that detailed seasonal inventories would find that there are many species here 

that are not common in the region. This corner of the County is developing very rapidly, 

with a lot of new roads and subdivisions in the general area. The southwest portion of 

this site should be preserved quickly. 


Proximity to Urban Areas - Site is within the city of Port St. Lucie. 


102

Hydrology – The hydrology has been altered to some extent by the paved roads, 

which likely impede high water flow. The site is very heterogeneous, ranging from welldrained, 

dry, sandy spots to areas with year-round standing water, but the nicest 

southwest portion seems to be relatively unaltered. The overall hydrological conditions are 

good. Some of the isolated wetlands on the margins have been heavily disturbed by roads, 

ditching, and development. These wetlands in the central block can be managed to restore 

most or all of the natural boundaries and vegetation. Most of the wetlands in developed 

areas have been preserved with some alteration. 






L / Flatwoods Lake 4.6 G4? S3 


Site History/Habitat Disturbance – A large portion of the southwest corner of this 

site is relatively undisturbed, with only a few dirt access roads and scattered exotics. The 

northern and eastern portions are fragmented by interspersion of a golf course and 

adjacent housing. A small block of pine flatwoods and the included wetlands is in very 

good condition, but does need burning. Two golf clubs and a golf club community are on 

the north and east sides. A new housing development is approaching the west side and a 

major road is on the south side. Native wetlands are being invaded by woody plants. The 

borders of this central native block of land are being invaded by exotic and/or nuisance 

species. 




none 



FNAI Rank 


Endemic 

to Florida 






Federal 








103

Ownership/Notes – The southwest portion is exceptional and should be preserved, 

it is likely to be developed otherwise. There are 15 landowners. The largest landowner is 

Stuart Property Holdings (265 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements –For the most intact southwest 

portion, management would involve the removal of exotics. This site includes some of 

the nicest looking flatwoods in the state. Regular prescribed burning to maintain the pyric 

natural communities may be difficult due to the surrounding residential development. 

104


Legend 




L/Flatwoods Lake 



NA - developed - golf course 


NA - developed - roadside 

Location Map 

* 

105


Legend 


D Asparagus densiflorus 





¡£ ¡¦ qp Úð 

D 

¡£ 

¡¦ 

¡¦ l 

qp 

106

107









FNAI Natural 


CU / Coastal 

Strand 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 

Key Features – This site has the open appearance of Coastal Grassland, but its 

species composition most closely matches early successional Coastal Strand or Maritime 

Hammock. Coastal Strand, locationally and successionally, is ecotonal between Beach 

Dune and Maritime Hammock. The fact that this site does not readily conform to any one 

FNAI community, possibly due to human disturbance, does not detract from the fact that 

it is fairly nice quality. 

Importance – This area is noteworthy primarily because it is a relatively intact 

patch of old coastal dune, which has largely been developed throughout St. Lucie County. 

Its proximity to the existing conservation lands (to the west) also make it noteworthy as a 

diverse addition to that area. This site has at least one rare species, Lantana depressa, 

and a relatively low density of exotics. With time and management, this area could easily 

become an excellent quality remnant of coastal dune habitat. 


Proximity to Urban Areas – Greater than a half mile from an urban center 


Hydrology – The hydrology appears undisturbed. The whole site is fairly 

homogeneous, with deep, well-drained sand. 



CU / Coastal Strand 10.0 G3 S2 

108

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – It is unclear what type(s) of disturbance may 

have occurred, if any, but the sparse vegetation does suggest that the site was cleared in 

the past. There are no old homesites, no ditches, and no roads within the site. A couple 

small patches of dumped yard waste (e.g., pruned branches) were found. The only real 

detriment is the site’s small size and proximity to developed housing areas and a major 

primary road. 


Common Name Scientific 

Name 

Federal 




FNAI Rank 


Gopherus 


Lantana 

Florida 

depressa var. 

Shrubverbena floridana none E G2T2/S2 

Endemic 

to Florida 










Federal 


Ownership/Notes – This site is noteworthy for its relatively intact coastal dune 

habitat. It has features of anopen beach dune in spots but not covered in exotics, with a 

nice mix of native tropical species. Cowie Investment Ltd is the single landowner. 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – The only active management 

would be to remove the exotics, which are comparatively very sparse here and include 

Abrus precatorius, Rhynchelytrum repens, and Schinus terebinthifolius. Vehicular traffic 

should also be excluded to prevent damage to the vegetation and dumping. 

109


Location Map 

* 

Legend 

CU/Coastal Strand 

110

SIte 51. Rare Species 

Legend 


nm Lantana depressa var floridana 

nm 

[ 

[ 

111


oqp 

¡£ 

¡£ qp 

!' qp 

¡£ 

Legend 





112

113

B Ranked Sites 


Site Rank : B Total Acreage: 345 

Edge Acreage:107 Percent Core to Edge: 31.1 






FNAI Natural 


BS / Dome 

Swamp 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 

FW / Strand 

Swamp 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.0 2.8 

MF / Dry 

Prairie 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 

MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 

MF / Prairie 

Hammock 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 

WF / Wet 

Prairie 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 

Key Features – The key features of the site are the Dry and Wet Prairies along 

with the small amount of Prairie Hammock. All three communities are in good shape and 

would require minimal management to maintain. 

Importance – There were no rare species found on the site but the site is 

aesthetically appealing because of the interaction of the Prairie Hammock and Dry Prairie 

on the western part of the site. 





Hydrology – Like most of the natural areas in St. Lucie County, the extensive 

canal systems built to drain wetlands and uplands altered the hydrology of the site. 

114

Canals surround the site but the site appears to maintain some hydrological integrity for a 

mosaic of Dry and Wet Prairies, Strand Swamps, and uplands. There are shallow ditches 

in the western part of the site where the Wet Prairies drain into the Strand Swamps. 

These would need to be filled in to restore the natural flow of water. There are also a few 

shallow ditches in the Dry Prairie on the eastern part of the site that would need to be 

filled in as well. 



BS / Dome Swamp 3.23 G4? S4? 

FW / Strand Swamp 40.54 G4? S4? 




WF / Wet Prairie 45.80 G? S4? 

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – The site is currently being used as a cattle 

pasture and the hydrological changes mentioned previously have been made to dry out 

the site for the cattle. There has been some clearing of the Strand Swamp at the north 

central part of the site. The felled cypress trees were laid in rows. Brazilian pepper is 

growing from them and forming thick stands. The Brazilian pepper is also found along 

the edge of the strands and along some of the canals. 




none 



FNAI Rank 


Endemic 

to Florida 

Table 4. Invasive Exotic Species observed 





Brazilian Pepper Schinus terebinthifolius Cat I Prohibited none 

Federal 


Ownership/Notes – The site is very isolated and there is no direct route to reach 

the site by car. It is surrounded on three sides by citrus farms. There are 4 landowners. 

The largest landowner is Green Groves and Ranch Ltd (217 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – The site requires some 

hydrological restoration and removal of Brazilian pepper. In addition, a fire regime 

needs to be established to maintain the prairies and clear out the understory in the Mesic 

Flatwoods. Prior to implementing a prescribed fire regime, mechanical removal of some 

of the understory from the Mesic Flatwoods might be necessary. 

115


Legend 

Location Map 

* 

Dome Swamp 

Dry Prairie 

Mesic Flatwoods 

Prairie Hammock 

Strand Swamp 

Wet Prairie 

116


qp 

qp 

Legend 


117

118


Site Rank: B Total Acreage: 553 







FNAI Natural 


BW / 

Depression 

Marsh 2.6 0.9 3.8 2.6 4.0 

MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 2.8 3.7 3.7 2.2 3.9 

WF / Wet 

Prairie 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 

NA - 

agriculture 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 

NA - 

agriculture - 

grove 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

NA - 

agriculture - 

improved 

pasture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Key Features – Natural communities are largely intact and contiguous. The 

native ground cover is still present on the majority of the habitats. 

Importance – This site is contiguous to existing conservation lands. The habitats 

on this site appear to be in better condition than many of those in the adjacent 

conservation lands. 

Connectivity – Within 500 feet of existing conservation lands (Pinelands). 




119

Hydrology – The wetlands originally were isolated depressions. The hydrological 

conditions of the site are very good. Even though the wetlands are partially drained by a 

network of ditches, the original vegetation and function remains. 







NA - agriculture - grove 35.1 

NA - agriculture - improved 

pasture 119.8 

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – This site was originally a pine flatwoods laced 

with isolated wetlands. The site has been grazed by cattle. Some of the uplands have 

been cleared and planted with forage (bahia) grass. Cattle have spread the bahia grass 

into the forested areas of the site. The isolated wetlands have been partially drained by 

ditches, which serve to lower the higher water levels. Some of the wetlands within 

cleared pasture areas are heavily disturbed, but still retain water and contain native 

wetland plants. There is a large east/west drainage ditch crossing the site. Pines and 

cabbage palms are being removed. Torpedo grass and primrose-willow shrubs are found 

in some of the wetlands. Brazilian pepper trees are scattered throughout the site, but in 

manageable numbers. 




none 



FNAI Rank 


Endemic 

to Florida 






Federal 





Ownership/Notes – A large citrus operation extends along the east property 

boundary. Property is fenced. There are 8 landowners. The largest landowner is 

Humphries (419 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – This site would be an important 

acquisition for the County because it is contiguous with an existing county park. 

120

Management for this site will be the same as for the park: blocking drainage ditches, 

burning, and treatment of exotic nuisance species. Management of the larger block will 

be cost effective. Bahia grass will gradually be replaced/out competed by native species 

with burning and restoration of water regimes. Pine flatwoods and the network of 

isolated depression wetlands are difficult to manage because larger blocks of this habitat 

are required for the fire regimes needed to maintain the character of the habitat. This site 

is excellent because it adjoins County preserved land and the combined large block of 

land can be more easily maintained. 

121


Location Map 

* 

Legend 




NA - agriculture - grove 

NA - agriculture - improved pasture 

NA - developed - road 


122


qp 

[» 

qp 

l 

Legend 



tu Sapium sebiferum 

123

124



Edge Acreage: 224 Percent Core to Edge: 38.8 






FNAI Natural 


BW / Basin 

Swamp 2.6 2.2 3.3 3.0 3.3 

BW / 

Depression 

Marsh 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 

FW / 

Bottomland 

Forest 3.3 1.6 3.4 3.0 3.4 

WF / Wet 

Prairie 2.2 4.0 2.1 3.0 2.7 


- improved 

pasture 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 


- unimproved 

pasture 2.0 3.0 2.6 3.0 2.6 

NA - developed 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 


- ditch 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.9 1.0 


- road 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Key Features – Rare species present include gopher tortoise, airplants, and white 

ibis. The large size of the site and the broad patches of Bottomland Forest (>250 acres) 

are important features. Invasive exotics present include Lygodium microphyllum and 

Schinus terebinthifolius. Currently the exotics are patchily distributed. 

Importance – The large size of the tract, if preserved, would provide sufficiently 

large habitat for many more common species. The large swaths of bottomland may 

provide foraging opportunities for waders. 

Connectivity – Greater than half-mile from existing conservation lands. 

125

Proximity to Urban Areas - Greater than half-mile from an urban center. 


Hydrology – As with nearly all of St. Lucie County there are adjacent large canals 

that impact hydrology. The entire site is also laced with shallower (approx. 5 ft deep) 

canals to drain the land for cattle. However, at the time of the site visit plenty of water 

was being held on site, with most of the area under water (approx. 0.5 feet). 





FW / Bottomland Forest 179.9 G4 S3 



pasture 10.9 

NA - agriculture - unimproved 

pasture 77.5 

NA - developed 18.5 

NA - developed - ditch 3.4 

NA - developed - road 0.9 

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – The entire site is also laced with shallower 

(approx. 5 ft deep) canals to drain the land for cattle. Currently there is cattle grazing in 

the open areas but it is mainly unimproved pasture. The Bottomland Forest in the 

northwest corner has been heavily disturbed by cattle usage creating a muddy substrate 

and little understory. 






FNAI Rank 


Gopherus 

Gopher Tortoise polyphemus None SSC G3/S3 

White Ibis Eudocimus albus None SSC G5/S4 

Cardinal Airplant 

Tillandsia 

fasciculata var. 

densispica None E none 

Tillandsia 

Northern Needleleaf balbisiana None T none 

Royal Fern Osmunda regalis None CE none 

Endemic 

to Florida 

126






Alligator Weed Alternanthera philoxeroides Cat II Prohibited none 

Water-Hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes Cat I Prohibited none 

Lantana Lantana camara Cat I None none 



Waterlettuce Pistia stratiotes Cat I none none 


Caesar's Weed Urena lobata Cat II none none 

Federal 


Ownership/Notes – Vehicle access is limited, it requires passing through private 

land. There are limited roadways on site and full access may require the use of swamp 

buggies. There are four owners. Ru-Mar Inc is the largest landowner with 528 acres. 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Remove cattle and burn from the 

open areas into the forest. Fill in the shallow canals. The current pasture areas will likely 

restore to open prairies rather than forested areas. Treat exotics, especially Lygodium 

microphyllum and Schinus terebinthifolius. 

127


Legend 




FW/Bottomland Forest 


NA - agriculture - unimproved pasture 


NA - developed - ditch 



128


* 

[` 

l 

Legend 

l Carya floridana 

[® Eudocimus albus 


"J Osmunda regalis 

! Tillandsia balbisiana 

[` Tillandsia fasciculata var. densispica 

[® 

[` ! 

"J 

l 

[ [® 

[® 

[[ 

129


!0 qp 

!Y 

!Y 

¡¦ 

¡¦ 

!Y 

qp 

qp 

qp 

qp 

¡¦ 

¡¦ 

* 

¡¦ !Y 

qp 

Legend 

! Alternanthera philoxeroides 

hg 

Eichornia crassipes 



!0 Pistia stratiotes 



¡¦ !Y 

¡¦ 

!Y 

qp 

qp 

nm 

!0 hg ! 

nm 

qp 

130

131



Edge Acreage: 417 Percent Core to Edge:18.3 






FNAI Natural 


BW / Depression 

Marsh 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 

MF / Dry Prairie 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 

MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

WF / Wet Flatwoods 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 

WF / Wet Prairie 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

NA - agriculture - 

pasture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

NA - developed - 

truck stop 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Key Features – The key feature of the site is the mosaic of flatwoods, prairies and 

Depression Marshes. It is a good example of what much of St. Lucie County probably 

looked like historically. 

Importance – No rare species were found during the surveys but the site currently 

represents a relatively functional flatwoods-prairie ecosystem. There is an abundance of 

native species throughout, especially in the wet prairies and depression marshes. 




Hydrology – Like most of the natural areas in St. Lucie County, the extensive 

canal systems installed to drain wetlands and uplands altered the hydrology of the site. 

The site has three main canals that divide it into 4 sections. One of the sections is 

adjacent to a large mine, operated by Florida Rock, that has an extensive borrow pit. It 

does not appear that the mine is currently having significant impacts on the surface water 

hydrology since the surrounding wetlands are maintaining their hydroperiod based on the 

132

vegetation observed. There are some small ditches in the northern sections that will need 

to be filled to restore natural sheet flow. 






WF / Wet Flatwoods 14.68 G? S4? 

WF / Wet Prairie 397.10 G? S4? 


NA - developed - truck stop 6.15 

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – Most of the area is being used to actively 

graze cattle. There is evidence that portions of the site have been burned recently. 

Brazilian pepper is scattered throughout the site especially on the edges of the wet 

prairies and depression marshes. There are no significant dense stands of Brazilian 

pepper except along the canals. There are some native grasses in the dry prairie but much 

of it is dominated by bahiagrass and cogongrass with caesarweed in isolated areas. Some 

of the flatwoods also have bahiagrass and caesarweed. In the southern section of the site 

there appears to be less evidence of exotics, but site inspection was only done from the 

road. 




none 



FNAI Rank 


Endemic 

to Florida 

Table 4. Invasive Exotic Species observed 






Caesaerweed Urena lobata Cat II none none 

Federal 


Ownership/Notes – Permission for ground access was not available for the 

southern section of the site however, the portion was viewed from the edge and appeared 

to be similar to the rest of the site that was ground surveyed. The owner of this southern 

portion indicated that he did not want to have his land considered for natural land 

acquisition purposes. There are 5 landowners. The largest land owners are Southern Fruit 

Groves (1097 acres) and Monahan (1022 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – The exotics need treatment so that 

they do not to further encroach on the native systems. Brazilian pepper is scattered 

133

throughout the site as is caesarweed. Most of the Dry Prairies need to be treated for 

cogon and bahia grass. In addition, implement a prescribed fire rotation of 3-7 years to 

maintain a flatwoods-prairie ecosystem. 

134


Legend 





NA - developed - truck stop 



135


!Y 

!Y 

!Y 

!Y 

Legend 


136

137









FNAI Natural Rarity Connectivity Completeness Vulnerability Manageability 

Community 

BW / 

Depression 

Marsh 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 

MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 

WF / Wet 

Prairie 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 

WF / Wet 

Flatwoods 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 

NA - 

agriculture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

NA - 

agriculture - 

grove 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

NA - 

agriculture - 

pasture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Key Features – This site has a nice mosaic of several good quality plant 

communities, including Wet Flatwoods, Mesic Flatwoods, Wet Prairie, Depression 

Marsh, and Basin Marsh. 

Importance – This site is noteworthy as a large, fairly intact natural area, probably 

still with ecosystem-level function, especially as a wetland. Even though no rare species 

were documented, the communities are very good quality, and it is possible that detailed 

seasonal inventories would find that there are a few species here which are not common 

in the region. According to a site manager, the large drainage slough in the middle is 

already being managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, as 

part of a mitigation requirement for developments elsewhere in the county. 



138

Proximity to primary and secondary roads – Within a quarter mile of a major 

roadway. 

Hydrology – The hydrology has been altered to some extent by a series of small 

drainage ditches (very shallow and narrow), but water flow still seemed to be pretty good 

within the site. There are large canals associated with a developed road at least along the 

southern edge, so this site is hydrologically isolated from most if not all of the 

surrounding area (which is largely already converted to citrus groves and farmland). 










Site History/Habitat Disturbance – Ditching to dry up many areas has been done 

in association with grazing. The site is still very, very, nice though, with only a few 

scattered exotics. There are a few undeveloped access roads, and a large powerline 

bisects the site. The eastern end (and some patches near the central portion of the 

western end) looked to largely be heavily grazed pasture, but the areas are still dominated 

by native species. 




none 



FNAI Rank 


Endemic 

to Florida 






Federal 









139

Ownership/Notes – This site is nice, especially the large extensive Wet Prairies 

and Depression Marshes. There are four landowners. 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – The ditches should be filled in. 

Exotics should be removed. In the long term the cattle should be removed but, in the 

absence of fire, the grazing is likely helping to maintain the site integrity by keeping the 

prairies and marshes free of woody vegetation. 

140


Legend 

Location Map 




* 





141


Legend 


QP Imperata cylindrica 






qp 

o 

¡¦ 

QP 

!Y qp 

qp !Y\ 

qp 

[» 

qp 

qp 

142

143









FNAI Natural 


BW / 

Depression 

Marsh 2.6 1 3.5 3.3 3.6 

MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 3 1 2 5 4 

NA – 

agriculture 0 0 0 0 0 

Key Features – This site is a complex of pine flatwoods and isolated depressional 

wetlands. There is a large population of the state listed plant species Florida Joint-tail Grass 

(Coelorachis tuberculosa) that occurs in some of the wetlands. 

Importance – Although a small site, the integrity of the vegetation on most of this 

property is intact. The state listed Florida Joint-tail Grass, a threatened species, occurs in 

quantity. 


Proximity to Urban Areas – Site is within the city of Port St. Lucie. 


Hydrology – The overall hydrological conditions are fair. Most of the isolated 

wetlands have been heavily disturbed by roads, ditching, and a major canal, but are still 

functioning. These wetlands can be managed to restore most or all of the natural boundaries 

and vegetation. Major alteration of a few wetlands occurs in the northwest portion due to 

land alterations for row crops, ditching and construction of raised blocks of land. 

144





NA – agriculture 6.0 

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – The northwest portion of the site underwent 

major alterations for construction of raised blocks of land for row crops. The entire site has 

been used for cattle. Native wetlands are being invaded by exotic and/or nuisance species. 

The entire site is surrounded by: a major canal along the west side, an interstate highway 

along the south end, a large citrus operation on the north end, and a large golf course 

community along the northeast and east sides. The site also contains a large farm home and 

compound on the northwest corner. Dense concentrations of Brazilian pepper trees occur in 

portions of the pine flatwoods. 




Florida Joint-tail 

Grass 



FNAI Rank 


Coelorachis 

tuberculosa none T none none 

Endemic to 

Florida 






Federal 




Ownership/Notes – Perhaps the rare grass on this site could be introduced into other 

suitable areas that are being preserved. There are 6 landowners. The largest landowners are 

Reserve Homes Inc. (104 acres) and PGA Reserve (46 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – In spite of the rare plant, this site 

should be a very low priority for preservation/restoration. It is probably too impacted by 

encroaching development to be able to manage properly. Burning would be the most useful 

management tool for restoration of the habitats. The interstate highway and large golf 

course community will make burning difficult. Fire could certainly be managed as long as 

the area across the canal west of the site remains undeveloped, but this will change. The 

margins of the wetlands as well as the wetlands proper need to be burned even though 

removing some of the roads and blocking ditching would help. The very large and tall 

berms along the canal will be a constant source of reinvasion of exotic plants as will the 

edge of the interstate highway. 

145


Legend 

survey_site15_fnai 

ASSIGNFNAI 





* 

NA - developed - canal banks 


* 

Location Map 

146


"e 

"e 

Legend 

"e Coelorachis tuberculosa 

147


Legend 


qp 

qp 

qp 

qp 

qp 

148

149









FNAI Natural 


BW / Basin 

Marsh 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 

MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 

NA - 

agriculture - 

pasture 1.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 

Key Features – No rare species or exceptional natural communities were present 

on this site. However, a sandhill crane was foraging in the open grassy area beneath the 

power lines just off the site to the north. Roughly half the site is a golf course community. 

Importance – There are no outstanding natural resources at this site. However, 

this site contains about 200 undeveloped acres that would be a nice block of natural 

habitat within an increasingly developed area. 


Proximity to Urban Areas – Site is within the city of Port St. Lucie. 


Hydrology – There are numerous ditches that drain the Mesic Flatwoods. The 

Basin Marshes appear hydrologically intact. 






150

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – The portion outside of the golf course 

development has dim roadways and ditches present and is fragmented by paved roadways 

but the natural communities have retained their functionality. 




Florida Sandhill 

Crane 

Grus canadensis 

pratensis 

State FNAI Rank 

Status Global/State 

none T G5T23/S2S3 

Endemic 

to Florida 







Federal 


Ownership/Notes – There are 56 landowners. The largest landowners are Reserve 

Homes Ltd. (349 acres) and PGA Reserve (137 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Use prescribed burning in the 

flatwoods and into the wetlands periodically (3-7 years). This may be difficult to achieve 

given the surrounding land use. Plugging ditches would improve the hydrological regime. 

Treat the exotic caesarweed. 

151


Legend 

Location Map 





NA - developed - reservoir 


* 

152


Legend 

!F Grus canadensis pratensis 

!F 

153


Legend 


!Y 

154

155









FNAI Natural 


BW / 

Depression 

Marsh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

FW / 

Bottomland 

Forest 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.0 3.5 

FW / 

Floodplain 

Forest 2.0 3.2 3.0 2.0 3.0 

MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.6 

R / Blackwater 

Stream 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

WF / Hydric 

Hammock 1.0 5.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 

NA - 

agriculture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

NA - 

agriculture - 

grove 1.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 

Key Features – No rare species were found at this site. However, there was one 

exceptional community – the Hydric Hammock on the south side of Ten Mile Creek. 

Exotic species including Abrus precatorius, Lygodium microphyllum, and Ricinus 

communis were noted. Five and Ten Mile Creeks flow through this site and are major 

tributaries of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. 

Importance – Although much of the site is in agriculture or developed, it still has 

some small patches of nice communities and is adjacent to existing conservation lands. It 

would also provide some buffer to the creek, which is frequently fringed by only a 

narrow strip of vegetation. Five and Ten Mile Creeks are major tributaries of the North 

156

Fork of the St. Lucie which is the primary riparian system in the county. Protecting and 

buffering these creeks would benefit the North Fork as well. 




Hydrology – There are shallow ditches in the groves that speed drainage of the 

uplands. Within this site both Five and Ten Mile Creeks are mainly reduced to a very 

narrow strip of riparian vegetation along each bank. These creeks are tributaries of the 

North Fork of the St. Lucie which is the primary riparian system in the county. 

Protecting and buffering these creeks would benefit both the water quality and water 

quantity of the North Fork. 





FW / Floodplain Forest 61.9 G4 S3 


R / Blackwater Stream 15.3 G4 S2 

WF / Hydric Hammock 15.0 G4 S4 



Site History/Habitat Disturbance – Much of this site is already developed or in 

intensive agriculture. The Floodplain Forests in the western portion have evidence of 

ATV use. There are dirt roads throughout the Mesic Flatwoods. 




none 



FNAI Rank 


Endemic 

to Florida 









Castor Bean Ricinus communis Cat II none none 

Federal 


157

Ownership/Notes – The owners of the groves are no longer actively using this site 

due to infestation by an exotic soil pest. They have expressed interest in selling the site. 

There are 113 landowners. The largest landowners are Flagler Development Co (332 

acres) and Ralls Road Corp. (97 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Treat exotics. Protect natural 

areas from ATVs. Protect forests along the creeks to expand the buffering of these 

riparian areas. 

158


Legend 



FW/Floodplain Forest 



Location Map 



NA - developed - boy scout ranch 

NA - developed - canal 

* 

NA - developed - reservoir 



R/Blackwater Stream 


159


¡£ 

!$ 

¡¦ 

Legend 



!$ Ricinus communis 

160

161


Site Rank: B Total Acreage: 9.8 







FNAI Natural 


FW / 

Floodplain 

Marsh 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

XU / Scrub 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 

XU / Xeric 

Hammock 2.7 3.7 2.7 3.0 3.0 

Key Features – Contains Conradina grandiflora and gopher tortoises in the 

Scrub, and Lechea cernua and Lechea divaricata in the Xeric Hammock. The site is 

small (10 acres) and narrow. Patchily distributed exotics (Abrus precatorius, Schinus 

terebinthifolius, and Dioscorea bulbifera) throughout. 

Importance – The Conradina grandiflora, Lechea cernua and Lechea divaricata 

are sufficiently large populations to be self-perpetuating and with a conservation lands to 

the north (separated by a road) that is likely to also contain these species. The area is too 

small to maintain a tortoise population and they may be effectively isolated due to the 

development to the east, lake to the south, and road to the north. 




Hydrology – There is a large lake at the southern tip of this site. No evidence of 

hydrological alterations on site. Most of the area is xeric. 



FW / Floodplain Marsh 0.1 G3 S2 



162

Site History/Habitat Disturbance– The southern half has ATV use. Northern half 

is relatively undisturbed. 





Rosemary 



FNAI Rank 


Conradina 


Gopherus 




Pine Pinweed Lechea divaricata none E G2/S2 

Royal Fern Osmunda regalis none CE none 

Giant Airplant Tillandsia utriculata none E none 

Endemic 

to Florida 









Federal 


Ownership/Notes – There are 8 landowners. The largest landowners are St. Lucie 

County (4.5 acres) and Blackburn (3.5 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Protect from ATV use. Burn the 

Xeric Hammock if desire to restore to Scrub. However, there are houses within the Xeric 

Hammock and along the eastern boundary of the entire site. There is also trash/debris 

associated with the houses in the Xeric Hammock. Treat exotics. 

163


Location Map 

* 

Legend 

FW/Floodplain Marsh 


XU/Scrub 


164


[ [¨ ih 

hg 

[ 

hg hg 

hg 

ih[ 

ih hg 

hg 

hghg ih 

[ih 

ih 

[^ 

[ 

"J 

Legend 

"J 

[¨ 

ih "J 

[¨ 




[^ Lechea divaricata 

"J Osmunda regalis 

[¨ [¨ 

"J 

ih 

Tillandsia utriculata 

165


qp 

á 

qp 

qp¡£ 

qp 

¡£ 

¡£ 

qp 

Legend 


á Dioscorea bulbifera 


qp 

166

167









FNAI Natural 


XU / Scrub 3.9 5.0 3.9 2.4 3.8 

XU / Xeric 

Hammock 2.0 2.1 3.0 2.1 3.5 

Key Features – Gopher tortoises, Lechea cernua, Carya floridana, and scrub 

lizards were observed in the Scrub. Invasive Exotic plants (Abrus precatorius, Schinus 

terebinthifolius, and Panicum maximum) are patchily distributed throughout. 

Importance – Scrub is a fast disappearing Natural Community in St. Lucie 

County. There is sufficient scrub habitat to maintain the plant species at this site but not 

the tortoises. 




Hydrology – An upland site with no wetlands or waterways. No alterations 

apparent. 





Site History/Habitat Disturbance – Adjacent to a driving range. There is 

occasional ATV use. There is trash creeping in from the junkyard along the southern 

edge. 

168






FNAI Rank 



Gopherus 



Nodding Club- Lycopodiella 

Moss 

cernua none SSC none 

Florida Scrub 



Tillandsia 


Endemic 

to Florida 








Lead Tree Leucaena leucocephala Cat II none none 




Federal 


Ownership/Notes – There are 7 landowners. The largest landowners are St. Lucie 

County (17 acres) and Hansen (6 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Install a fence along the southern 

boundary to prevent the junkyard from expanding into the site. Prevent ATV use. Burn 

the southeastern Xeric Hammock – it is currently very dense understory. No hydrological 

restoration. Treat exotics. 

169


Location Map 

* 

Legend 


XU/Scrub 


170


ih 

[ 

[ [¨[ 

l 

[¨ 

[ïh[ 

ih 

[ [¨[ 

[ 

ih 

[ 

[¨ 

[ 

[ 

[ 

[[¨ 

l 

[ 

[ 

[¨ 

[¨ 

[ 

ih 

[¨ 

[ 

[ 

[¨ 

Legend 

[¨ [ 

[¨ [ 

[ 

[´ 

[¨ [ [ 

[¨ 

l 

ih 




[ Lycopodiella cernua 



171


qp 

¡£ qp !d ÑÐ \ ÑÐ qp 

nm 

\ 

¡£ 

\ 

¡£ qp 

qp 

Legend 



ÑÐ Leucaena leucocephala 



!d Wedelia trilobata 

\ 

172

173

C Ranked Sites 


Site Rank: C Total Acreage: 360 







FNAI Natural 


BW / Basin 

Swamp 2.9 1.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 

BW / 

Depression 

Marsh 5.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 

WF / Wet 

Flatwoods 2.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 

NA - 

agriculture - 

improved 

pasture 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.4 1.6 

NA - 

agriculture - 

unimproved 

pasture 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 

Key Features – This site is a complex of pine flatwoods and isolated depressional 

wetlands. 

Importance – This is a small site, the vegetation on most of this property is intact or 

could easily be restored. 



Proximity to primary and secondary roads – Within a thousand feet of a major 

roadway. 

174

Hydrology – The overall hydrological conditions are good. The isolated wetlands 

have been heavily disturbed by ditching and the subsequent berms, but are still functioning. 

These wetlands can be managed to restore most or all of the natural boundaries and 

vegetation. Major alteration of wetlands has occurred in the southeast corner, as a result of 

clearing and use for pasture. 



BW / Basin Swamp 44 G4? S3 

BW / Depression Marsh 35 G4? S3 

WF / Wet Flatwoods 59 G4 S4 

NA - agriculture - improved 198 

pasture 


unimproved pasture 

20 

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – The entire site had been used as a cattle pasture. 

All of the site is being or has been drained. The ground level is very low so during rainy 

periods the site is mostly flooded. The ground cover is still present except in the southeast 

portion of the site, which has been cleared and used as pasture. Clearing is occurring in the 

existing flatwoods. Adjacent land is mostly in pasture. 




none 



FNAI Rank 


Endemic 

to Florida 




none 



Federal 


Ownership/Notes – Permission for ground access was severely limited at this site. 

A one hour driving tour was provided by the landowner of the southern portion. No 

access was granted for the northern portion. The site summary provided here is limited in 


largest landowners are Ru-Mar (202 acres) and Sherrod Construction (137 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Although impacted by ditching, on 

most of the property the native ground cover and canopy vegetation remains. The property 

is being partially cleared. It could be connected to adjacent pasture land, but restoration 

would be expensive and long term. 

175


Location Map 

* 

Legend 







176

177









FNAI Natural 


MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 

Key Features – No rare species or exceptional natural communities present. Old 

World Climbing Fern, Melaleuca and Brazilian pepper are present on site. The fern is 

scattered along the ditch bank. The Brazilian pepper has over taken portions of the Mesic 

Flatwoods. 

Importance – There are no outstanding resources on this site. It may serve as 

green space in a vast swath of development. 




Hydrology – The numerous canals throughout the site likely accelerate drainage 

from the flatwoods. 




Site History/Habitat Disturbance – There is evidence of disturbance throughout 

the site. Portions of the site have already been commercially developed and have 

structures present. New roadways are being built and development of much of the site is 

imminent. 

178




none 



FNAI Rank 


Endemic 

to Florida 






Federal 






Ownership/Notes – Most of the area is in the process of being developed or will 

likely be developed in the immediate future. There are 12 landowners. The largest 

landowners are St. Lucie West Development Co. (52 acre), Benderson Development Co. 

(37 acres), and WalMart Stores(30 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – The remaining undeveloped 

flatwoods should be burned if practical. The exotics should be treated, especially the Old 

World Climbing Fern along the ditch, since it will rapidly spread throughout the 

drainage. 

179


Legend 

survey_site16_fnai 

ASSIGNFNAI 


NA - cleared for development 


NA - developed - ditch 



Location Map 

* 

180


Legend 



¡¦ 

l 

¡¦ 

181

182









FNAI Natural 


BW / 

Depression 

Marsh 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 

MF / Mesic 

Flatwoods 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 

Key Features – No rare species or exceptional natural communities were present 

on this site. The two Depression Marshes on the western portion are of nice quality. The 

eastern two-thirds of the site is developed or will be developed in the immediate future. 

Importance – There are no outstanding resources at this site. It may serve as 

green space for expanding residential developments. 


Proximity to Urban Areas – Within 500 feet of an urban center. 


Hydrology – Canals on site likely accelerate drainage for the flatwoods. The 

smaller northern Depression Marsh is influenced by the raised road bed immediately to 

the north. The larger southern depression marsh is only half contained within this site but 

is in good hydrological condition. 





183

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – The eastern two-thirds are developed or will 

be in the immediate future. The western third is split by a large new roadway and has 

evidence of off road vehicle traffic other disturbances. Brazilian pepper is present in the 

natural areas. 




none 



FNAI Rank 


Endemic 

to Florida 






Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius Cat I prohibited none 

Federal 


Ownership/Notes – There are 8 landowners. The largest landowner is Levitt 

Homes (55 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – If the western portion is 

conserved, then the flatwoods and marshes will require maintenance with periodic fire (3- 

7 years). This may be impractical given the surrounding land uses. Protect from vehicle 

traffic. Treat the Brazilian pepper on site. 

184


Legend 

Location Map 




* 


NA - slated for development 

185


qp 

!Y 

Legend 



186

187









FNAI Natural 


BW / 

Depression 

Marsh 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 

WF / Wet 

Prairie 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 

NA - 

agriculture - 

improved 

pasture 1.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 

NA - 

agriculture - 

pasture 1.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 

NA - 

agriculture - 

unimproved 

pasture 1.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 

Key Features – There were no rare species observed on the site and most of it is 

in cattle pasture. However, the Wet Prairie and Depression Marshes are in good 

condition. There is Brazilian pepper in the pastures. 

Importance – Although no exceptional natural resources are found at this site it is 

immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the existing Ten Mile Creek 

conservation lands. It would serve as a buffer to the core conservation area. 




188

Hydrology – The vegetation at the two Depression Marshes suggests good 

hydrological function. However, just off site there is large reservoir created from a 

mining operation. 






pasture 8.0 



unimproved pasture 8.0 

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – There is an abandoned mine just off site. 

There is also a powerline along the site boundaries that is managed to minimize 

vegetation growth. The cattle that graze on site create trails and alter plant communities 

through preferential grazing and soil disruption. 




none 



FNAI Rank 


Endemic to 

Florida 






Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius Cat I prohibited none 

Federal 


Ownership/Notes – There are 5 landowners. The largest landowners are TJH Ltd. 

(82 acres) and Hendler (28 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Limit usage by cattle. In the areas 

of unimproved pasture the restoration process could rely on natural forces of seed 

dispersal and seedbank recruitment and rhizotomous spread from adjacent natural areas 

to restore much of the species diversity. In the improved pastures the pasture grasses will 

require 2 or more years of treatment with herbicide and tilling to permit the 

reestablishment of the native herbaceous vegetation. Investigate effects the mine may 

have on the hydrology. Treat exotics. 

189


Legend 


Location Map 




NA - developed - canal and road 

NA - developed - mine 

NA - developed - powerline 



* 

190


qp 

Legend 


191

192









FNAI Natural 


XU / Scrub 2.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 

Key Features – This site is successional disturbed Scrub that is transitioning into 

Xeric Hammock in response to fire-suppression. 

Importance – This area is not noteworthy, except for the gopher tortoises here. 

There was also some terrestrial Tillandsia utriculata here as well. It may have value as a 

buffer zone between U.S. 1 and the nearby bird sanctuary to the west. 




Hydrology – The hydrology appears undisturbed, except for any drainage 

implications from being bounded by paved roads to the east and west. The whole site is 

fairly homogeneous, with deep, well-drained sand. 




Site History/Habitat Disturbance – This may have once been an old homesite. In 

addition to the many exotics, there are several different persisting fruit trees (e.g., guava, 

citrus, Surinam cherry). Portions were probably cleared in the past. The whole site is a 

narrow strip adjacent to U.S. 1 (to the east), with another paved road on the west side. 

Fire-suppression has left many parts very dense. 

193






FNAI Rank 


Giant Airplant Tillandsia utriculata none E none 

Gopher Tortoise Gopherus 

None SSC 

polyphemus 

Endemic 

to Florida 







Surinam Cherry Eugenia uniflora Cat I none none 

Guava Psidium guajava Cat I none none 


Federal 


Ownership/Notes – In fairly poor condition, but maybe useful as a buffer zone. 

There are 8 landowners. The largest landowner is Tozour (11 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Active management would 

include removal of exotics and, ideally, implementing prescribed fire. In the absence of 

fire, if the site is to be managed as Scrub, then some sort of mechanical clearing is needed 

to open it up. Alternatively, the site could be managed as a buffer of Xeric Hammock. 

194


Location Map 

Legend 

* 

NA - Conservation Land 

XU/Scrub 

195


ih 

Legend 

ih 

Tillandsia utriculata 

196


¡£ qp 

qp GF º 

Legend 


GF Eugenia uniflora 

º Psidium guajava 


197

198


Site Rank: C Total Acreage: 4.4 







FNAI Natural 


XU / Scrub 1.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 

NA - 

developed - 

paintball 

facility 0.4 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.4 

Key Features – Scrub lizards and gopher tortoises present in the Scrub. There are 

patchy exotics of Abrus precatorius, Schinus terebinthifolius and others. Larger patches 

of exotics near the southern edge of the cemetery – near the road. 

Importance – This is a small site but it connects to a much larger existing 

conservation area and could act as a development buffer to the existing conservation land 

thus allowing burning. Also it still contains remnants of Scrub, which is fast 

disappearing in the County. 




Hydrology – Just off site to the north there is a 5-foot berm. On site there is no 

appreciable change to the hydrology – there are no waterways or wetlands present. 




NA - developed - paintball 

facility 1.3 

199

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – Most of the site is highly disturbed and used 

as a paintball area. However, the habitat is mostly intact in the western portion of the 

paintball area. However, there is bahia grass in the eastern portion of the paintball area. 

In the western area there is a large pile of brush and debris. Throughout the paintball area 

is evidence of its use – there are spent paintball ammo, 55-gallon drums, and pallets. 






FNAI Rank 



Gopherus 



Florida Scrub Lizard Sceloporus woodi none none G3/S3 


Tillandsia 

utriculata none E G3/S3 

Endemic 

to Florida 










Federal 


Ownership/Notes – There is a cemetery present. There are 3 landowners. The 

largest landowner is Waterland Operating Co. (2.2 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Would require clean up of trash 

prior to permitting public access. Scrub requires fire management. No hydrological 

restoration needed. Treat exotics. 

200


Location Map 

* 

Legend 

NA - developed - cemetery 

NA - developed - paintball facility 

XU/Scrub 

201


Legend 






[´[¨ 

[´ 

l 

[¨ 

[ 

ih 

202

¡£ qp Site 27. Invasive Exotic Species 

\ 

Legend 





\ 

¡£ qp 

nm 

\ 

¡£ qp 

203

204









FNAI Natural 


XU / Scrub 0.9 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.9 

Key Features – This site is fire-suppressed Scrub, grading into Xeric Hammock. 

As is, this site is too small to be of much value, but there is adjacent, undeveloped 

property, which is equal or better in quality. 

Importance – At least two rare species occur here, Conradina grandiflora and 

Lechea cernua. 




roadway. 

Hydrology – The hydrology is probably undisturbed. The whole site is fairly 

homogeneous, with deep, well-drained sand. Perhaps the road bank of the newly created 

highway to the south will lead to increased water flow being channeled along the edge. 




Site History/Habitat Disturbance – Fire-suppression seems to be the primary issue 

here. Much of the area is very dense. Unfortunately, the newly finished major highway to 

the south creates a substantial barrier to movement of animals. 

205






FNAI Rank 



Rosemary 

Conradina 



Gopherus 



Endemic 

to Florida 









Federal 


Ownership/Notes – St. Lucie County is the single landowner. 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Management would include the 

removal of exotics, which are actually rather sparse here, and the implementation of a fire 

regime. With a less dense canopy and a less dense shrub layer, the rare species would 

probably be able to increase their numbers in the openings. 

206


Location Map 

* 

Legend 

XU/Scrub 

207


[ḧg 

[¨ hg 

hg 

hg 

[ 

hg 

hg[ 

Legend 




208


¡£ qp 

¡£ 

\ 

Legend 




209

210









FNAI Natural 


XU / Scrub 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 

XU / Xeric 

Hammock 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.1 

Key Features – The northern portion of this site is relatively decent fire-supressed 

Scrub, grading into Xeric Hammock. The southern portion is highly degraded and full of 

exotics, but might serve as a buffer zone since the adjacent areas are already cleared. 

Across the newly finished highway to the north, there is a fairly large undeveloped area. 

This site would probably have some value, for the plants at least, as part of a larger 

conservation area. 

Importance – At least three rare species occur here, Conradina grandiflora, 

Lechea cernua, and gopher tortoise. 




roadway. 

Hydrology – The hydrology is relatively undisturbed. The whole site is fairly 

homogeneous, with deep, well-drained sand. Perhaps the road bank of the newly created 

highway to the north will lead to increased water flow being channeled along the edge. 





211

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – Fire-suppression seems to be the primary issue 

here. In spots, the vegetation is very dense. The southern portion is largely covered in 

numerous invasive exotics, which probably came in after the area was partially cleared. 

Unfortunately, the newly finished highway to the north creates a substantial barrier for 

wildlife movement. 






FNAI Rank 



Rosemary 

Conradina 



Gopherus 



Endemic 

to Florida 







Asparagus Fern Asparagus densiflorus Cat I none none 


Carrotwood Cupaniopsis anacardioides Cat I noxious none 

Chinaberry Melia azedarach Cat I none none 






Federal 


Ownership/Notes – This site is not notable, although the northern part does have 

some potential. There are 3 landowners. The largest landowner is St. Lucie County (5 

acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Management would include the 

removal of exotics, which are very dense along the edges and to the south, and the 

implementation of a fire regime. With a less dense canopy and a less dense shrub layer, 

the rare species would probably be able to increase their numbers in the openings. 

212


Location Map 

* 

Legend 

XU/Scrub 


213


[ 

[ [¨ 

hg[¨ 

[¨ hg 

[ ḧg 

[¨ 

[¨ hg 

[¨ 

[¨ 

hg [¨ 

[¨ 

Legend 




214


¡£ qp 

XY 

qp 

¡£ qp 

Úð\!Y qp 

!' 

Legend 



XY Cupaniopsis anacardioides 

!H Melia azedarach 

[_ 

Nephrolepis cordifolia 





[_ !H 

¡£ qp 

o 


215

216









FNAI Natural 


XU / Xeric 

Hammock 1.4 1.0 1.9 4.3 1.4 

Key Features – Heavily infested with exotics throughout the north half but some 

nice habitats are still present in the southern half. Lechea cernua present but in small 

numbers. There are houses throughout most of the site. 

Importance – None. 


Proximity to Urban Areas – Site is a quarter to a half mile from an urban center. 


Hydrology – Canal on the southwestern edge with a berm. The parking area to the 

south is raised with a slope onto the site. There may be runoff associated with the 

parking lot. No alterations on site. 




Site History/Habitat Disturbance – Most of most northern portion has houses. 

The southern portion is heavily used and disturbed with trails (likely ATVs) that have left 

large areas unvegetated. Heavily infested with exotics. 

217


Common Name Scientific 

Name 

Federal 




FNAI Rank 


Endemic 

to Florida 




Tillandsia 








Asparagus Fern Asparagus densiflorus Cat I none none 




Federal 


Ownership/Notes –This site has limited value as conservation land. There are 4 

landowners. The largest landowners are Oasis Homes Inc. (6 acres) and Taylor Creek 

Holding Co. (3 acres). 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – Treat exotics. Limit ATV use. 

218


Location Map 

* 

Legend 


219


ih 

[¨ 

Legend 



220


¡£ Úð 

D 

qp 

\¡£ 

qp 

Legend 


D Asparagus densiflorus 




\ 

221

222









FNAI Natural 


FW / 

Bottomland 

Forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

XU / Scrub 1.3 1.7 1.2 3.4 1.7 

Key Features – This site has been largely developed. It is adjacent to a protected 

area, so theoretically, it would be nice as a buffer, however there is not much left 

anymore. 

Importance – None. 


Proximity to Urban Areas - Site is within the city of Port St. Lucie. 


Hydrology – The site is predominantly just well-drained sand. There are fingers 

that abut the canal, but no apparent drainage patterns exist here. 




XU / Scrub 6.211 G2 S2 

Site History/Habitat Disturbance – Largely converted to housing. There is a 

cemetery in the southwest corner. 

223





Rosemary 




FNAI Rank 


Conradina 


Gopherus 


Endemic 

to Florida 













Federal 


Ownership/Notes – This is a housing development. There are a few strips of 

native vegetation, but they are so highly fragmented that their ecological function is 

minimal. There are 16 landowners and all own less than 1 acre. 

Recommendation/Management Requirements – This site has been largely 

developed. No management recommendations. 

224


Legend 

Location Map 




XU/Scrub 

* 

225


hg 

hg 

hg 

hg 

[ 

[ 

Legend 



226


¡¦ qp 

qp 

¡£ !' 

qp 

¡£ 

[» qp 

qp qp 

qp¡£ 

# 

Legend 







227

228

Conclusions 

The opportunity for preserving viable functioning natural communities and the species 

that are representative of the diversity of St. Lucie County is rapidly declining with 

22,319 acres being lost between 1986 and 2002. About twenty-three percent (93,385 

acres) of the county is still potentially natural but it is fragmentary. With the continued 

predicted high population growth through at least 2015 this loss and fragmentation are 

unlikely to abate (see Table 1). 

Thus, for future natural resource conservation a two prong approach should be 

developed: 1) Triage the natural communities and species within the county to focus on 

protecting the most imperiled first; and 2) Connect and buffer the existing conservation 

lands to form large and well connected blocks of habitat. 

A triage list of imperiled natural resources could be developed by evaluating those 

natural communities and species that are ranked higher than G2 or S2 by FNAI (see 

Appendices E and F). Then consider what is most underrepresented in the conservation 

lands within the county (see Table 11). Resources that are both high ranked and 

underrepresented should be targeted for protection. This approach would recommend 

that Dry and Wet Prairie be of the highest priority for future conservation activity, 

followed by Coastal Uplands, Scrub, and Floodplain Marsh. 

A list of existing or proposed conservation lands to buffer and connect could be 

developed using: 1) estimates of the amount of edge currently within a conservation area; 

2) the need for active habitat management to maintain the natural resources (especially 

fire); 3) the size of the tract; and 4) the distance to other conservation lands. Those areas 

with a high percent of edge, needing active management, of small size, and distant from 

other conservation lands will generally have the greatest need of buffering and 

connectivity. 

These two approaches may be divergent at times since often the most imperiled natural 

resources occur in small concentrations. However, the culmination of following both 

approaches simultaneously will be a land acquisition program that provides for small 

scale species diversity and richness in conjunction with large scale connectivity and 

function of natural communities. 

Other possible strategies are to: 1) Concentrate development activities away from natural 

areas; 2) Encourage retention of as much natural area as possible; and 3) Focus 

development activities in areas with non-imperiled natural communities or species. These 

strategies would provide buffering and reduce fragmentation. 

If the triage list of natural communities, those that are both high-ranked and 

underrepresented in county ownership, is applied to the thirty sites that were inventoried, 

then 9 of the 10 A-ranked sites (4, 9, 24, 25, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 51) would be targeted for 

conservation due to the presence of substantive acreage of high priority natural 

229

communities. Also, 5 of the 10 B-ranked sites (3, 11, 12, 14, 28, and 30) and 2 of the 10 

C-ranked sites (19 and 32) would be targeted for conservation. 

The combination of minimizing future loss of natural areas and focusing future 

conservation efforts on high priority triage areas will optimize the amount of natural 

lands that are preserved within the county. Additional efforts to buffer and connect these 

lands will further improve the ecological landscape and long-term outlook for natural 

resources in St. Lucie County. 

230

Bibliography 

Cooper RM, Ortel TW. 1988. An Atlas of St. Lucie County Surface Water Management 

Basins. South Florida Water Management District. DRE-265. 

David E. 1991. Dupuis Reserve Environmental Assessment. DRE-298. South Florida 

Water Management District. 

Federico AC. 1983. Upper East Coast Water Quality Studies. South Florida Water 

Management District. DRE-169. 

Fernauld RT. 1989. Coastal Xeric Scrub Communities of the Treasure Coast Region, 

Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. 

Nongame Wildlife. Technical Report No. 6. 113 p. 

Florida. 1986. Land Cover Map. Tallahassee: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission. 

Florida. 1994. Biodiversity Hot Spots Map. Tallahassee: Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission. 

Florida. 1995. Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas Map. Tallahassee: Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission. 

Florida. 1999-2001. Florida Greenways and Trails Maps. Tallahassee: Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Greenways and Trails. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1984. North Fork of the St. Lucie River 

Aquatic Preserve Management Plan. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 

Office of Coastal & Aquatic Managed Areas. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1985. Indian River Lagoon Aquatic 

Preserves Management Plan. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Office of 

Coastal & Aquatic Managed Areas. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1990. Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet 

Aquatic Preserve Management Plan Phase 1. Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, Office of Coastal & Aquatic Managed Areas. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1991. Fort Pierce Inlet State 

Recreation Area Unit Management Plan. Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Recreation & Parks. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1997 to 2002. North Fork St. Lucie 

River State Buffer Preserve Resource Management Plan. Florida Department of 

231

Environmental Protection, Division of Marine Resources, Office of Coastal & Aquatic 

Managed Areas. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. Avalon State Park Unit 

Management Plan. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of 

Recreation & Parks. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. Savannas Preserve State Park 

Unit Management Plan. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of 

Recreation & Parks. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 1994. Closing the Gap in Florida’s 

Wildlife Habitat Conservation System. Tallahassee: Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2000. Habitat Conservation Needs 

of Rare and Imperiled Wildlife in Florida. Tallahassee: Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commissions. 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 1990. Guide to the Natural Communities of Florida. 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Available from: http://www.fnai.org/index.htm 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2002 Dec. Florida’s Managed Areas GIS Coverage. 

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Available from: http://www.fnai.org/gis_data.cfm 

Harris LD. 1984. The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the 

Preservation of Biotic Diversity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 

Haunert DE. 1988. Sediment Characteristics and Toxic Substances in the St. Lucie 

Estuary, Florida. South Florida Water Management District. DRE-259. 

Haunert DE, Startzman JR. 1980. Some Seasonal Fisheries Trends and Effects of a 1000 

CFS Fresh Water Discharge on the Fisheries and Macroinvertebrates in the St. Lucie 

Estuary, Florida. South Florida Water Management District. DRE-109. 

Haunert DE, Startzman JR. 1985. Short Term Effects of a Freshwater Discharge on the 

Biota of St. Lucie Estuary, Florida. South Florida Water Management District. DRE-213. 

Johnson AF, Muller JW. 1993. An Assessment of Florida’s Remaining Coastal Upland 

Communities, Final Summary Report. Tallahassee: Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 

Johnson AF, Muller JW, Bettinger KA. 1990. An Assessment of Florida’s Remaining 

Coastal Upland Communities. Tallahassee: Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 

Jue S, Kindell C, Wokcik J. 2001. Florida Conservation Lands 2003. Tallahassee: Florida 

Natural Areas Inventory. 

232

Lenze DG. 2002. Florida Long-term Economic Forecast, 2002; Vol 2 – State and County. 

Gainesville: University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 

Mackenzie A, Ball AS, Virdee SR. 1998. Instant Notes in Ecology. New York: Springer- 

Verlag. p 189. 

Myers RL, Ewel JJ (eds). 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. Orlando: University of Central 

Florida Press. 

Mierau R, Storch WV. 1974. Memorandum Report on Surface Water Availability in the 

St. Lucie County Area. South Florida Water Management District. DRE-35. 

Milleson JF, Goodrick RL, Van Arman JA. 1980. Plant Communities of the Kissimmee 

River Valley. South Florida Water Management District. DRE-113. 

Mooney RT III. 1980. The Stratigraphy of the Floridan Aquifer System East and 

Northeast of Lake Okeechobee, Florida. South Florida Water Management District. 

DRE-115. 

Morris FW. 1986. Bathymetry of the St. Lucie Estuary. South Florida Water 

Management District. DRE-224. 

Mortellaro S, Krupa S, Fink L, VanArman J. 1995. Literature Review on the Effects of 

Groundwater Drawdowns on Isolated Wetlands. South Florida Water Management 

District. WRE-330. 

Pesnell GL, Brown RT III. 1977. The Major Plant Communities of Lake Okeechobee, 

Florida and Their Associated Inundation Characteristics as Determined by Gradient 

Analysis. South Florida Water Management District. DRE-73. 

Port St. Lucie, City of. 1997. Brinkhaven at Oak Hammock Acres Management Plan. 

City of Port St. Lucie, Parks and Recreation. 

Reece DE, Brown MP, Hynes SD. 1980. Hydrologic Data Collected From the Upper East 

Coast Planning Area. South Florida Water Management District. DRE-111. 

South Florida Water Management District. 1982. Lake Okeechobee Water Quality 

Management Plan, Alternatives Evaluation. South Florida Water Management District. 

DRE-135. 

South Florida Water Management District. 2000. Ten Mile Creek Land Management 

Plan, St. Lucie County Project Grant Agreement. South Florida Water Management 

District. 

233

South Florida Water Management District. Undated. Preliminary Water Control Plan for 

the Ten Mile Creek Deep Water Storage Area. South Florida Water Management District. 

St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce. [cited 2004 Jan]. St. Lucie County Statistics; 

Demographics [internet]. St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce. Available from: 

http://www.stluciechamber.org/demographics.html 

St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District. 1992. Summary Workplan for Mosquito 

Impoundment Restoration for the Salt Marshes of St. Lucie County. St. Lucie County 

Mosquito Control District. 

St. Lucie County Property Appraiser’s Office. 2000. Digital Ortho Quarter Quads (False 

color infrared aerial photography). 

St. Lucie County Property Appraiser’s Office. 2003. Property Parcel Boundaries and 

Attributes. 

Thomas JW, editor. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: The Blue Mountains of 

Oregon and Washington. USDA, Forest Service Agriculture Handbook. No. 553. Sup. 

Doc. G.P.O. Washington, D.C. 512 p. 

University of Florida, GeoPlan Center. 2000. Florida Geographical Data Library Selected 

Databases [internet] including SFWMD Land Use/Land Cover, 1990 & 1995; Florida 

Natural Areas Inventory Areas of Conservation Interest, A, B and C; Florida Natural 

Area Inventory Managed Areas; Florida Natural Areas Inventory Element Occurrences – 

1999; FDEP Conservation and Recreation Lands – 1999; CARL Projects; FWC Strategic 

Habitat Conservation Areas; FWC Habitat and Land Cover; FWC Biodiversity Hot 

Spots; USDA NRCS Detailed Soils (SSURGO); SJRWMD Surface Water Drainage 

Basins; USGS 1:24,000 DLG Hydrography; US Census Bureau’s 1:100,000 TIGER 

Roads; US Census Bureau’s Block boundaries & related population data, 1990 & 2000; 

FDOT Major Roads; US Census Bureau’s 1:100,000 TIGER County Boundary. 

Gainesville: University of Florida, GeoPlan Center. Available from: http://www.fgdl.org 

Wunderlin RP. 1998. Guide To The Vascular Plants of Florida. Gainesville: University 

Press of Florida. 806 p. 

234

Appendices 

Appendix A. Explanation of Species and Natural Community 

Ranks 

Explanation of Species and Natural Community Ranks from FNAI web site 

(http://www.fnai.org/ranks.cfm) 

Ranking system 

Using a ranking system developed by The Nature Conservancy and the Natural 

Heritage Program Network, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory assigns two ranks to 

each element. The global rank is based on an element's worldwide status; the 

state rank is based on the status of the element in Florida. Element ranks are based 

on many factors, the most important ones being estimated number of element 

occurrences, estimated abundance (number of individuals for species; area for 

natural communities), range, estimated adequately protected EOs, relative threat of 

destruction, and ecological fragility. 

FNAI GLOBAL RANK DEFINITIONS 

G1 = 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 natural or manmade 

factor. 

G3 = 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 from other factors. 

G4 = Apparently secure globally (may be rare in parts of range) 

G5 = Demonstrably secure globally 

GH = Of historical occurrence throughout its range, may be rediscovered (e.g., 

ivory-billed woodpecker) 

GX = Believed to be extinct throughout range 

GXC = Extirpated from the wild but still known from captivity or cultivation 

G#? = Tentative rank (e.g., G2?) 

G#G# = Range of rank; insufficient data to assign specific global rank (e.g., G2G3) 

235

G#T# = Rank of a taxonomic subgroup such as a subspecies or variety; the G 

portion of the rank refers to the entire species and the T portion refers to the specific 

subgroup; numbers have same definition as above (e.g., G3T1) 

G#Q = Rank of questionable species - ranked as species but questionable whether it 

is species or subspecies; numbers have same definition as above (e.g., G2Q) 

G#T#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) 

FNAI STATE RANK DEFINITIONS 

S1 = Critically imperiled in Florida 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. 

S2 = Imperiled in Florida because of rarity (6 to 20 occurrences or less than 3000 

individuals) or because of vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or manmade 

factor. 

S3 = 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 from other factors. 

S4 = Apparently secure in Florida (may be rare in parts of range) 

S5 = Demonstrably secure in Florida 

SH = Of historical occurrence throughout its range, may be rediscovered (e.g., 

ivory-billed woodpecker) 

SX = Believed to be extinct throughout range 

SA = Accidental in Florida, i.e., not part of the established biota 

SE = An exotic species established in Florida may be native elsewhere in North 

America 

SN = Regularly occurring, but widely and unreliably distributed; sites for 

conservation hard to determine 

FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS 

Provided by FNAI for information only. 

For official definitions and lists of protected species, consult the relevant federal 

agency. 

236

Definitions derived from U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Sec. 3. Note that the 

federal status given by FNAI refers only to Florida populations and that federal status 

may differ elsewhere. 

LE Endangered: species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

LT Threatened: species likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

E(S/A) Endangered due to similarity of appearance to a species which is federally 

listed such that enforcement personnel have difficulty in attempting to differentiate 

between the listed and unlisted species. 

T(S/A) 

PE 

PT 

Threatened due to similarity of appearance (see above). 

Proposed for listing as Endangered species. 

Proposed for listing as Threatened species. 

C Candidate species for which federal listing agencies have sufficient 

information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposing to list the 

species as Endangered or Threatened. 

XN 

MC 

Non-essential experimental population. 

Not currently listed, but of management concern to USFWS. 

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

Endangered or Threatened. 

STATE LEGAL STATUS 

Provided by FNAI for information only. 

For official definitions and lists of protected species, consult the relevant federal 

agency. 

Animals: Definitions derived from “Florida’s Endangered Species and Species of 

Special Concern, Official Lists” published by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, 1 August 1997, and subsequent updates. 

LE Endangered: species, subspecies, or isolated population so few or depleted in 

number or so restricted in range that it is in imminent danger of extinction. 

LT Threatened: species, subspecies, or isolated population facing a very high 

risk of extinction in the future. 

LS Species of Special Concern is a species, subspecies, or isolated population 

which is facing a moderate risk of extinction in the future. 

237

PE 

PT 

PS 

N 

Proposed for listing as Endangered. 

Proposed for listing as Threatened. 

Proposed for listing as Species of Special Concern. 

Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing. 

Plants: Definitions derived from Sections 581.011 and 581.185(2), Florida Statutes, 

and the Preservation of Native Flora of Florida Act, 5B-40.001. FNAI does not track 

all state-regulated plant species; for a complete list of state-regulated plant species, 

call Florida Division of Plant Industry, 352-372-3505 or see: 

http://doacs.state.fl.us/~pi/5b-40.htm#.0055. 

LE Endangered: species of plants native to Florida that are in imminent danger 

of extinction within the state, the survival of which is unlikely if the causes of a 

decline in the number of plants continue; includes all species determined to be 

endangered or threatened pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act. 

LT Threatened: species native to the state that are in rapid decline in the 

number of plants within the state, but which have not so decreased in number as to 

cause them to be Endangered. 

PE 

PT 

N 

Proposed for listing as Endangered. 

Proposed for listing as Threatened. 

Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing. 

238

Appendix B. Rare Species Observed 

Rare Species Observed 

Scientific Name 

Common Name 



Federal 

Status FNAI Status 

Eudocimus albus White Ibis SSC none G5/S4 

Grus canadensis pratensis Florida Sandhill Crane T none G5T23/S2S3 

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise SSC none G3/S3 

Sceloporus woodi Florida Scrub Lizard none none G3/S3 

Carya floridana Scrub Hickory none none Fl endemic 

Chamaesyce cumulicola Coastal Dune Sandmat E none G2/S2 

Conradina grandiflora 


Rosemary T none G3/S3 

Dicerandra immaculata Lakela's Mint E E G1/S1 

Lantana depressa var. floridana Florida Shrubverbena E none G2T2/S2 

Lechea cernua Nodding Pinweed T none G3/S3 

Lechea divaricata Pine Pinweed E none G2/S2 

Lycopodiella cernua Nodding Club-Moss SSC none none 

Nolina atopocarpa Florida Beargrass T none G3/S3 

Osmunda regalis Royal Fern CE none none 

Tillandsia balbisiana Northern Needleleaf T none none 

Tillandsia fasciculata var. 

densispica Cardinal Airplant E none none 

Tillandsia utriculata Giant Airplant E none G3/S3 

239

Appendix C. Invasive Exotic Plants Observed 

Invasive Exotic Plants Observed 


Common Name 

FLEPPC 




Federal 


Abrus precatorius Rosary Pea Cat I none none 

Albizia lebbeck Woman's Tongue Cat I none none 

Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligatorweed Cat II prohibited none 

Asparagus densiflorus Asparagus-fern Cat I none none 

Broussonetia papyrifera Paper Mulberry Cat II none none 

Casuarina equisetifolia Australian Pine Cat I prohibited none 

Colocasia esculenta Wild Taro Cat I none none 

Cupaniopsis anacardioides Carrotwood Cat II noxious none 

Dioscorea bulbifera Air Potato Cat I noxious none 

Eichhornia crassipes Water-Hyacinth Cat I prohibited none 

Eugenia uniflora Surinam Cherry Cat I none none 

Imperata cylindrica Cogongrass Cat I noxious noxious 

Lantana camara Lantana Cat I none none 

Leucaena leucocephala Leadtree Cat II none none 


Fern Cat I noxious none 

Lygodium microphyllum 

Melaleuca quinquenervia Melaleuca Cat I prohibited noxious 

Melia azedarach Chinaberry Cat I none none 

Nephrolepis cordifolia Sword Fern Cat I none none 

Panicum maximum Guineagrass Cat II none none 

Panicum repens Torpedograss Cat I none none 

Phyllostachys aurea Golden Bamboo Cat II none none 

Pistia stratiotes Waterlettuce Cat I none none 

Psidium guajava Guava Cat I none none 

Rhynchelytrum repens Natalgrass Cat II none none 

Ricinus communis Castorbean Cat II none none 

Sansevieria hyacinthoides Bowstring Hemp Cat II none none 

Sapium sebiferum Chinese Tallowtree Cat I noxious none 

Schefflera actinophylla Schefflera Cat I none none 

Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian Pepper Cat I prohibited none 

Urena lobata Caesarweed Cat II none none 

Wedelia trilobata Wedelia Cat II none none 

240

Appendix D. Natural Communities Observed in the County. 

Natural Communities Observed in the County 

GLOBAL RANK 

STATE RANK 

TERRESTRIAL 

Xeric Uplands 

Scrub G2 S2 

Xeric Hammock G3 S3 

Coastal Uplands 

Coastal Strand G3 S2 

Maritime Hammock G4 S2 

Mesic Flatlands 

Dry Prairie G2 S2 

Mesic Flatwoods G? S4 

Prairie Hammock G4 S3 

Scrubby Flatwoods G3 S3 

PALUSTRINE 

Wet Flatlands 

Hydric Hammock G4 S4 

Wet Flatwoods G4 S4 

Wet Prairie G3 S2 

Seepage Wetlands 

Baygall G4 S4 

Floodplain Wetlands 

Bottomland Forest G4 S3 

Floodplain Forest G4 S3 

Floodplain Marsh G3 S2 

Basin Wetlands 

Basin Marsh G? S4? 

Basin Swamp G4? S3 

Depression Marsh G4? S3 

Dome Swamp G4? S3? 

LACUSTRINE 

Flatwoods Lake G4? S3 

RIVERINE 

Blackwater Stream G4 S2 

241

Appendix E. List of Rare Species that Potentially Occur within St. Lucie County 

List of Rare Species that Potentially Occur within St. Lucie County. 

See Appendix A for explanation of ranks. FNAI Occurrence status is C if it is confirmed and P if probable. 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Federal 


PLANTS 

Acanthocereus pentagonus Barbed-wire cactus LT 

Acrostichum aureum golden leather fern LE G5 S3 C 

Actinostachys pennula ray fern LE G4G5 S1 C 

Argusia gnaphalodes sea lavender LE G4 S3 C 

Aristida rhizomophora Florida three-awned grass G2 S2 C 

Asclepias curtissii Curtiss' milkweed LE G3 S3 C 

Asimina tetramera four-petal pawpaw LE LE G1 S1 C 

Asplenium trichomanes-dentatum slender spleenwort LE G5 S1S2 C 

Caesalpinia major yellow nicker bean LE 

Calopogon multiflorus many-flowered grass-pink LE 

Cereus eriophorus fragrant prickly-apple E E 

Cereus gracilis west coast prickly-apple E 

Cereus pentagonus barbed-wire cactus; dildoe cactus T 

Chamaesyce cumulicola sand-dune spurge LE G2 S2 C 

Cheiroglossa palmata hand fern LE G4 S2 C 

Chrysophyllum oliviforme satin leaf LT 

Cladonia perforata perforate reindeer lichen LE LE G1 S1 C 

Coccothrinax argentata silver palm LE G3 S2? C 



FNAI 

Global 

Rank 

FNAI 


Rank 

FNAI 

Occurrence 


within 

St. Lucie 

242


Coelorachis tuberculosa piedmont jointgrass (Florida jointtail) 

Federal 




FNAI 

Global 

Rank 

FNAI 


Rank 

FNAI 

Occurrence 


within 


G3 S3 C 

Conradina grandiflora large-flowered rosemary LE G3 S3 C 

Crossopetalum rhacoma rhacoma LE G5 S3 R 

Ctenitis sloanei Florida tree fern LE G5 S2 C 

Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp okeechobeensis Okeechobee gourd LE LE G1T1 S1 C 

Cyrtopodium punctatum cow-horned orchid LE G5? S1 R 

Dennstaedtia bipinnata hay scented fern LE G4 S1 C 

Dicerandra immaculata Lakela's mint LE LE G1 S1 C 

Dyrpetes lateriflora Guiana plum LT 

Elytraria caroliniensis var angustifolia narrow-leaved Carolina scalystem G4T2 S2 R 

Encyclia boothiana var erythronioides dollar orchid LE G4?T4?Q S1 C 

Encyclia tampensis Florida butterfly orchid C 

Epidendrum anceps dingy-flowered epidendrum LE 

Epidendrum nocturnum night-scented orchid LE G4G5 S2 C 

Erithalis fruticosa black torch LT 

Eugenia confusa tropical ironwood LE G4G5 S2S3 C 

Eugenia rhombea red stopper LE G3G5 S1 R 

Eulophia ecristata non-crested eulophia LT 

Euphorbia pinetorum rockland painted-leaf LE G2 S2 C 

Glandularia maritima coastal vervain LE G3 S3 C 

Glandularia tampensis Tampa vervain LE G1 S1 C 

Halophila johnsonii Johnson's seagrass PT G2 S2 C 

243


Federal 


Harrisia fragrans (was H. eriophora and fragrant prickly apple LE LE G1Q S1 C 

Cereus eriophorus) 

Harrisia simpsonii Simpson's prickly apple LE G2Q S2 C 

Indigofera mucronata var keyensis decumbent indigo G5?T1 S1 C 

Ionopsis utricularioides delicate ionopsis LE G4G5 S1 R 

Jacquemontia reclinata beach jacquemontia LE LE G1 S1 C 

Lantana depressa var floridana Atlantic Coast Florida lantana LE G2T2 S2 C 

Lechea cernua nodding pinweed (scrub pinweed) LT G3 S3 C 

Lechea divaricata pine pinweed LE G2 S2 C 

Leiphaimos parasitica ghost plant G4 S2 R 

Lilium catesbaei 

Linum carteri var smallii Carter's large-flowered flax LE G2T2 S2 C 



Catesby lily; pine lily; leopard lily; 

southern red lily T 

nodding club-moss; staghorn 

clubmoss C 

Lycopodium cernuum 

Myrcianthes fragrans var simpsonii twinberry LT G4T3 S3 R 

Myrcianthus fragrans Simpson's stopper LT 

Nemastylis floridana fall-flowering ixia LE G2 S2 R 

Nephrolepis biserrata giant sword fern (Boston fern) LT 

Nolina atopocarpa Florida beargrass LT G3 S3 C 

Okenia hypogaea burrowing four-o'clock LE G3 S2 C 

Oncidium bahamense dancing-lady orchid LE G3 S1 C 

Ophioglossum palmatum hand fern LE 

Opuntia stricta shell-mound prickly-pear LT 

Osmunda cinnamomea cinnamon fern C 

FNAI 

Global 

Rank 

FNAI 


Rank 

FNAI 

Occurrence 


within 


244


Federal 


Osmunda regalis 

Panicum abscissum cutthroat grass LE G2 S2 C 

LE G5 S2 C 



royal fern; flowering-fern; snakefern; 

king's fern; osmunde royale C 

Peperomia humilis terrestrial peperomia; reddish 

peperomia; Polynesian peperomia 

Peperomia obtusifolia blunt-leaved peperomia LE G5 S2 C 

Persea humilis scrub bay G3 S3 C 

Phyllanthus pentaphyllus ssp floridanus Florida five-petaled leaf-flower G4G5T2 S2 C 

Pinguicula caerulea blue butterwort LT 

Pinguicula lutea yellow butterwort LT 

Pithecellobium keyense blackbead LT 

snowy orchid; bog-torch; frog-spear; 

white rein orchid LT 

Platanthera nivea 

Pogonia ophioglossoides rose pogonia LT 

Polygala smallii tiny polygala LE LE G1 S1 C 

Polypodium dispersum widespread polypody LE 

Polypodium plumula Plume polyplody LE 

Polypodium ptilodon swamp plume polyplody LE 

Polyrrhiza lindenii ghost orchid LE G2G4 S2 R 

Polystachya concreta pale-flowered polystachya LE 

LE G4 S3 C 

Pteris bahamensis Bahama brake; Bahama ladder brake; 

plumy ladder brake; long-leaved 

brake 

Pteroglossaspis ecristata wild coco LT G2G3 S2 C 

Remirea maritima beach star LE 

FNAI 

Global 

Rank 

FNAI 


Rank 

FNAI 

Occurrence 


within 


245


Federal 


Remirea maritima beach-star; junco de playa E 

Rhapidophyllum hystrix 

needle palm; blue-palmetto; 

vegetable porcupine C 

Scaveola plumieri 

inkberry; half-flower; beachberry; 

black soap; mad Moll LT 

Schizachyrium niveum scrub bluestem LE 

Selaginella arenicola sand spikemoss LE G2G3 S2 

Spermacoce terminalis false buttonweed LT 

Spiranthes lacinata lace-lip ladies-tresses LT 

Spiranthes lanceolata var paludicola Fahkahatchee ladies'-tresses G4T1 S1 C 

Spiranthes polyantha green ladies'-tresses LE G3G5 S1S2 C 

Spiranthes torta southern ladies'-tresses LE G3G4 S1 C 

Stenorrhynchos lanceolatus leafless beaked orchid LT 

Stillingia sylvatica ssp tenuis queen's delight G4G5T2 S2 C 

Tectaria heracleifolia broad halberd fern LT 

Tephrosia angustissima var angustissima devil's shoestring LE G1TH SH C 

Tephrosia angustissima var curtissii coastal hoary-pea LE G1T1 S1 C 

Thelypteris sclerophylla stiff star-hair fern LE 

Thelypteris serrata dentate lattice-vein fern LE 

Thrinax morrisii brittle thatch palm LE G4G5 S3 R 

Tillandsia balbisiana inflated wild pine LT 

Tillandsia fasciculata cardinal wild pine LE 

Tillandsia flexuosa banded wild pine LE G4 S3 C 

Tillandsia pauciflora Potbelly airplant 

Tillandsia utriculata giant wild pine LE 



FNAI 

Global 

Rank 

FNAI 


Rank 

FNAI 

Occurrence 


within 


246


Federal 


Tillandsia valenzuelana soft-leaved wild pine LT 

Tolumnia bahamensis variegated orchid LE G3 S1 

Tournefortia gnaphalodes bay lavender E 

Vanilla mexicana scentless vanilla LE G2G4 S1 C 

Verbena maritima coastal vervain LE 

Verbena tempensis Tampa vervain LE 

Vernonia blodgettii Blodgett's ironweed G3 S3 C 

Zamia coontie; wild sago; Florida arrowroot C 

Zephyranthes simpsonii rain lily LT G2G3 S2S3 C 

INVERTEBRATES 

Cicindela hirtilabris peninsular tiger beetle G4 S? C 

Latrodectus bishopi red widow spider GU S? C 

FISH 

Agonostomus monticola mountain mullet G5 S3 C 

Awaous tajasica river goby G5 S1S2 C 

Bairdiella sanctaeluciae striped croaker G5 S2 C 

Centropomus undercimalis common snook SSC 

Gobiomorus dormitor bigmouth sleeper G5 S2 C 

Gobionellus pseudofasciatus slashcheek goby G3G5 S1 C 

Gobionellus stigmaturus spottail goby G2 S2 C 

Microphis brachyurus opossum pipefish G5 S2 C 

Rivulus marmoratus mangrove rivulus LS G5 S3 C 

AMPHIBIANS 

Rana areolata gopher frog G4 S3 C 



FNAI 

Global 

Rank 

FNAI 


Rank 

FNAI 

Occurrence 


within 


247


Federal 


Rana capito gopher frog LS G4 S3 P 

REPTILES 

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A) LS G5 S4 C 

Caretta caretta Atlantic loggerhead turtle LT LT G3 S3 C 

Chelonia mydas mydas Atlantic green turtle LE LE G3 S2 C 

Crocodylus acutus American crocodile LE LE G2 S1 P 

Crotalus adamanteus eastern diamondback rattlesnake G5 S3 C 

Dermochelys coriacea leatherback turtle LE LE G3 S2 C 

Drymarchon corais couperi eastern indigo snake LT LT G4T3 S3 C 

Eretmochelys imbricata Atlantic hawksbill turtle LE LE G3 S1 

Gopherus polyphemus gopher tortoise LS G3 S3 C 

Lepidochelys kempii Atlantic Ridley turtle LE LE G1 S1 C 

Nerodia clarkii taeniata Atlantic salt marsh snake LT LT G4T1 S1 C 

Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Florida pine snake LS G5T3? S3 C 

Sceloporus woodi Florida scrub lizard G3 S3 C 

BIRDS 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk G4 S3? P 

Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow G3 S3 P 

Ajaia ajaja roseate spoonbill LS G5 S2S3 P 

Ammodramus savannarum floridanus Florida grasshopper sparrow LE LE G5T1 S1 P 

Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub-jay LT LT G3 S3 C 

Aramus guarauna Limpkin LS G5 S3 P 

Ardea alba great egret G5 S4 C 

Ardea herodias occidentalis great white heron G5T2 S2 P 

Buteo brachyurus short-tailed hawk G4? S3 P 



FNAI 

Global 

Rank 

FNAI 


Rank 

FNAI 

Occurrence 


within 


248


Federal 


Caracara plancus crested caracara LT LT G5 S2 C 

Charadrius melodus piping plover LT LT G3 S2 P 

Dendroica discolor paludicola Florida prairie warbler G5T3 S3 P 

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland's warbler E* E* 

Egretta caerulea little blue heron LS G5 S4 C 

Egretta rufescens reddish egret LS G4 S2 C 

Egretta thula snowy egret LS G5 S4 C 

Egretta tricolor tricolored heron, Louisiana heron LS G5 S4 C 

Elanoides forficatus swallow-tailed kite G4 S2S3 P 

Eudocimus albus white ibis LS G5 S4 C 

Falco columbarius Merlin G5 SU P 

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon LE LE G4 S2 P 

Falco sparverius paulus southeastern American kestrel LT G5T3T4 S3? P 

Fregata magnificens magnificent frigatebird G5 S1 P 

Grus canadensis pratensis Florida sandhill crane LT G5T2T3 S2S3 P 

Haematopus palliatus American oystercatcher LS G5 S3 P 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle LT LT G4 S3 C 

Helmitheros vermivorus worm-eating warbler G5 S1 C 

Ixobrychus exilis least bittern G5 S4 P 

Laterallus jamaicensis black rail G4 S3? P 

Mycteria americana wood stork LE LE G4 S2 C 

Nyctanassa violacea yellow-crowned night-heron G5 S3? C 

Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night-heron G5 S3? C 

Pandion haliaetus Osprey LS** G5 S3S4 C 

Pelecanus occidentalis brown pelican LS G4 S3 C 



FNAI 

Global 

Rank 

FNAI 


Rank 

FNAI 

Occurrence 


within 


249


Federal 


Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker LE LT G3 S2 C 

Picoides villosus hairy woodpecker G5 S3? P 

Plegadis falcinellus glossy ibis G5 S2 P 

Polyborus plancus audubonii Audubon's crested caracara T T 

Rallus longirostris scottii Florida clapper rail G5T3? S3? P 

Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus snail kite LE LE G4G5T1 S1 C 

Rynchops niger black skimmer LS G5 S3 C 

Setophaga ruticilla American redstart G5 S3 C 

Speotyto cunicularia floridana Florida burrowing owl LS G4T3 S3 P 

Sterna antillarum least tern LT G4 S3 C 

Sterna caspia Caspian tern G5 S2? P 

Sterna maxima royal tern G5 S3 C 

Sterna sandvicensis sandwich tern G5 S2 C 

Vireo altiloquus black-whiskered vireo G5 S3 P 

MAMMALS 

Balaena glacialis right whale E E 

Balaenoptera physalus finback whale E E 

Blarina carolinensis (=brevicauda) shermani Sherman's short-tailed shrew SSC 

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat G3 S3? P 

Eubalaena glacialis black right whale LE LE G1 S1 C 

Felis concolor coryi Florida panther LE LE G5T1 S1 C 

Megaptera novaengliae Humpback whale E E 

Mustela frenata peninsulae Florida long-tailed weasel G5T3 S3? P 

Neofiber alleni round-tailed muskrat G3 S3 P 

Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris southeastern beach mouse LT LT G5T1 S1 C 



FNAI 

Global 

Rank 

FNAI 


Rank 

FNAI 

Occurrence 


within 


250


Federal 


Physeter catodon sperm whale, cachalot E E 

Podomys floridanus Florida mouse LS G3 S3 P 

Sciurus niger shermani Sherman's fox squirrel LS G5T2 S2 P 

Trichechus manatus Florida manatee LE LE G2? S2? C 

Ursus americanus floridanus Florida black bear C LT** G5T2 S2 P 



FNAI 

Global 

Rank 

FNAI 


Rank 

FNAI 

Occurrence 


within 


251

Appendix F. List of Natural Communities that Potentially Occur 

within St. Lucie County. 

List of Natural Communities that Potentially Occur Within St. Lucie County 


Global 

Occurrence 

State Rank 

Rank 


TERRESTRIAL 

Xeric Uplands 

Scrub G2 S2 C 

Sandhill G2G3 S2 C 

Xeric Hammock G? S3 C 

Coastal Uplands 

Beach Dune G4? S2 C 

Coastal Strand G3? S2 C 

Maritime Hammock G3 S2 C 

Shell Mound G3 S2 C 

Coastal Grassland G3 S2 C 

Coastal Interdunal Swale G3 S2 C 

Mesic Flatlands 

Dry Prairie G2 S2 C 

Mesic Flatwoods G? S4 C 

Scrubby Flatwoods G3 S3 C 

Prairie Hammock G4 S3 C 

Mesic Uplands 

Slope Forest G3 S2 C 

Upland Hardwood Forest G? S3 C 

Upland Mixed Forest G? S4 C 

PALUSTRINE 

Wet Flatlands 

Hydric Hammock G? S4? C 

Wet Flatwoods G? S4? C 

Wet Prairie G? S4? C 

Marl Prairie G? S4? C 

Floodplain Wetlands 

Floodplain Forest G? S3 C 

Floodplain Marsh G3? S2 C 

Floodplain Swamp G? S4? C 

Swale G4? S3 C 

Slough G3 S3 C 

Strand Swamp G4 S4 C 

Bottomland Forest G4 S4? C 

Basin Wetlands 

Basin Swamp G4? S3 C 

252


Global 

Occurrence 

State Rank 

Rank 


Depression Marsh G4? S3 C 

Basin Marsh G? S4? C 

Baygall G4? S4? C 

Bog G? S3 C 

Dome Swamp G4? S3? C 

LACUSTRINE 

Flatwoods Lake G4? S3 C 

Sandhill Upland Lake G3 S2 C 

RIVERINE 

Blackwater Stream G4 S2 C 

Spring-run Stream G2 S2 C 

MARINE/ESTUARINE 

Marine Octocoral Bed G2 S1 C 

Marine Sponge Bed G2 S2 C 

Seagrass Bed G2 S2 C 

Tidal Marsh G4 S4 C 

Tidal Swamp G3 S3 C 

Marine Consolidated Substrate G3 S3 C 

Marine Composite Substrate G3 S3 C 

253

Appendix G. Copy of Site Permission Letter 

254

BOARD OF COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS 

PUBLIC WORKS 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 

Dear Property Owner: 

As a requirement of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan a comprehensive vegetative and 

wildlife habitat survey of St. Lucie County is being conducted. The purpose of survey is to 

determine how the natural landscape of St. Lucie County has changed over the last 10 years, since 

the last assessment was done, as well as plan for future land acquisition and management. This 

project will provide the County with descriptions and a map of the different vegetative 

communities and wildlife habitats that occur in the County as well as locations of rare species and 

other significant ecological elements. 

On site visits that provide field verification are necessary to develop accurate descriptions of the 

vegetative communities and rare wildlife and plant occurrences within the County. A portion of 

your property along with other areas in the vicinity has been identified as having representative 

vegetative communities requiring field verification. 

The County is requesting that members of Pandion Systems, Inc., consultants to the County, be 

permitted to visit your property and validate the vegetative communities on your property. This 

site visit will involve only a site walk over by one or two professional ecologists who will make 

visual observations and record descriptions of the vegetation. Copies of the report will be 

available at the end the summer 2003. 

If site access is not possible, please call, fax or email Crissy Sutter at Pandion Systems by May 

15, 2003 and let her know your decision not to allow site access. She can also discuss with you 

the specifics of the site visit. 

PANDION SYSTEMS, INC 

5200 NW 43rd Street, Suite 102-314 

Gainesville, Fl 32606-4482 

Phone: 352-372-4747 

Fax: 352-372-4714 

Email: csutter@pandionsystems.com 

If you have other questions regarding the project, please contact me. 

The County greatly appreciates your cooperation. Thank you for assisting St. Lucie County with 

this vegetative inventory. 

Sincerely, 

Vanessa Bessey 

Environmental Resources Manager 

255

St. Lucie County 

(772) 462-2526 

JOHN D. BRUHN, District No. 1 * DOUG COWARD, District 2 * PAULA A. LEWIS, District 3 * FRANNIE HUTCHINSON, District 4 * 

CLIFF BARNES, District No. 5 

County Administrator - Douglas M. Anderson 

2300 Virginia Avenue * Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5653 * 

Public Works: (772) 462-1485 Fax (772) 462-2362 

Environmental Resources: Phone (772) 462-2526 Fax (772) 462-1684 

Division of Engineering: (772) 462-1707 Fax 462-2362 * Division of Road & Bridge: (772) 462-2511 Fax 

462-2363 

Division of Solid Waste: (772) 462-1768 Fax 462-6987 

Division of Building & Inspections: (772) 462-1553 Fax 462-1735 

TDD (772) 462-1428 

256

Appendix H. Mapping Discussion 

This appendix provides a discussion of general mapping issues encountered when 

working with a GIS system and items specific to this project. 

Large Mapping Scale 

FLUCCS is mapped in 0.25 acre blocks for developed areas and 1 acre blocks for 

undeveloped areas. This results in inclusions. Inclusions are small but distinct natural 

community types that are found within larger communities and are classified as the larger 

community type. These inclusions also account for what appear to be illogical reversals 

in community types and contribute to the one-to-many relationship between FLUCCS 

and FNAI community types. For example, the reclassification of Temperate Hardwoods 

(425) to Blackwater Stream. 

Heads Up Digitizing 

Reclassifying the sites into FNAI natural community types leads to the drawing of new 

community type boundaries (new polygons). These new boundaries were often very 

different from the FLUCCS boundaries. This leads to a one-to-many relationship as 

discussed above. 

However, in some cases, when the FNAI community type boundaries were head-up 

digitized they were only very slightly different from those original FLUCCS boundaries. 

These small differences in line locations between the 2 data layers are slivers. Each 

sliver (e.g., polygon) is a tiny area, often a hundredth or a thousandth of an acre in size. 

But if the slivers are summed over the entire area of the 30 sites they may amount to 

several acres. However, this information should not be used to create a relationship 

between FLUCCS and FNAI types since it is an artifact of the mapping process. These 

slivers can also lead to both apparently illogical reclassifications as well as the one-tomany 

relationship between FLUCCS and FNAI. For example, Hardwoods-Conifer 

Mixed reclassified to Scrub. There are 23 occurrences that adds up to 8 acres total. This is 

an artifact of the mapping methodology, on the ground there were no drastic changes in 

community type from mesic to xeric. 

Semi-Natural Area 

Semi-natural areas (e.g., pastures and rangeland) are often established over wide areas 

and replace and/or impinge upon more complex natural systems containing many 

different natural community types. This leads to a one-to-many relationship between 

FLUCCS and FNAI. Under the established protocol for this project, FLUCCS seminatural 

areas were not usually reclassified as FNAI types. What happened more 

frequently during this project was that the lines at the edges of a natural community were 

redrawn to more accurately reflect the on the ground conditions and this results in an 

agricultural area being reclassified as several different FNAI types. Thus a single 

agricultural FLUCCS may be reclassified as several FNAI types and some of these may 

257

appear to be dramatic shifts. Again, however, no such dramatic change has occurred, it is 

an artifact of the mapping process. 

Table 1. Matrix showing the relationship between the mapping limitations and the 

data used to develop the FLUCCS to FNAI natural community relationship. 

An X indicates the subsequent issues that arise. 

FLUCCS Large 

Mapping Scale 

Heads-up 

Digitizing Method 

Semi-Natural 

Conditions 

Inclusions X 

One-to-Many X X X 

Illogical 

X X X 

reclassifications 

Slivers 

X 

258

Appendix I. Conversion of FLUCCS Categorized to FNAI Natural 

Communities - Tables and Histograms 


FLUCCS Categories. 



211 

212 

213 

Sum of 

acres 

Percent of 

acres 

FNAI Assigned 

Agriculture - Improved 

Pasture MF/Dry Prairie 222.14 1.98 





NA - Agriculture 1,417.25 12.65 

NA - Pasture 7,437.32 66.39 


Agriculture - Unimproved 

Pasture BW/Basin Marsh 0.68 0.02 







NA - Unimproved 

Pasture 121.50 3.48 

NA - Pasture 2,016.62 57.83 


Agriculture - Woodland 

Pasture MF/Mesic Flatwoods 22.71 100.00 


259


FNAI Assigned 

Sum of 

acres 

Percent of 

acres 

310 Herbaceous NA - Agriculture 0.03 100.00 


321 Palmetto Prairies BW/Depression Marsh 5.39 0.92 







NA - Pasture 72.68 12.46 


329 Other Shrub and Brush BW/Depression Marsh 13.21 2.30 






330 Mixed Rangeland MF/Mesic Flatwoods 595.56 40.37 

422 Brazilian Pepper 




NA - Pasture 346.28 23.48 

NA - Pasture 72.00 4.88 


CU/Maritime 

Hammock 1.42 0.31 



260


FNAI Assigned 

Sum of 

acres 

Percent of 

acres 





XU/Scrub 0.09 0.02 


NA - Pasture 31.56 6.97 


424 Melaleuca MF/Mesic Flatwoods 5.48 2.40 

SW/Baygall 114.31 50.14 



523 Lakes >10 and


FNAI Assigned 

Sum of 

acres 

Percent of 

acres 


6412 Freshwater Marshes –Cattail BW/Basin Marsh 56.04 24.69 






262

FLUCCS to FNAI Conversion 

Improved Pasture (211) 

70.00 

66.39 

60.00 

50.00 

Percent Acres 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

17.23 

12.65 

10.00 

0.00 

1.98 


MF/Mesic 

Flatwoods 

0.04 0.00 

WF/Hydric 

Hammock 

1.71 

WF/Wet Flatwoods WF/Wet Prairie NA - Agriculture NA - Pasture 

FNAI Communities 


Unimproved Pasture (212) 

70.00 

60.00 

57.83 

50.00 

Percent Acres 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

24.78 

10.00 

0.00 

0.02 0.49 0.97 

0.33 

8.39 

3.72 3.48 









NA - Unimproved pasture 

NA - Pasture 

263


Palmetto Prairie (321) 

60.00 

51.71 

50.00 

Percent Acres 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

21.09 

12.46 

10.00 

8.86 

0.00 

0.92 

BW/Depression 

Marsh 

3.81 


MF/Mesic 

Flatwoods 

0.29 0.85 

MF/Scrubby 

Flatwoods 

WF/Hydric 

Hammock 


WF/Wet 

Flatwoods 


NA - Pasture 


Shrub and Other Brush (329) 

70.00 

60.00 

58.74 

50.00 

Percent Acres 

40.00 

30.00 

31.69 

20.00 

10.00 

0.00 

6.88 

2.30 

0.38 

BW/Depression Marsh MF/Mesic Flatwoods WF/Hydric Hammock WF/Wet Flatwoods WF/Wet Prairie 


264


Mixed Rangeland (330) 

45.00 

40.00 

40.37 

35.00 

30.00 

Percent Acres 

25.00 

20.00 

19.89 

23.48 

15.00 

10.00 

5.00 

6.90 

4.47 

4.88 

0.00 

MF/Mesic Flatwoods WF/Hydric Hammock WF/Wet Flatwoods WF/Wet Prairie NA - Pasture NA - Pasture 



Brazilian Pepper (422) 

30.00 

25.00 

25.22 

23.19 

20.00 

Percent Acres 

15.00 

10.00 

14.33 

13.57 

15.32 

6.97 

5.00 

0.99 

0.31 0.07 

0.00 









XU/Scrub 

0.02 

NA - Agriculture 

NA - Pasture 

265


Melaleuca (424) 

60.00 

50.00 

50.14 

47.46 

40.00 

Percent Acres 

30.00 

20.00 

10.00 

2.40 

0.00 

MF/Mesic Flatwoods SW/Baygall WF/Wet Flatwoods 



Lake 10-100 acres (523) 

54.00 

53.47 

52.00 

Percent Acres 

50.00 

48.00 

46.00 

46.53 

44.00 

42.00 




266


Lakes


Pine Flatwoods - Melaleuca infested (4119) 

90.00 

80.00 

76.69 

70.00 

60.00 

Percent Acres 

50.00 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

18.45 

10.00 

0.00 

4.87 

MF/Mesic Flatwoods SW/Baygall WF/Wet Flatwoods 


268


Categories. Highlighted cells indicate a contribution greater than twenty percent. 

FLUCCS FLUCCS Description FNAI Assigned Sum of Acres 

Percent of 

acres 

411 Pine Flatwoods BW/Basin Marsh 4.13 0.10 




L/Flatwoods Lake 0.43 0.01 









XU/Scrub 10.45 0.25 



NA - Pasture 17.16 0.41 


412 Longleaf Pine - Xeric Oak MF/Scrubby Flatwoods 12.26 3.46 

XU/Scrub 342.07 96.54 


413 Sand Pine CU/Coastal Strand 9.95 1.09 

CU/Maritime Hammock 1.12 0.12 


FW/Floodplain Marsh 0.10 0.01 



XU/Scrub 719.34 78.71 


NA - Pasture 41.29 4.52 


414 Pine-Mesic Oak WF/Hydric Hammock 91.70 100.00 


425 Temperate Hardwoods BW/Depression Marsh 2.88 0.28 


FW/Floodplain Forest 17.95 1.74 





NA - Pasture 6.29 0.61 


269


Percent of 

acres 

427 Live Oak WF/Hydric Hammock 85.07 100.00 


428 Cabbage Palm WF/Hydric Hammock 14.70 100.00 


432 Sand Live Oak BW/Basin Marsh 2.18 17.48 


XU/Scrub 6.78 54.33 


434 Hardwoods-Conifer Mixed BW/Basin Swamp 47.41 6.00 




SW/Baygall 121.16 15.34 



XU/Scrub 9.94 1.26 


510 Streams and Waterways MF/Mesic Flatwoods 21.84 100.00 


611 Bay Swamps SW/Baygall 26.28 100.00 


615 

Stream and Lake Swamps 

(Bottomland) FW/Floodplain Forest 43.89 13.73 


SW/Baygall 264.36 82.71 


NA -Pasture 0.06 0.02 


617 Mixed Wetlands Hardwoods BW/Depression Marsh 14.48 3.42 

SW/Baygall 328.44 77.57 




621 Cypress BW/Basin Swamp 1100.42 80.16 

SW/Baygall 120.85 8.80 



624 Cypress-Pine-Cabbage Palm BW/Basin Swamp 345.64 100.00 


630 Wetland Forested Mixed WF/Hydric Hammock 6.09 5.56 



641 Freshwater Marshes BW/Basin Marsh 53.89 2.31 



270


Percent of 

acres 






NA - Pasture 17.72 0.76 

NA - Pasture 39.45 1.69 


643 Wet Prairies BW/Basin Marsh 11.42 0.55 










NA - Pasture 79.26 3.80 


6171 

Mixed Wetland Hardwoods – 

Willows BW/Depression Marsh 5.28 100.00 


6172 

Mixed Wetland Hardwoods – 

Mixed Shrubs BW/Basin Marsh 1.40 1.71 






6219 Cypress with Wet Prairies BW/Depression Marsh 3.60 6.52 



6411 

Freshwater Marshes - 

Sawgrass BW/Basin Marsh 32.05 21.95 




6439 Wet Prairies with Pine BW/Basin Marsh 3.83 2.09 






NA - Pasture 0.15 0.08 


271


Freshwater Marshes –Cattail (6412) 

70.00 

62.55 

60.00 

50.00 

Percent Acres 

40.00 

30.00 

24.69 

20.00 

10.00 

0.00 

9.91 

2.68 

0.16 

BW/Basin Marsh BW/Depression Marsh MF/Mesic Flatwoods WF/Wet Flatwoods WF/Wet Prairie 



Pine Flatwoods (411) 

70.00 

63.76 

60.00 

50.00 

Percent Acres 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

24.62 

10.00 

1.73 

0.10 0.18 0.33 

0.01 0.07 

0.88 1.23 0.78 1.12 

1.50 

2.41 

0.25 0.61 

0.41 

0.00 





L/Flatwoods Lake 





SW/Baygall 





XU/Scrub 


NA - Agriculture 

NA - Pasture 

272


Longleaf Pine - Xeric Oak (412) 

120.00 

100.00 

96.54 

80.00 

Percent Acres 

60.00 

40.00 

20.00 

3.46 

0.00 


XU/Scrub 


FLUCCS to FNAI 

Conversion Sand Pine (413) 

90.00 

80.00 

78.71 

70.00 

Percent Acres 

60.00 

50.00 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

10.00 

0.00 

1.09 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.46 

12.21 

2.84 

4.52 

CU/Coastal Strand 



FW/Floodplain Marsh 




XU/Scrub 


NA - Pasture 

273


Temperate Hardwoods (425) 

100.00 

90.00 

92.36 

80.00 

70.00 

Percent Acres 

60.00 

50.00 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

10.00 

0.00 

0.28 

BW/Depression 

Marsh 

1.64 1.74 2.26 

FW/Bottomland 

Forest 

FW/Floodplain 

Forest 

MF/Prairie 

Hammock 

0.46 

R/Blackwater 

Stream 

WF/Hydric 

Hammock 

0.64 0.61 

WF/Wet 

Flatwoods 

NA - Pasture 



Sand Live Oak (432) 

60.00 

54.33 

50.00 

40.00 

Percent Acres 

30.00 

28.18 

20.00 

17.48 

10.00 

0.00 

BW/Basin Marsh MF/Scrubby Flatwoods XU/Scrub 


274


Hardwood-Conifer Mixed (434) 

50.00 

45.00 

44.27 

40.00 

35.00 

Percent Acres 

30.00 

25.00 

20.00 

15.00 

13.71 

15.34 

10.00 

5.00 

0.00 

6.00 

BW/Basin 

Swamp 

1.01 

BW/Depression 

Marsh 

FW/Bottomland 

Forest 

8.74 

MF/Mesic 

Flatwoods 

SW/Baygall 

WF/Hydric 

Hammock 

9.66 

WF/Wet 

Flatwoods 

1.26 

XU/Scrub 



Stream and Lake Swamps (Bottomland) (615) 

90.00 

80.00 

82.71 

70.00 

60.00 

Percent Acres 

50.00 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

10.00 

0.00 

13.73 

1.60 

1.94 

0.02 

FW/Floodplain Forest R/Blackwater Stream SW/Baygall WF/Hydric Hammock NA - Pasture 


275


Mixed Wetlands Hardwoods (617) 

90.00 

80.00 

77.57 

70.00 

60.00 

Percent Acres 

50.00 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

14.92 

10.00 

3.42 

4.09 

0.00 

BW/Depression Marsh SW/Baygall WF/Hydric Hammock WF/Wet Prairie 



Cypress (621) 

90.00 

80.00 

80.16 

70.00 

60.00 

Percent Acres 

50.00 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

10.00 

8.80 

11.03 

0.00 

BW/Basin Swamp SW/Baygall WF/Wet Flatwoods 


276


Wetland Forested Mixed (630) 

100.00 

94.44 

90.00 

80.00 

70.00 

Percent Acres 

60.00 

50.00 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

10.00 

5.56 

0.00 





Freshwater Marshes (641) 

90.00 

80.00 

82.80 

70.00 

Percent Acres 

60.00 

50.00 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

10.00 

2.31 

0.27 

0.00 





10.05 

0.30 1.30 0.19 0.32 

SW/Baygall 





NA -Pasture 

0.76 1.69 

NA - Pasture 

277


Wet Prairies (643) 

80.00 

70.00 

72.38 

60.00 

Percent Acres 

50.00 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

15.34 

10.00 

0.55 0.54 

0.00 





3.80 

0.74 1.88 0.74 1.34 1.94 

0.76 


SW/Baygall 






NA - Pasture 


Mixed Wetland Hardwoods – Mixed Shrubs (6172) 

80.00 

70.00 

68.78 

60.00 

Percent Acres 

50.00 

40.00 

30.00 

25.98 

20.00 

10.00 

0.00 

1.71 

3.51 

0.03 

BW/Basin Marsh BW/Basin Swamp BW/Depression Marsh WF/Wet Prairie XU/Xeric Hammock 


278


Cypress with Wet Prairies (6219) 

100.00 

93.48 

90.00 

80.00 

70.00 

Percent Acres 

60.00 

50.00 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

10.00 

6.52 

0.00 





Freshwater Marshes - Sawgrass (6411) 

90.00 

80.00 

76.48 

70.00 

60.00 

Percent Acres 

50.00 

40.00 

30.00 

20.00 

21.95 

10.00 

0.00 

BW/Basin Marsh BW/Depression Marsh WF/Wet Flatwoods 


1.58 

279


Wet Prairies with Pine (6439) 

50.00 

46.77 

45.00 

40.00 

35.00 

Percent Acres 

30.00 

25.00 

20.00 

20.16 

15.00 

10.00 

10.81 

9.46 

10.63 

5.00 

0.00 

2.09 

BW/Basin Marsh BW/Basin Swamp BW/Depression 

Marsh 

MF/Mesic 

Flatwoods 

MF/Scrubby 

Flatwoods 


0.08 

NA - Pasture 


280

Native Habitat Inventory Final Report 2004 - St. Lucie County

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?