Native Habitat Inventory Final Report 2004 - St. Lucie County

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1 and 2: St. Lucie County Native Habitat Inv
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Acknowledgements
Page 5 and 6: Appendix E. List of Rare Species th
Page 7 and 8: Acknowledgements Pandion Systems wo
Page 9 and 10: Glossary ACI - Area of Conservation
Page 11 and 12: Executive Summary The overall objec
Page 13 and 14: The Site Data Summaries and Ranks s
Page 15 and 16: • To identify and prioritize land
Page 17 and 18: The species-area relationship does
Page 19 and 20: composition through selective grazi
Page 21 and 22: Site No Site Rank Overall Ecologica
Page 23 and 24: The Site Data Summaries and Ranks s
Page 25 and 26: 5 -- Slated for development or prim
Page 27 and 28: 5 -- Directly contiguous with large
Page 29 and 30: Methods and Results Overview This p
Page 31 and 32: Project Team made a judgment call o
Page 33 and 34: Figure 3. St. Lucie County 2002 Nat
Page 35: Discussion of Methodology The limit
Page 39 and 40: Inventory of Existing Native Upland
Page 41 and 42: Number Polygons 49 385 1,318 FLUCCS
Page 43 and 44: Despite these exceptions, most spec
Page 45 and 46: Table 10. Summary of FLUCCS Types a
Page 47 and 48: SITE NAME FLUCCS Descriptions FLUCC
Page 49 and 50: SITE NAME FLUCCS Descriptions FLUCC
Page 51 and 52: Table 11. Comparison of the Amount
Page 53 and 54: FLUCCS Number FLUCCS Description Ac
Page 55 and 56: mixed landowner response. Ultimatel
Page 57 and 58: Developing Field Data Collection Ma
Page 59 and 60: Table 12. Example of Calculation of
Page 61 and 62: influences rather than natural infl
Page 63 and 64: FLUCCS FLUCCS Description 213 Sum o
Page 65 and 66: FLUCCS FLUCCS Description FNAI Assi
Page 71 and 72: southeastern kestrel, Florida sandh
Page 73 and 74: Site 4N. FNAI Natural Communities L
Page 75: Site 4S. FNAI Natural Communities L
Page 78 and 79: Table 2. Community Types present on
Page 81 and 82: Site Number: 24 Site Rank: A Total
Page 83 and 84: Common Name Scientific Name FLEPPC
Page 85 and 86: Site 24. Rare Species [´ hg [´ hg
Page 88 and 89:
Site Number: 25 Site Rank: A Total
Page 90 and 91:
Site 25. FNAI Natural Communities L
Page 92:
Site 25. Invasive Exotic Species qp
Page 95 and 96:
Site History/Habitat Disturbance -
Page 97 and 98:
SIte 41. Rare Species Legend qp Cha
Page 100 and 101:
Site Number: 42 Site Rank: A/B Tota
Page 102 and 103:
Ownership/Notes - The west part is
Page 104 and 105:
Site 42. Rare Species [ [ [ [ Legen
Page 107 and 108:
Site Number: 43 Site Rank: A Total
Page 109:
Page 112 and 113:
Ownership/Notes - Permission for gr
Page 114 and 115:
101
Page 116 and 117:
Hydrology - The hydrology has been
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
107
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
SIte 51. Rare Species Legend [ Goph
Page 126 and 127:
113
Page 128 and 129:
Canals surround the site but the si
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Site Number: 7 Site Rank: B Total A
Page 134 and 135:
Management for this site will be th
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Site Number: 11 Site Rank: B Total
Page 140 and 141:
Table 4. Invasive Exotic Species ob
Page 142 and 143:
Site 11. Rare Species * [` l Legend
Page 144 and 145:
131
Page 146 and 147:
vegetation observed. There are some
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
137
Page 152 and 153:
Proximity to primary and secondary
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
143
Page 158 and 159:
Table 2. Community Types present on
Page 160 and 161:
Site 15. Rare Species "e "e Legend
Page 162 and 163:
149
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Site 18. Rare Species Legend !F Gru
Page 168 and 169:
155
Page 170 and 171:
Fork of the St. Lucie which is the
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
161
Page 176 and 177:
Site History/Habitat Disturbance- T
Page 178 and 179:
Site 28. Rare Species [ [¨ ih hg [
Page 180 and 181:
167
Page 182 and 183:
Table 3. Listed Species observed. C
Page 184 and 185:
Site 30. Rare Species ih [ [ [¨[ l
Page 186 and 187:
173
Page 188 and 189:
Hydrology - The overall hydrologica
Page 190 and 191:
177
Page 192 and 193:
Table 3. Listed Species observed. C
Page 194 and 195:
Site 16. Invasive Exotic Species Le
Page 196 and 197:
Site Number: 17 Site Rank: C Total
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
187
Page 202 and 203:
Hydrology - The vegetation at the t
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Site 26. Invasive Exotic Species ¡
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
¡£ qp Site 27. Invasive Exotic Sp
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Conclusions The opportunity for pre
Page 244 and 245:
Bibliography Cooper RM, Ortel TW. 1
Page 246 and 247:
Lenze DG. 2002. Florida Long-term E
Page 248 and 249:
Appendices Appendix A. Explanation
Page 250 and 251:
Definitions derived from U.S. Endan
Page 252 and 253:
Appendix B. Rare Species Observed R
Page 254 and 255:
Appendix D. Natural Communities Obs
Page 256 and 257:
Scientific Name Common Name Coelora
Page 258 and 259:
Scientific Name Common Name Federal
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Scientific Name Global Occurrence S
Page 268 and 269:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLI
Page 270 and 271:
Appendix H. Mapping Discussion This
Page 272 and 273:
Appendix I. Conversion of FLUCCS Ca
Page 274 and 275:
FLUCCS FLUCCS Description FNAI Assi
Page 276 and 277:
FLUCCS to FNAI Conversion Improved
Page 278 and 279:
FLUCCS to FNAI Conversion Mixed Ran
Page 280 and 281:
FLUCCS to FNAI Conversion Lakes
Page 282 and 283:
Table 13. Community Conversion from
Page 284 and 285:
FLUCCS FLUCCS Description FNAI Assi
Page 286 and 287:
FLUCCS to FNAI Conversion Longleaf
Page 288 and 289:
FLUCCS to FNAI Conversion Hardwood-
Page 290 and 291:
FLUCCS to FNAI Conversion Wetland F
Page 292 and 293:
FLUCCS to FNAI Conversion Cypress w
show all

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?