ATTACHMENT_2_FINAL_EMP.pdf

CROSS BAR and AL BAR RANCH

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN

September 2019

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

735 Lakeview Drive Wimauma, FL 33598

In Association with:

The Forestry Company 3 B Cattle Company

Cross Bar and Al Bar Ranch Ecosystem Management Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... i

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Management Requirements ............................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Purpose and Goals of the Ecosystem Management Plan ................................... 1-2

1.3.1 Purpose .................................................................................................. 1-2

1.3.2 Management Goals ................................................................................ 1-3

2.0 SITE HISTORY ...................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Geologic History .................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Vegetation History .............................................................................................. 2-2

2.3 Cross Bar/Al Bar History (1940’s to present) ...................................................... 2-5

2.4 Wellfield History ................................................................................................. 2-5

2.5 Land Management History ................................................................................. 2-7

2.5.1 Florida Scrub-jay Management Area (FSJMA) ....................................... 2-7

2.6 Wildlife History ................................................................................................... 2-8

2.6.1 Central Pasco Important Bird Area ........................................................ 2-8

3.0 CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Soils ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Hydrologic Features ............................................................................................ 3-1

3.3.1 Hydrologic Monitoring ........................................................................... 3-2

3.4 Existing Vegetation Communities ....................................................................... 3-2

3.4.1 Native Habitats ...................................................................................... 3-3

3.4.2 Converted Lands .................................................................................... 3-6

3.4.3 Nuisance and Exotic Vegetation ............................................................ 3-6

3.4.4 Listed Plant Species................................................................................ 3-7

3.5 Wildlife ................................................................................................................ 3-8

3.5.1 Focal Species .......................................................................................... 3-8

3.5.2 Other Protected Species ...................................................................... 3-14

3.5.3 Other/Nuisance Wildlife ...................................................................... 3-16

White-tailed Deer ............................................................................................. 3-16

Wild Hogs .......................................................................................................... 3-16

Coyotes ............................................................................................................. 3-17

3.6 Conservation Corridors ..................................................................................... 3-18

3.8 Adjacent Lands .................................................................................................. 3-19

4.0 RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Long-Term Restoration and Management Goals ............................................... 4-1

4.2 Core Conservation Areas .................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Native Forest Restoration ................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.1 Long Leaf Pine Restoration .................................................................. 4-11

4.4 Florida Scrub-jay Management Area ................................................................ 4-15

4.4.1 FSJMA Compatible Adjacent Land Uses ............................................... 4-17

4.5 Pasture Preserve Areas ..................................................................................... 4-19

4.6 Timberlands Management ................................................................................ 4-23

4.7 Wetlands ........................................................................................................... 4-27

4.7.1 Wetland Monitoring Program ............................................................. 4-27

4.7.2 General Wetland Management Recommendations ............................ 4-28

4.8 Nuisance and Exotic Species Management ..................................................... 4-31

4.8.1 Nuisance and Exotic Vegetation Management ................................... 4-31

4.8.2 N/E Wildlife .......................................................................................... 4-34

4.9 Other/Target Species ........................................................................................ 4-36

4.10 Additional/Future Land Uses ............................................................................ 4-39

4.10.1 Palmetto Berry Harvesting ................................................................... 4-39

4.11 Prescribed Fire Plan .......................................................................................... 4-40

4.11.1 Fire Management Goals ....................................................................... 4-41

4.11.2 Prescribed Fire Planning ...................................................................... 4-43

5.0 MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 5-2

6.0 LITERATURE CITED.............................................................................................................. 6-1

TABLES

Table 3-1 Soil Distribution by Type ................................................................................................ 3-20

Table 3-2 Existing Vegetation Communities .................................................................................. 3-21

Table 3-3 Listed Plants Potentially Occurring ................................................................................ 3-22

Table 3-4 Listed Wildlife Species Observed ................................................................................... 3-24

Table 3-5 Non-listed Wildlife Observed ......................................................................................... 3-25

Table 4-1 Florida Natural Communities Fire Dependency and Frequency .................................... 4-47

FIGURES

1-1 Cross Bar and AL Bar Location Map

2-1 Topography

2-2 1941 Aerial of Cross Bar – Al Bar

2-3 1941 Aerial of FSJMA

2-4 TBW Production Wells

2-5 Cross Bar Augmented Wetlands

2-6 Al-Bar Augmented Wetlands

2-7 PCU Ditch Blocks

2-8 1995 Designated Preservation Areas

2-9 Historic Protected Wildlife

3-1 Infrastructure

3-2 Soils

3-3 FEMA Flood Zones

3-4 FLUCCS with Acreage

3-5 Pine Plantations

3-6 Longleaf Pine Harvest Plan

3-7 Pasture Use

3-8 FSJ Observations

3-9 Historical Burrowing Owl Locations

3-10 Burrowing Owl Primary Nest Burrows

3-11 Existing Kestrel Nest Boxes

3-12 Gopher Tortoises

3-13 Regional Conservation Lands

3-14 Adjacent Land Owners

4-1 Core Conservation Areas

4-2 Core Conservation Areas, Wetlands and Pine

4-3 FSJMA Burn Units

4-4 FSJMA FLUCCS

4-5 Timber Impacts

September 2019

4-6 Burrowing Owl Pasture Use

4-7 Existing and Proposed Kestrel Nest Boxes

4-8 Palmetto Berry Harvest Areas

ATTACHMENT 1 FWC Letter

APPENDIX A FSJMA Short-term Management Plan i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Cross Bar / Al Bar Ranches (CB/AB) comprise 12,381 acres located in north-central Pasco County.

CB/AB is owned and managed by Pinellas County Utilities (PCU) and is primarily used as a regional well field, operated by Tampa Bay Water (TBW). Current management of CB/AB is based on a mixed use resource management plan developed for the site in 1992, which called for the creation of high yield pine plantations while balancing the water supply program, agricultural operations, and wildlife habitat management. The land uses and activities on CB/AB have evolved over this time period, requiring an update to the current program and development of an Ecosystem Management Plan (EMP). As stated by

PCU: “The Objective of the EMP is to protect the water and natural resources of CB/AB. The forestry, agricultural, and other future revenue producing activities shall be compatible with this intent and with the desire to offset management costs.”

In May 2018, PCU Pinellas County (County) contracted with The Forestry Company (TFC) to lead a team of professionals with the required expertise to assist the County with the development and implementation of a comprehensive management plan, including development of the EMP. In addition to TFC foresters, team members include and Quest Ecology Inc. (Quest) and 3B Cattle (3B), firms that are recognized for expertise in wildlife management and habitat restoration planning, and cattle production/range management, respectively. Development of the EMP for the property is one of the objectives of the first year of the five (5) year contract and is the subject of this document.

Pinellas County maintains a set of requirements for protecting water resources that it applies to the ownership and management of its properties that are held primarily for wellfield purposes. This EMP has been prepared in conformance with these management requirements, listed below.

Protection of Water Resources - No land use or management will be permitted that could adversely impact the wellfield operations or compromise the area hydrology. The proposed management plan will provide for enhancement of groundwater and wetland resources where beneficial. Protection of the water resources shall be consistent with TBW’s wellfield and water withdrawal restricted covenant and Pasco County’s Groundwater Protection Ordinance.

Maintain or Enhance Property Security - A 24/7 onsite security mechanism should continue in order to prevent exposure of the County to liability or jeopardize the wellfield and silviculture investments.

Long-term Financial Return - Land uses must not put excessive fiscal burden on the County.

Capital outlay must be justified to demonstrate that the investment will offset the cost of implementing the proposed ecosystem management plan.

Wildlife Enhancement - Operations shall incorporate practices that increase and diversify habitat to encourage viable populations of important wildlife species.

Laws and Regulations - Operations on the property will comply with the laws, rules, and ordinances of regulatory agencies at all jurisdictional levels.

ii

Sound Land Management - All practices shall adhere to standards that demonstrate responsible and ethical land use per above. Perspective shall be long-term and focused on sustaining productivity.

Tax Status Maintenance - Management of the property shall be that of accepted agricultural uses so that the current taxing status is maintained.

Public Perception - Use of the property shall enhance the area and maintain public support.

It is the intent of PCU and this EMP to recommend strategies based on sound ecosystem management principles to be implemented to meet the above stated management requirements.

This EMP document provides a summary of the County’s management objectives and requirements; a description of historical conditions that shaped and influenced the present-day character of CB/AB; a summary of the existing conditions as documented within the first year of the Contract; and goals and recommendations for short- and long-term habitat restoration and management. This includes addressing the long-term goal of establishing a longleaf pine flatwoods habitat, scrubby flatwoods and sandhill habitats after the timber harvest is completed, the management of pasture preserve areas, and restoration within the designated Florida Scrub-jay Management Area (FSJMA).

This EMP also includes an overview of proposed future conditions, which summarize the priorities and preferences selected by PCU to guide future management. This EMP is envisioned to be an evolving document with a significant Adaptive Management component. As such, recommendations for management and restoration actions will be presented in a broad-brush approach, with overall goals outlined, but details on locations, methods and timing will be developed as the EMP is implemented.

While it is understood that the current high yield forestry operations are critical to the successful economic model of the property, the recommendations provided in this EMP are intended to be considered as integrated future land use components for the purpose of restoring and enhancing the wildlife habitat in key areas.

Page 1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Cross Bar / Al Bar Ranches (CB/AB) comprise 12,381 acres located in north-central Pasco County, between US Highway 41 and I-75, approximately 1.5 miles north of State Road 52 (Figure 1-1 –

Location). The property is accessed from Bowman Road on the north and Locket Road on the South.

CB/AB is owned and managed by Pinellas County Utilities (PCU) and is primarily used as a regional well field, operated by Tampa Bay Water (TBW). CB/AB is currently being managed for mixed uses, including water supply operations, silviculture, agriculture, and wildlife habitat management. The intent has been to manage the property to protect the water and natural resources, with the forestry, agricultural and other current and future revenue producing activities to be compatible with this intent and with the desire to offset management costs.

Pinellas County purchased the Cross Bar Ranch from the Norris Cattle Company in 1976. The County leased the land to others for cattle and crop/citrus operations until 1992. The County purchased Al-Bar

Ranch in 1990 and leased back the property for continuation of the existing ranching activities until

1992. In 1992 the County established a land management team to convert the property from principally a wellfield and cattle ranch to a balanced regime of wellfield production, silviculture, wildlife enhancement and cattle production operations. The report “Natural Resource Production as a

Management Option” (NRPS 1992) was developed and formed the basis of the current management program for the site. Over 4,770 acres of pine were planted between 1993 through 1996 on existing pasture. Another 1,500 acres were designated as pasture for agricultural operations. The remaining land

(approximately 6,100 acres) was allowed to remain in the natural state, with minimal management. The

1,678 acre Florida Scrub-jay Management Area was later designated on the Al-Bar Ranch.

The activities on CB/AB have evolved since the implementation of the 1992 plan, requiring an update to the current program and development of an Ecosystem Management Plan (EMP). In May 2018 PCU contracted with The Forestry Company (TFC) to lead a team of professionals with the required expertise to assist the County with the development and implementation of a comprehensive management plan, including development of the EMP. TFC team members include Quest Ecology Inc. (Quest) and 3B Cattle

(3B), firms that provide expertise in the areas of wildlife management and habitat restoration planning, and cattle production/range management, respectively. Development of this EMP for the property is one of the objectives of the first year of the five (5) year contract.

1.2 Management Requirements

This EMP has been prepared in conformance with the County’s Management Requirements for the property, as outlined below:

Page 1-2

Protection of Water Resources – No land use or management will be permitted that could adversely impact the wellfield operations or compromise the area hydrology. The proposed management plan will provide for enhancement of groundwater and wetland resources where beneficial. Protection of the water resources shall be consistent with Tampa Bay Water’s

(TBW’s) wellfield and water withdrawal restricted covenant and Pasco County’s Groundwater

Protection Ordinance.

Maintain or Enhance Property Security – A 24/7 onsite security mechanism should continue in order to prevent exposure of the County to liability or jeopardize the wellfield and silvicultural investments.

Long-Term Financial Return – Land uses must not put excessive fiscal burden on the County.

Capital outlay must be justified to demonstrate that the investment will offset the cost of implementing the proposed ecosystem management plan.

Wildlife Enhancement – Operations shall incorporate practices that increase and diversify habitat to encourage viable populations of important wildlife species.

Laws and Regulations – Operations on the property will comply with the laws, rules, and ordinances of regulatory agencies at all jurisdictional levels.

Sound Land Management – All practices shall adhere to standards that demonstrate responsible and ethical land use per above.

Tax Status Maintenance – Management of the property shall be that of accepted agricultural uses so that the current taxing status is maintained.

Public Perception – Use of the property shall enhance the area and maintain public support.

1.3 Purpose and Goals of the Ecosystem Management Plan

1.3.1 Purpose

The purpose of this EMP is to identify long-term goals for the site, focusing on future land uses and vegetation communities, based on the mixed use scenario envisioned by PCU, while adhering to the above Management Requirements. This EMP will also provide recommendations for strategies to attain these goals based on sound ecosystem management principles. The EMP is intended to provide a broad overview of proposed future conditions, with the various objectives for achieving individual goals subject to significant Adaptive Management strategies.

This EMP document includes a description of historical conditions that shaped and influenced the present-day character of CB/AB, as well as a summary of the existing land uses and current conditions that will serve as a baseline from which to measure the success of actions taken under the EMP.

Historical and current conditions will guide recommendations for short- and long-term habitat restoration and management, with an emphasis on restoring chosen areas to historic native vegetation communities. Recommendations for management and restoration actions will vary depending on proposed land uses, and will be based on current data and other relevant factors. The EMP is a general

Page 1-3 road map for achieving overall management goals and is intended to be adapted over time in response to observed environmental changes and outside influences such as funding mechanisms. The results of short-term management activities, and potentially the response of target species, will also affect future management decisions. Plan details regarding specific locations, methods and timing will continue to be developed as the EMP is implemented.

1.3.2 Management Goals

While it is understood that the current high yield forestry operations are critical to the successful economic model of the property, the management recommendations provided in this EMP are intended to be considered as integrated future land use components for the purpose of restoring and enhancing the wildlife habitat in key areas.

Pinellas County’s stated overarching goal for the EMP is to: “protect the water and natural resources of

CB/AB. The forestry, agricultural, and other future revenue producing activities shall be compatible with this intent and with the desire to offset management costs.”

1.3.2.1 Long-term Goals

The following long-term goals have been identified to meet the intent of the County’s Management

Requirements for the property and to specifically address the restoration and management of native habitats for wildlife and resource protection.

1. Implement conservation measures to enhance and expand the use of the site by a diverse assemblage of native plant and wildlife species;

2. Establish, restore, and manage for native longleaf pine flatwoods habitat, scrubby flatwoods and sandhill habitats within appropriate areas;

3. Restore and manage habitat in optimal condition for the Florida scrub-jay within and adjacent to the designated Florida Scrub-jay Management Area (FSJMA);

4. Manage and expand pasture areas in conditions suitable for use by the burrowing owl;

5. Implement a Prescribed Burn Plan for the site that will mimic natural burn regimes to maintain the historic structure and composition of native habitats while protecting forestry resources;

6. Implement a monitoring and maintenance program for maintaining wetlands in optimal condition for wildlife and water resources;

7. Control nuisance and exotic plants and wildlife that threaten the integrity of native habitats, land uses, and the achievement of management goals;

8. Employ compatible land uses that generate revenue to offset management costs;

9. Ensure that all forestry, agricultural, and other future revenue producing activities adhere to practices that will not negatively impact native habitats and protected wildlife;

Page 1-4

10. Implement a wildlife and habitat monitoring plan for the purpose of monitoring the results of management activities and employing adaptive management;

11. Adopt an Adaptive Management Program that will employ the results of ongoing monitoring, maintenance and management to evaluate success and adjust actions accordingly.

12. Reevaluate and update the EMP every five years.

PASCO

HILLSBOROUGH

HERNANDO

PINELLAS

POLK

SUMTER

Pa th

(E :\M ap pin g\C ros s B ar

- A l B ar Ra nc h\M ap s\C ros s B ar an d A L B ar Lo ca tio n M ap

.m xd

) B y:

CK

D ate : 7

/8/

Figure 1-1 Location

Cross Bar and Al Bar Ranch Pasco County, Florida

.0 10 Miles

Legend

County

Page 2-1

2.0 SITE HISTORY

This section of the EMP describes some of the significant historical forces that have shaped and influenced the present-day character and condition of the CB/AB property. A comprehensive understanding of these forces is essential for making fully informed land management decisions.

2.1 Geologic History

CB/AB is located between the elevations of 60 to 100 feet along the western toe of the Brooksville

Ridge, near its southern terminus (Figure 2-1, Topography). The Brooksville Ridge is a northwest to southeast-trending relict dune feature that rises up to 200 feet above the Gulf Coastal Lowlands lying west of the ridge. Its western toe is topographically defined by a marine scarp located between 90 to

100 feet, formed by a prolonged high stand of sea level during the early Pliocene (Alt & Brooks, 1965), approximately 5.33 to 3.60 million years ago (mya). A younger scarp was also recognized by Alt & Brooks

(1965) as occurring roughly between the elevations of 70 and 80 feet. This high stand of sea level occurred in the Late Pliocene (Scott, 1997), 3.60 to 2.59 mya. Multiple fluctuations in sea level followed during the Pleistocene (2.59 mya – 11,700 years before present), but those seas did not rise higher than approximately 65 feet above present-day sea level (Scott, 1997). Therefore, based on the topography of

CB/AB, most of the land surfaces within the property have been aerially exposed and not inundated by the sea for any significant length of time for the past 3.60 to 2.59 million years.

The one area of exception on CB/AB is located in the northwestern quarter of the property where the average elevation is closer to 60 feet and the topographic relief is considerably less. This portion of the property represents a land surface more recently subjected to the leveling influences of Pleistocene sea level transgressions, and it belongs to the physiographic province known as the Gulf Coastal Lowlands

(White, 1970). The scarp that defines the boundary between the Brooksville Ridge and Gulf Coastal

Lowlands is oriented northeast-southwest on CB/AB and is readily apparent on Figure 2-1. In general, the higher soil fertility and lower relief of the Gulf Coastal Lowlands is better suited to agriculture than the Brooksville Ridge, hence the historic and present-day concentration of pasture and hay fields in this northwestern portion of CB/AB.

The surfaces of both the Brooksville Ridge and the Gulf Coastal Lowlands are covered by Quarternary sands of varying thickness. On the Ridge, these sands overlie relatively erosion-resistant red clastics of

Pliocene and Miocene age, and in the lowlands they overlie more soluble limestones. The weathering differential between these underlying formations also contributes to the striking topographic contrast between the northwestern portion of CB/AB and the remainder of the property, and is also one of the primary reasons that the Brooksville Ridge (and other ridges in Florida) have remained elevated above

Pleistocene sea level transgressions for at least 2.59 million years.

Page 2-2

It should be noted that the portion of the lower Brooksville Ridge that is present on CB/AB is oriented northeast-southwest, perpendicular to the primary axis of the greater Brooksville Ridge along its entire

~100-mile length (White, 1970). This is due to CB/AB being located on a lateral extension of the ridge, as depicted by Healy (1975). It should also be noted that the highest elevation on CB/AB and the only 100-foot contour evident on Figure 2-1 is located just inside and near the center of the eastern boundary of the property, immediately adjacent to the scarp. Presumably, this knob was more resistant to historical weathering processes than other portions of the property, and/or is overlain by deeper Quarternary sands. This knob likely existed as a barrier island or shallow sand bar in the early Pliocene, when other portions of CB/AB were below sea level.

2.2 Vegetation History

Vegetation communities have been developing on CB/AB for at least 2.59 million years since this lower portion of the Brooksville Ridge has been above sea level. After the early Pliocene seas retreated from most of CB/AB, existing vegetation from higher elevations that had been above sea level for much longer provided the seed and propagule sources for newly exposed adjacent lands. Some of these vegetation communities above 215-250 feet, such as those found on the Lake Wales Ridge (LWR), had been evolving in a deep-sand, fire-prone landscape since the Miocene, 11.6 to 5.3 mya. During that time, many of the highest elevations along the LWR existed as a narrow archipelago of small islands

(Healy, 1975), a fact supported by the present-day limited distributions of some extremely rare and narrowly endemic plant species that are highly-dependent on fire to maintain openings in scrub habitats.

Middle Pliocene pollen records from Florida indicate a trend toward increasing pine, grass, rosette palms, and scrub vegetation, and a decrease in deciduous hardwoods (Graham, 1999). The increased dominance of subtropical, fire-dependent pine savanna and scrub communities in Florida correlates well with the vertebrate fossil record from the same period, which included horses, peccaries, a llama, a proboscidean (elephant relative), a small pronghorn, additional ungulates and other wildlife species that were also well-adapted for savannah-like conditions and plant communities maintained by lightning-ignited fires (Webb, 1990; Hulbert, 2001).

By the late Pliocene, when most of CB/AB was above sea level, an extensive and continuous ‘Gulf

Coastal Corridor,’ consisting of a relatively unbroken swath of semi-arid habitat, connected the southeastern and western portions of North America and portions of Central America (Noss, 2018). This temporarily enabled many western and neotropical plant and animal species to migrate eastward, resulting in many taxa with disjunct ranges that persist in Florida today. Examples of these fire-adapted species with western North America origins include many of our rare species and monotypic genera such as the Florida scrub-jay, burrowing owl, gopher tortoise, crested caracara, pocket gopher, harvester ant, grama grasses, yuccas, and wild buckwheats (Noss, 2013).

Page 2-3

This Gulf Coastal Corridor persisted for millions of years, fluctuating in size multiple times during the

Pleistocene, and reaching a maximum approximately 20,000 to 30,000 years before present (ybp) when

Florida’s land area was twice its present size (Noss, 2018). For comparison, the highest stand of

Pleistocene sea level occurred approximately 400,000 ybp when the coast line was approximately 65 feet higher than present (Scott, 1997). Though plant macrofossil records are limited, Florida’s faunal fossil record from this period is rich, and includes many large herbivores that would have undoubtedly relied upon the abundant, fire-adapted upland vegetation present at that time. These megaherbivores included bison, mammoth, mastodon, giant tortoises, horses, and antelope. Many avian species that are also adapted to fire-maintained systems are also documented in the late Pleistocene fossil record, including the scrub-jay, burrowing owl, red-cockaded woodpecker, caracara, and bobwhite quail.

The rapid period of warming at the beginning of the Holocene about 12,000 ybp triggered a rise in sea level to near its present elevation, and an enigmatic disappearance of the Pleistocene megafauna.

Florida’s climate fluctuated between warm-wet and cool-dry in the ensuing years, stabilizing at its present norm in the mid-Holocene, approximately 6,000 ybp. Florida’s extensive pollen record prior to this period had shifted back and forth from pine-dominance to oak-dominance, but consistently reflects a pine-dominated ecosystem in central Florida since at least 5,000 ybp. In strong contrast to the antiquity of Florida’s upland, fire-maintained systems (scrub, sandhill, pine flatwoods), it wasn’t until a few thousand years ago that most of our modern-day wetland systems (marshes, swamps, bayheads, and lakes) became established in peninsular Florida (Webb, 1990).

With climate stabilizing in the mid-Holocene, the distribution of Florida’s vegetation communities became primarily determined by depth of the water table and fire return intervals. Areas with shallow water tables supported wetland communities, primarily Freshwater Marshes, Wet Prairies, Cypress

Swamps, and Mixed Bottomland Hardwoods. Upland areas with deeper water tables supported scrub, sandhill, and pine flatwoods communities. A few upland areas also supported hardwood (primarily oak) hammocks due to natural fire breaks in the landscape; however, the extent of these hardwood hammocks was considerably less than at present (Noss, 2018) due to the propensity of lightning and human-ignited fires to burn freely across the landscape, reducing hardwood cover, until encountering a natural fire break.

The disruption of these natural vegetation distribution patterns and the abiotic processes that influenced them began in Florida primarily in the second half of the 19th century, and intensified in the first half of the 20th century (Noss, 2018). In 1880, Florida’s population was approximately 270,000, and the state was home to 135 sawmills and 10 naval stores plants processing tar, pitch, and turpentine from southern pines (UF-IFAS, 2019). By 1890, Florida’s naval store industry was at its peak, and many of the virgin pines dominating the upland canopy were destroyed by the often-fatal box-cutting method of bleeding the pines. The blow to Florida’s pine forest was compounded by the wholesale logging of pines that peaked in Florida in 1909, when lumber production in the state reached 1.25 billion board feet, of which less than 1% consisted of hardwoods. Combined, the naval stores and lumber industries are one

Page 2-4 of the most significant precursors of large-scale fire suppression in Florida. They succeeded in removing thousands of acres of virgin pine overstory, which also resulted in the removal of a significant source of fine fuels in the form of pine needles that facilitate both the ignition and spread of natural fire.

Intensive fire prevention campaigns launched by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the American

Forestry Association between 1928 and 1950 in the southeastern coastal plain compounded the trend toward increasing fire suppression. These campaigns included the outreach efforts of the USFS’s “Dixie

Crusaders,” a group of young foresters who travelled throughout the southeast preaching the gospel of fire prevention in a fleet of special trucks equipped with generators and motion-picture projectors (Noss

2018). The USFS was so committed to the concept of fire prevention that they even hired psychologists to produce publications and propaganda that portrayed the people who intentionally ignited fires on their lands (which included many rural southerners) as uncivilized, uneducated villains. These campaigns continued into the 1940’s with the introduction of the USFS’s new mascot Smokey Bear, whose slogan

“Remember, only YOU can prevent forest fires” was coined in 1947.

Coincident with these government-sanctioned fire-suppression campaigns was the passage of Florida’s fence law in 1949. This law made open-range grazing of cattle illegal, and brought a swift end to many of the open-range fires often ignited by Florida’s early cattlemen to promote the production of tender, nutritious forage for their livestock. This loss of open-range grazing privileges prompted many ranchers to begin an intense period of ditching and draining of wetlands, in an attempt to increase forage production on their own lands in areas that were originally inundated.

In the latter half of the 20th century, Florida’s native plant communities became increasingly fragmented, increasingly fire-suppressed, and increasingly compromised by the invasion of exotic species. These trends continue to this day, as does the outright conversion of native habitats to other purposes that have little to no ecological value. Although awareness of the benefits of natural fire and the crucial role it has played in maintaining vegetative structure and composition in Florida’s native upland plant communities for millions of years is slowly increasing, there are fewer and fewer opportunities to implement prescribed burning in Florida due to the ever-increasing fragmentation of native habitats and rural-urban interface that has come as a result of Florida’s population as it approaches 21 million in 2019.

Fortunately, approximately 30% (~11 million acres) of Florida’s total land area is currently in public ownership (FNAI, 2019a), and conservation and management for the remaining native plant communities and the wildlife they support is still possible on many of these larger tracts, including

CB/AB. Although CB/AB has endured the same historical manipulations of native plant communities described above (removal of pine overstory, fire suppression, ditching and draining of wetlands, land conversion to timber and pasture), approximately one-third of the property still retains some semblance of its natural, albeit fire-suppressed, character. A concerted effort to reduce hardwood cover in these remaining undeveloped areas to levels that will once again enable appropriate fire return intervals, Page 2-5 facilitate a return to historical vegetation conditions, and optimize wildlife habitat is recommended as the primary restoration objective for the remaining natural lands at CB/AB.

2.3 Cross Bar/Al Bar History (1940’s to present)

The 12,381 acres that currently comprise CB/AB were originally part of lands owned by the Norris Cattle

Company Ranch (Cross Bar) and the J.A. Barthle and Sons Ranch (Al Bar). In the late 1940s, the Barthles purchased much of their land from a turpentine company in anticipation of Florida’s pending 1949

Fence Law and loss of open-range grazing privileges. J.A. Barthle cut much of the remaining timber on

CB/AB to help fund the land purchase. In addition to ranching, the Norris Cattle Company also operated citrus groves on some of the higher elevations on the site.

Aerial imagery from 1941 provides us with the earliest glimpse of what CB/AB looked like at this time

(See Figures 2-2 & 2-3, 1941 Aerial Imagery of CB/AB and FSJMA). The most immediately striking differences between these 1941 aerials and present-day imagery are: 1) the conversion of approximately 2/3 of the property to pine plantation and pasture, and 2) the significant encroachment of hardwoods that has occurred since 1941. An abundance of white sand is visible in the 1941 aerial, and darker signatures indicating tree cover in the uplands is sparse, as would be expected in mature, low-density pine-dominated uplands regularly maintained by fire. In contrast, white sands on present-day aerials are only visible along some roads that are regularly disked and around the edges of some marshes and wet prairies. The open understory conditions of 1941 uplands that presumably supported a diverse groundcover community has been replaced by a dark green signature, representing oaks, primarily live oaks (Quercus virginiana) and sand live oaks (Q. geminata), that have become established in the approximately 80 years since regular burning was excluded.

In 1976, Pinellas County purchased the Cross Bar Ranch from the Norris Cattle Company for the purpose of providing for the growing demand for potable water in Pinellas County. The County leased much of this land for cattle and crop/citrus production until 1992 when the original CB/AB management plan was developed (NRPS, 1992). Pinellas County purchased the adjacent Al Bar Ranch from J.A. Barthle in 1990, also for the purpose of supplementing and protecting the regional water supply.

2.4 Wellfield History

In 1974 the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA) was formed as a cooperative to supply water to five member governments, including Pinellas County. Concerns over the WCRWSA’s ability to consistently serve Pinellas County’s water needs prompted the County’s purchase of the Cross

Bar Ranch in 1976. Wellfield production began on Cross Bar in 1980 when 17 production wells were established (Figure 2-4, TBW Production Wells) to withdraw water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer.

According to the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s (SWFWMD) WMIS website, these wells operated from 1980 to 1998 under former Water Use Permit (WUP) #204290.02.

Page 2-6

Due to issues with the structure of WCRWSA and concerns regarding its ability to equitably supply water to the member governments and their ever-increasing populations, the WCRWSA cooperative was replaced by a regional utility known as the Tampa Bay Water Regional Water Supply Authority (TBW) in

1998. In accordance with the Interlocal Agreement, TBW serves six member governments that include

Pinellas County, the City of St. Petersburg, Hillsborough County, the City of Tampa, Pasco County and

New Port Richey.

The 17 production wells on Cross Bar were transferred to TBW operation, and the land and pump houses associated with each well (total ~6.4 acres) were granted to TBW in 1999. TBW’s first

Consolidated Water Use Permit (WUP) (#20011771.000) was issued on 12/15/98, authorizing withdrawal of up to 90 million gallons per day (mgd) based on a 12-month running average, and a maximum of 455.792 mgd from multiple sources, including Cross Bar. This WUP was renewed on

1/25/2011 (#20011771.001) and is the current permit that authorizes TBW’s 11 wellfield facilities collectively known as ‘The Central System.’

Due to concerns regarding wetland impacts associated with groundwater withdrawals at Cross Bar, two

(2) WUP’s were issued to Pinellas County in 2000, authorizing groundwater withdrawal for the purpose of augmenting impacted wetlands at Cross Bar and Al Bar. Both of these WUP’s were renewed on

5/24/11 and will expire on 5/24/21. The current Cross Bar WUP (#200024649.003) authorizes an average withdrawal of 0.8 mgd and a peak of 1.5 mgd from two (2) wells designated for wetland augmentation and one (1) well designated as a transient non-community public supply. Augmentation of eight (8) wetlands and two (2) lakes are required under the Cross Bar WUP when water levels drop below a permitted threshold. The current Al Bar WUP (#20011558.007) authorizes an average withdrawal of 1.343 mgd and a peak of 2.339 mgd from seven (7) augmentation wells for the purpose of augmenting 13 wetlands. Both WUP’s require routine monitoring of surface water levels, groundwater levels, vegetation changes, and wildlife in each of the augmented wetlands (~530 acres). Annual monitoring reports are submitted to the SWFWMD. TBW’s Consolidated WUP also requires augmentation, monitoring, and reporting for additional wetlands on CB/AB, two (2) of which (Goose

Lake and Clear Lake) are jointly augmented by TBW and the County. Figures 2-5 and 2-6 provide locations of the CB/AB Augmented Wetlands.

Pinellas County constructed a fixed-weir ditch block on Cross Bar in 1998 as an additional strategy to mitigate hydrological impacts to wetlands on the wellfield. Construction of three (3) adjustable ditch blocks with removable stop boards occurred in 2001 (See Figure 2-7, PCU Ditch Blocks). Each of these ditch blocks is monitored weekly, and adjusted as needed to retain water onsite. TBW also has a ditch block system consisting of six (6) structures that are also regularly monitored by TBW and adjusted as-needed by TBW for similar purposes.

Page 2-7

2.5 Land Management History

In 1992, Pinellas County contracted with a land management team to transform CB/AB from a cattle, agricultural, and wellfield operation to include additional land uses of silviculture and wildlife management. As a result CB/AB’s first management plan “Natural Resource Production as a

Management Option on Cross Bar and Al Bar Ranches for Pinellas County” was produced (NRPS, 1992).

This plan resulted in the planting of timber on approximately 4,770 acres of former pasture on CB/AB between 1993 and 1996. Pine-straw raking operations began within the timber plantations in 2001.

Harvesting and re-planting of the timber began in 2011 and continues at present.

The NRPS management team also included a wildlife ecology component, and in 1995 “Wildlife

Management for Cross Bar and Al Bar Ranches” was prepared by Peacock & Associates (P&A) to provide guidance for wildlife enhancement opportunities (Peacock, 1995). This document identified three areas of the property that were designated as “preservation areas” that were reserved to allow for future evaluation for more specific management planning. These designated areas included: The Pasture

Preserve Area on Cross Bar, consisting of approximately 1,300 acres; the 1,678-acre Florida Scrub Jay

Management Area (FSJMA) on Al Bar; and a 10-acre tract known as the Florida Sandhill Crane Nesting

Area (Figure 2-8, 1995 Designated Preservation Areas). Timber production was to be limited in these areas; however, an actual management plan was prepared only for the FSJMA.

2.5.1 Florida Scrub-jay Management Area (FSJMA)

The approximate 1,678-acre Florida Scrub Jay Management Area boundary was established on the Al

Bar Ranch in the early 1990s in an effort to set-aside a specific area for the conservation of this federally and state threatened endemic species (Figure 2-8).

Due to the poor condition of the remaining Florida scrub-jay habitats on CB/AB, a robust restoration plan was initiated in 1999 (Pranty 2001). Because there were no scrub-jays remaining on Cross Bar, and there was little desirable habitat remaining there, restoration efforts were focused in the FSJMA on Al

Bar. Most scrub was either overgrown or had succeeded into young hammocks with oaks four (4) to six

(6) inches in diameter or larger (Pranty 1997). In early 1999 almost all large oaks were cut down by chainsaws in an area of the FSJMA larger than 400 acres. In February 2000 approximately 400 acres around this area was burned from a wildfire sparked by nearby prescribed burning. This fire removed much of the woody debris left behind after the oak removal; however, it was noted that within a few months, oaks were re-sprouting abundantly from stumps and roots, and palmettos and wiregrass were flowering (Pranty 2001). In his March 2001 report, Bill Pranty anticipated that this area would be suitable for FSJ occupancy in just a few years.

Management recommendations made since 1997 (including Pranty 1997, Pranty 2001, Paul 2005, and

Peacock 2015, 2016, & 2018), have included either not re-planting harvested pine, or the removal of

Page 2-8 select pine plantations affecting scrub-jay management areas as an effective means of adding to and restoring scrub-jay habitat. Detailed habitat assessments conducted by P&A from 2000 to 2004 separated the FSJMA into two segments, east and west, divided by a large tract of planted pine.

Prescribed burns were conducted progressively during this time period, but in 2005, the FSJ habitat assessments concluded that neither segment of potential FSJ habitat was suitable for occupancy.

Overall, the fires reduced the understory but large oaks and other trees were not top killed, failing to alter the overall habitat structure. The assessment indicated that the eastern segment was overgrown, consisting of oaks that were too tall and too dense for scrub-jay use. The inverse was true for the habitat on the western side; where oaks had been previously cut and burned there was not enough height or density to sustain FSJs (Paul et. al. 2005). In their 2005 report, Audubon of Florida (Audubon) noted a total of four (4) FSJ groups in the FSJMA but anticipated a period of five (5) years before the FSJMA would have enough usable habitat to sustain them.

2.6 Wildlife History

Surveys for wildlife, and protected species in particular, have been taking place on CB/AB since at least

1992, when the NRPS document was compiled for PCU. The results of subsequent surveys conducted by others including P&A, Audubon, and Archbold Biological Station (ABS), have been documented in various reports and publications. Most of these surveys focused on specific species and/or habitats within the site, such as the FSJMA that was specifically designated to sustain the onsite population of

Florida scrub-jays on Al Bar. P&A documented the results of annual surveys from 1993 through 2018 with their final report “Wildlife Management Summary Report for Cross Bar and Al Bar Ranches”

(Peacock, 2018) submitted to PCU in April 2018. The surveys and reporting conducted by P&A focused on the FSJMA and protected target species including: Florida scrub-jay, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus), Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), and gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus). Figure 2-9 depicts historic observations of protected species at CB/AB.

2.6.1 Central Pasco Important Bird Area

In October of 2000, Audubon of Florida designated CB/AB as part of the “Central Pasco Important Bird

Area (IBA).” An IBA designation is given when a site meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. Sites that support significant (i.e. 1% or greater) state populations of Endangered or Threatened birds.

2. Sites that support significant (i.e. 1% or greater) state populations of other birds of conservation priority.

3. Sites that support significant numbers or diversity of birds.

4. Sites that support birds characteristic of a habitat that is endemic, restricted, or threatened.

Page 2-9

Along with CB/AB the Central Pasco IBA includes nearby properties including: the Barthle Brother’s

Ranch, 4G Ranch, Connor Ranch, and the Fort King Ranch/Pruitt Ranch. Together, the six (6) properties that comprise the IBA were estimated to support 30 Florida scrub-jay groups in 2000 (Pranty 2001). In

1997 the FSJ population residing in this IBA was the second-largest population on the entire Gulf Coast and the only substantial population between Cedar Key and Sarasota (Pranty 1997). Since then more habitat within this IBA has been lost by the sale and subsequent conversion of Connor Ranch into a

15,000 home development and the continued degradation of remaining suitable FSJ habitat (Pranty

2001). These habitat losses further highlight the significance of any remaining or restorable FSJ and other important avian species habitat in the region, particularly on publicly owned lands such as CB/AB.

70 70

70 80

60 75

70 80

Pa th

(E :\M ap pin g\C ros s B ar

- A l B ar Ra nc h\M ap s\T op o.m xd ) B y:

CK

D ate

: 8 /26

/20

Figure 2-1 Topography

Cross Bar and Al Bar Ranch Pasco County, Florida

.0 3,000 Feet

Legend

Feet Above Sea Level

Pa th

(E :\M ap pin g\C ros s B ar

- A l B ar Ra nc h\M ap s\A ll A rea s 1

1 A eri al.

mx

d) By

: A A

Da te:

/26

/20

Figure 2-2 1941 Aerial Imagery

Cross Bar and Al Bar Ranch Pasco County, Florida

.0 0.5 Miles

Legend

(E :\M ap pin g\C ros s B ar

- A l B ar Ra nc h\M ap s\F

SJ

MA

Ae ria l.m xd

) B y:

AA

D ate : 8

/26 /20

Figure 2-3 1941 Aerial Imagery

Florida Scrub-Jay Management Area Cross Bar and Al Bar Ranch

Pasco County, Florida .0 2,000

Feet

Legend Florida Scrub-Jay Management Area

Pa th