Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVTION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
LAKE WALES RIDGE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Highlands and Polk Counties, Florida
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
April 2010
Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN ................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 4
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 5
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 6
North American Bird Conservation Initiative ....................................................................... 8
Partners-In-Flight Bird Conservation Plan ........................................................................... 8
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 8
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 11
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 11
Refuge Purposes and History ..................................................................................................... 12
Refuge Purposes .............................................................................................................. 12
Refuge History .................................................................................................................. 12
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 17
Floirda Natural Areas Inventory Natural Communities Ranking ........................................ 17
Ridge Sceinic Highway ..................................................................................................... 17
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 17
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 19
Recovery Plans ................................................................................................................. 19
South Florida Ecosystem Plan .......................................................................................... 19
State Wildlife Action Plan .................................................................................................. 20
Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species Management Conservation Plan ........... 20
Florida Natural Areas Inventory ........................................................................................ 21
Florida Forever Program ................................................................................................... 21
Green Horizons Land Trust ............................................................................................... 21
South Florida Water Management Distrtict General Management Plans ......................... 21
The Nature Conservancy Conservation Action Plan For Lake Wales Ridge .................... 22
State of the Scrub ............................................................................................................. 22
Heartland 2060 Initiative ................................................................................................... 22
Highlands County Comprehensive Plan ........................................................................... 23
Polk County Environmental Lands Program ..................................................................... 23
Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project ................................................................ 23
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 24
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 26
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 26
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 26
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 27
Hydrology, Water Quality, and Water Quantity ........................................................................... 29
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 31
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 33
Lake Wales Ridge Overview ............................................................................................. 33
Winter Haven Ridge Overview .......................................................................................... 37
Fire History of Florida ........................................................................................................ 38
Fire History of the Lake Wales Ridge NWR ...................................................................... 39
Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge Management Units ...................................... 41
ii Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Plants ............................................................................................................................... 76
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................ 106
Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................... 127
Socioeconomic Environment .................................................................................................... 129
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................. 134
Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................. 134
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 135
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance....................................................................... 137
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................ 139
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ................................................................... 139
Wildlife and Habitat Management ................................................................................... 140
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 141
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 141
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 141
Wilderness Review ......................................................................................................... 142
Public Review and Comment .......................................................................................... 142
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...................................................................................................... 143
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 143
Vision ...................................................................................................................................... 143
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ............................................................................................ 144
Wildlife and Habitat Management ................................................................................... 144
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 199
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 205
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 205
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 205
Wildlife and Habitat Management ................................................................................... 205
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 215
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 217
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 218
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 221
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ...................................................................................... 226
Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 226
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 226
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 227
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 229
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 229
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 229
Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 229
Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 230
Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 230
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 231
Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 231
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 231
Table of Contents iii
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 233
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................... 235
Formulation of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 235
Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 235
Alternative A - Current Management (No Action) ............................................................ 236
Alternative B - Rare, Threatened, and Endangerd Species (Proposed Action) .............. 239
Alternative C – Wildlife and Habitat DIversity .................................................................. 244
Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 247
Comparison of the Alternatives by KEY TOPIC ....................................................................... 247
Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................... 297
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 299
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 299
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 299
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 299
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 300
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 300
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 300
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 301
Soils ............................................................................................................................... 302
Water Quality and Flood Plains ....................................................................................... 302
Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................ 302
Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................................... 302
Public Health and Safety ................................................................................................. 302
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 303
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 321
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicide use ...................................... 321
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 321
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 322
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 322
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 322
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 322
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 323
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 324
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 324
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................................... 327
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 327
Core CCP Planning Team ........................................................................................................ 327
Wildlife and Habitat Management and Visitor Services Review Team ..................................... 327
Wilderness Review Team ......................................................................................................... 328
Intergovernmental Coordination Team ..................................................................................... 328
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 331
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 331
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 345
iv Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 373
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 387
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 395
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 399
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ............................... 411
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 437
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 441
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 463
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 465
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Merritt Island NWR Complex .......................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Lake Wales Ridge NWR management unit location and acquisition boundary .............. 3
Figure 3. Area conservation lands ............................................................................................... 16
Figure 4. Florida ecoregions ........................................................................................................ 18
Figure 5.1.1 Land Cover - Flamingo Villas Unit (East) ..................................................................... 42
Figure 5.1.2. Land Cover - Flamingo Villas Unit (Northwest) ............................................................ 43
Figure 5.1.3. Land Cover - Flamingo Villas Unit (Southwest) ............................................................ 44
Figure 5.2. Fire management units - Flamingo Villas unit .............................................................. 48
Figure 5.3.1. Land status - Flamingo Villas Unit (Overview) .............................................................. 49
Figure 5.3.2. Land status - Flamingo Villas Unit (Subdivision) .......................................................... 51
Figure 6.1. Land cover - Carter Creek Unit .................................................................................... 53
Figure 6.2. Fire management units - Carter Creek Unit.................................................................. 55
Figure 6.3. Land status - Carter Creek Unit .................................................................................... 57
Figure 7.1. Land cover – Lake McLeod Unit ................................................................................... 58
Figure 7.2. Fire management units – Lake McLeod Unit ................................................................ 61
Figure 7.3. Land status – Lake McLeod Unit .................................................................................. 63
Figure 8.1. Land cover – Snell Creek Unit ...................................................................................... 65
Figure 8.2. Fire management units – Snell Creek Unit ................................................................... 66
Figure 8.3. Land status – Snell Creek Unit ..................................................................................... 67
Figure 9. Pelican Island NWR Complex Organizational Chart .................................................. 138
Figure 10.1. Refuge priority acquisitions – Flamingo Villas Unit..................................................... 188
Figure 10.2. Refuge priority acquisitions – Carter Creek Unit ........................................................ 189
Figure 10.3. Refuge priority acquisitions – Lake McLeod Unit ....................................................... 190
Figure 10.4. Refuge priority acquisitions – Snell Creek Unit .......................................................... 191
Figure 11. Proposed Organizational Chart for Lake Wales Ridge NWR ..................................... 225
Figure 12. Public scoping informational flyer – front .................................................................... 391
Figure 13. Public scoping informational flyer – back ................................................................... 392
Figure 14. Lake Wales Ridge NWR mailing list request .............................................................. 393
vi Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Management status of the Lake Wales Ridge NWR acquisition boundary .......................... 14
Table 2. Acquisition history of Lake Wales Ridge NWR CY 1994 through CY 2009 .......................... 15
Table 3. Soils of Lake Wales Ridge NWR .......................................................................................... 28
Table 4. Selected USGS water quality data from three sites near the Carter Creek
and Flamingo Villas Units .................................................................................................... 29
Table 5. 2007 air quality statistics by county ...................................................................................... 32
Table 6. Rare, threatened, and endangered species of the upland habitats of the LWR ................... 34
Table 7. Area of typical scrub vegetation communities based on soil types ....................................... 38
Table 8. Summary of land use on the WHR based on 2004 FLUCCS ............................................... 38
Table 9. Fire activity on Lake Wales Ridge NWR ............................................................................... 40
Table 10. Exotic plant species present on the Flamingo Villas Unit in 2006 ...................................... 46
Table 11. Exotic plant species present on the Carter Creek Unit in 2006 .......................................... 54
Table 12. Exotic plant species present on the Lake McLeod Unit 2006 ............................................. 60
Table 13. Major habitat types of the Lake Wales Ridge NWR ............................................................ 68
Table 14. Status of rare plants known to occur or potentially occurring on the
Lake Wales Ridge NWR .................................................................................................... 77
Table 15. Rare fauna known to occur or potentially occurring on Lake Wales Ridge NWR ............. 109
Table 16. Invasive exotic plants occurring on the Lake Wales Ridge NWR ..................................... 124
Table 17. Rare plants in close proximity to exotic plants on the Lake Wales Ridge NWR ............... 126
Table 18. Nonnative fauna occurring or potentially occurring on the Lake Wales Ridge NWR ........ 127
Table 19. Projected population growth of area counties ................................................................... 131
Table 20. Populations change of nearby cities - 1990-2007 ............................................................. 132
Table 21. Total tourism spending in Florida from 1999 to 2007 ....................................................... 133
Table 22. Lake Wales Ridge Regional Visitor Service Areas ........................................................... 136
Table 23. Suite of rare plants and their federal and state listing status ............................................ 155
Table 24. Total area of inholdings of refuge management units by priority acquisition .................... 186
Table 25. Summary of projects ......................................................................................................... 222
Table 26. Step-down management plans to be developed during the 15-year life of the CCP ........ 226
Table 27. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Lake Wales Ridge NWR ............ 248
Table 28. Summary of environmental effects by alternative for Lake Wales Ridge NWR ................ 304
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is a unit of the Merritt Island National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR) Complex and is administered by and co-managed with Pelican Island and Archie Carr
National Wildlife Refuges, colloquially termed the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex
(PIC) (Figure 1). Lake Wales Ridge NWR (Figure 2) is one of the first refuges of its kind in the National
Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) to target community level conservation – specifically scrub
habitat, a unique vegetation type largely restricted to the Central Florida ridge systems occurring on the
remnants of ancient beach and sand dune systems from Ocala National Forest to southern Highlands
County, Florida. At complete acquisition, the refuge was envisioned to significantly enhance the
recovery of 13 federally listed endangered and threatened plants, to support the recovery of 13
additional plants that at the time were candidates for federal listing, and to enhance the recovery of four
federally listed threatened vertebrate animals across approximately 19,630 acres [7,944 hectares (ha)]
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). The refuge was authorized in February 1994, and acquisition
within the proposed approximate 19,630-acre acquisition boundary began in April 1994. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) currently owns 1,843.9 acres (746.2 ha) across four management units
within the 12-unit approved acquisition boundary: Flamingo Villas (1,039.1 acres/420.5 ha), Carter
Creek (627.5 acres/253.9 ha), Lake McLeod (38 acres/15.4 ha), and Snell Creek (139.3 acres/56.4 ha).
The refuge manages lands on both the Lake Wales and Winter Haven ridges of the Central Florida
highlands. The Lake Wales Ridge (LWR) is the predominant ridge of the Central Florida ridge system.
An ancient beach and sand dune system composed of xeric uplands, flatwoods, wetlands, and lakes,
the LWR averages 7.3 miles [11.7 kilometers (km)] wide and 115.7 miles (186.3 km) long (Weekley, et
al. 2008), stretching north to south through the center of the Florida peninsula. The approximately
20,900 hectares (80.7 square miles) Winter Haven Ridge (WHR) is located west of the LWR in central
Polk County, Florida, and is believed to be a remnant of previous widespread uplands (White 1970).
Based on species distribution, the Winter Haven and Lake Wales ridges are biogeographically related
(Christman 1988). The central Florida ridge ecosystem was formed approximately 2.5 million years ago
when sea levels were much higher and occurred as an archipelago setting of large islands separated
by sea from the ancient mainland. Atop these ancient islands evolved xeric habitats (most notably
scrub) and species that persist even today. Because of their longer period of evolution, these interior
“ancient” scrubs harbor numerous endemics (plants and animals found only in a particular site or
region). This ecosystem, the oldest in the southeast, has been disappearing very rapidly in recent
decades. It is estimated that about 80,000 acres of LWR scrub existed before the arrival of European
settlers. By 1990, about 85 percent of the xeric upland communities of the LWR had been lost
(Weekley et al. 2008), or converted to agricultural (mainly citrus), residential, and commercial
development. Many of the endemic plants found on the ridge face extinction.
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Lake Wales Ridge NWR was prepared to guide management actions and direction for the refuge.
Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent
recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from,
the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
2 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Merritt Island NWR Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
Figure 2. Lake Wales Ridge NWR management unit location and acquisition boundary
4 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA
describes the Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and their effects on
the environment. The Draft CCP/EA will be made available to local, state, and federal agencies; non-governmental
organizations; conservation partners; and the general public for review and comment.
Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the final CCP.
Purpose And Need For The Plan
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge’s
purposes; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife
Refuge System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues, and relevant mandates;
and is consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the CCP is needed to:
 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and
enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people
through Federal programs relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and
marine mammals, and inland sport fisheries (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 548 national wildlife refuges covering over 147
million acres (59 million hectares). These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the
world’s largest collection of lands and waters set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority
of these lands, 77 million acres (31 million ha), occur in Alaska, while 54 million acres (21.8 million
ha) are part of four marine national monuments in the Pacific Ocean. The remaining acres are
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
spread across the other 49 states and several United States territories. In addition to refuges, the
Service manages thousands of small wetlands, 37 wetland management districts, 69 national fish
hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 81 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as
the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each
refuge shall be managed to:
 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
 Allow refuge managers authority to determine compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for
American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horn antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after
over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant herds. The drought
conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges
established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection of prairie
wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes
protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the
Service had begun to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
6 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
National wildlife refuges connect visitors to their natural resource heritage and provide them with an
understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology to help them understand their role in the
environment. Wildlife-dependent recreation on refuges also generates economic benefits to local
communities. According to the report, Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local
Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, approximately 34.8 million people visited national
wildlife refuges in fiscal year 2006, generating almost $1.7 billion in total economic activity and
creating almost 27,000 private sector jobs producing about $542.8 million in employment income
(Carver and Caudill 2007). Additionally, recreational spending on refuges generated nearly $185.3
million in tax revenue at the local, county, state, and federal levels (Carver and Caudill 2007). As the
number of visitors grows, significant economic benefits are realized by local communities. In 2006,
nearly 71 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife, spending $45.7
billion and generating $122.6 billion (Leonard 2008).
In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent in 7 years. At the same
time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 per refuge, up from 87
jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15 refuges in the study were
Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois); Eufaula (Alabama); Charles
M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas); Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper
Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna Atacosa (Texas); Horicon
(Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River (Louisiana) the same
refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief that communities near
refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million
per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each federal dollar spent on the Refuge
System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related
income (Caudill and Laughland 2003).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2005,
approximately 38,000 refuge volunteers donated more than 1.4 million hours. The value of their
service was more than $25 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a
process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every
15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System
and management of the Lake Wales Ridge NWR are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation
between the Lake Wales Ridge NWR and other partners, such as the Avon Park Air Force Range
(APAFR), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), Florida Park Service (FPS), Florida Division of Forestry (FDOF),
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD), Polk County, Highlands County, the Lake Wales Ridge Ecosystem Working Group
(LWREWG), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Archbold Biological Station (ABS), and private
landowners.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates
are to:
 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management.
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans (601 FW 3). The Biological Integrity Policy is an additional directive for
refuge managers to follow while achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It
provides for the consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat
resources found on refuges and associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate
management direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound professional judgment to
determine their refuges’ contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at
multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience; knowledge of
refuge resources; role of refuge within an ecosystem; applicable laws; and best available science,
including consultation with others both inside and outside the Service.
8 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP/EA.
The Draft CCP/EA supports key national and international conservation plans and initiatives including
the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, which includes the Partners-in-Flight (PIF) Bird
Conservation Plan.
NORTH AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVATION INITIATIVE
Started in 1999, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government
agencies, private organizations, academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United
States, Canada, and Mexico working to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird
populations by fostering an integrated approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats.
The four international and national bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, PIF, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
PARTNERS-IN-FLIGHT BIRD CONSERVATION PLAN
Managed as part of the PIF Bird Conservation Plan, the peninsular Florida physiographic area
represents a scientifically based land bird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term
maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, primarily non-game land birds. Non-game
land birds have been vastly under-represented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting
significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory, and focuses on relatively common
species in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the frequent local
emphasis on rare and peripheral populations. The refuge is not specifically identified in the
peninsular Florida physiographic area database of managed lands, but other naturally managed
lands in close proximity to the refuge with similar habitats and species occurrences are including Lake
Kissimmee State Park, Highlands Hammock State Park, Lake Wales Ridge State Forest, and Avon
Park Air Force Range (PIF 2009).
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of Florida.
State agency partners of the Lake Wales Ridge NWR include the FWC, FDEP, FDOF, SFWMD, and
SWFWMD.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Management of state fish and wildlife resources is administered by FWC and FDEP for the long-term
well-being and benefit of people. FWC protects and manages more than 575 species of wildlife,
more than 200 native species of freshwater fish, and more than 500 native species of saltwater fish;
while balancing these species’ needs with the needs of more than 18 million residents (U.S. Census
Bureau 2007) and the over 85 million annual visitors (FDOT 2008) who share the land and water with
Florida’s wildlife.
The FWC responsibilities include:
 Law Enforcement �� to protect fish and wildlife, keep waterways safe for millions of boaters,
and cooperate with other law enforcement agencies providing homeland security.
 Research – to provide information for the FWC and others to make management decisions
based on the best science available involving fish and wildlife populations, habitat issues, and
the human-dimension aspects of conservation.
 Management – to manage the state’s fish and wildlife resources based on the latest scientific
data to conserve some of the most complex and delicate ecosystems in the world along with a
wide diversity of species.
 Outreach – to communicate with a variety of audiences to encourage participation and
responsible citizenship and stewardship of the state’s natural resources.
Both FWC and FDEP manage state lands and waters. FWC manages 4.3 million acres (1.7 million
ha) of public lands and 220,000 acres (89,030 ha) of private lands for recreation and conservation
purposes. FDEP manages 150 state parks covering nearly 600,000 acres (242,811 ha) and 57
coastal and aquatic managed areas, totaling over 5 million acres (2 million ha) of submerged lands
and coastal uplands.
FDOF manages over one million acres of state forests in Florida for multiple public uses including timber,
recreation, and wildlife habitat. Operating from 15 field units throughout the state, FDOF maintains a
mission to protect and manage the forest resources of Florida, ensuring that they are available for future
generations. Wildfire prevention and suppression are key components in FDOF’s efforts.
The SFWMD and SWFWMD are two of five state water management agencies. The districts are
responsible for water management, water supply, and the conservation and protection of water
resources while providing environmental, economic, and recreational benefits in all or part of 32 south
and southwest Florida counties. Together, the SFWMD and SWFWMD along with their partners
manage more than 1.05 million acres (0.43 million ha) (SFWMD 2009, SWFWMD 2010-2014) for the
purposes of protecting, supplying, and conserving the region’s water resources.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State
of Florida. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common mission
objectives where appropriate.
10 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Located in Polk and Highlands Counties in the southern and central portion of Florida, Lale Wales
Ridge NWR is one of three refuges (including Archie Carr and Pelican Island NWRs) managed as the
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which is part of the larger Merritt Island NWR
Complex (Figure 1). The Lake Wales Ridge NWR is one of the first refuges of its kind in the Refuge
System to target community level preservation. Establishment of the Lake Wales Ridge NWR
emphasized the Service’s commitment to the conservation of biological diversity, targeting “the
greatest concentration of local endemics in eastern North America” (Service 1990). At the time,
refuge establishment represented an unprecedented opportunity to protect not only a number of
federally listed plants and animals, but also one of the rarest vegetation communities in the Southeast
Region - Florida scrub - and enabled Service representation as a partner in a larger system of scrub
preserves located throughout the central Florida ridge system. At complete acquisition, the refuge
was envisioned to significantly enhance the recovery of 13 federally listed threatened and
endangered plants, to support the recovery of 13 additional plants that at the time were candidates
for federal listing, and to enhance the recovery of four federally listed threatened vertebrate animals
across approximately 19,630 acres [7,944 hectares (ha)] (Figure 2) (Service 1993).
Currently, the refuge owns 1,843.9 acres (746.2 ha) across four management units within the 12-unit
acquisition boundary: Flamingo Villas Unit (1,039.1 ac/420.5 ha), Carter Creek Unit (627.5
acres/253.9 ha), Lake McLeod Unit (38 acres/15.4 ha), and Snell Creek Unit (139.3 acres/56.4 ha)
(Figure 2) where 17 federally listed plants and 7 federally listed/candidate wildlife species are known
to occur. The refuge’s acquisition boundary was updated through the Service’s Realty Office
boundary files. Further updates through the course of preparing this Draft CCP/EA determined an
acquisition boundary of 17,353.1 acres (7,022.5 ha) for the 12 units (Table 1). The partners have
acquired approximately 7,986 acres (3,231.8 ha) of this boundary. In total, approximately 9,829.9
acres (3,978 ha) or almost 57 percent of the lands within the acquisition boundary have been
acquired by the Service and partners. The remaining lands are a mix of privately held inholdings and
developed or planned easements, rights-of way, and common areas. For fire management purposes
and to meet operational, logistical, and safety requirements, the functional fire management boundary
of the refuge is slightly larger at 2,108.8 acres (853.4 ha) due to the inclusion of private inholdings.
The four units currently managed by the Service as the Lake Wales Ridge NWR are separated by 60
miles (96.5 km) of urban, rural, and natural lands between the central Florida town of Haines City to
the outskirts of Sebring, Florida (Figure 2).
The refuge, administratively established on February 15, 1994, is relatively new to the Refuge System
and was envisioned to protect the last remnants of scrub ecosystem of a once vast expanse of the
central Florida highlands (ridge) ecosystems. The refuge manages lands within 2 of the 12 major
highlands or “ridges” of central Florida - the predominant LWR and smaller but similar WHR.
Weekley et al. (2008) define the LWR as a 808-square-mile (2,092-square-kilometer) area of xeric
uplands, flatwoods, wetlands, and lakes stretching 115.7 miles (186.3 km) from just south of Lake
Harris in Lake County, Florida, to near the Highlands/Glades County line and averages 7.3 miles
(11.7 km) in width (maximum width 11.3 miles/18.2 km) (Weekley et al. 2008). Though the name
implies a single physiographic area, the LWR actually consists of three elevated, sandy ridges that
were once the beach and dune systems of Miocene, Pliocene, and early Pleistocene seas (Christman
and Judd 1990). These relic dunes and the deep, sandy, well-drained soils support a number of plant
communities that have adapted to xeric conditions over millions of years. The approximately 80.7-
12 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
square-mile (225-square-kilometer) WHR is located west of the LWR in central Polk County, Florida,
and is believed to be a remnant of previous widespread uplands (White 1970). Based on species
distribution, the WHR and LWR are biogeographically related (Christman 1988).
Due to the elevation and geologic age of the soils of LWR scrubs, it has been estimated that the
highest hill tops in this area have supported upland vegetation for about 2.5 million years. On the
LWR, an estimated 200 ancient scrub islands have been identified (Christman and Judd 1990).
Between ridges and the base of hills, soils become fine and compacted and often retain surface
water, forming wetlands and lakes. Rainfall, seepage, and elevated water tables provide the sources
of water for these aquatic systems. Combined with the aquatic and wetland communities that now
exist between and within the ridges, this region consists of a complex mosaic of habitats, some
unique to Florida (Service 1999).
Because of its complexity, the LWR contains a wide diversity of plant and animal communities.
However, it is the xeric upland plant and animal associations that constitute the majority of surface
area. Although relatively common within the LWR, these xeric communities are rare when compared
to their relative distribution within the state and nation. Several major ecological communities found
within the LWR subregion provide important habitat for imperiled species. The most important of
those are scrub, high pine, scrubby flatwoods, lakes, and freshwater marshes (Service 1999).
It is estimated that about 80,000 acres (32,374 ha) of LWR scrub existed before the arrival of
European settlers. Today, roughly 85 percent of LWR scrub and sandhill habitats have been lost to
development and agriculture (Turner et al. 2006). The ecosystem now harbors one of the highest
concentrations of imperiled species in the United States (Turner et al. 2006), and many of the
endemic plants found nowhere else on earth but the ridge ecosystems face extinction.
REFUGE PURPOSES AND HISTORY
REFUGE PURPOSES
Recognizing the need to protect the last vestiges of the LWR, its plants, and wildlife, the Lake Wales
Ridge NWR was administratively established on February 15, 1994, with a primary purpose provided
for under the Endangered Species Act “to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered
species… or (B) plants…” (16 U.S.C. 1534, Endangered Species Act). The primary purpose applies
to the entire refuge.
A secondary purpose has also been applied to the refuge: “conservation, management, and restoration of
the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans” (16 U.S.C. 668dd (a) (2), National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act).
REFUGE HISTORY
Recognizing the uniqueness of the LWR physiographic area, TNC began purchasing ecologically
sensitive sites along the ridge in the early 1980s. By the mid-1980s, the Florida Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission (now the FWC) supported Steve Christman’s inventory of rare plants
and animals of the LWR, which further detailed the uniqueness, importance, and diversity of the
LWR. Momentum to establish a series of naturally managed lands throughout the LWR came
together in the late 1980s and early 1990s. John Fitzpatrick, Director, ABS, convened a meeting with
scientists, botanists, and biologists from numerous federal and state agencies and non-profit
organizations familiar with the LWR ecosystem, including the Service. The meeting was designed to
focus attention on the uniqueness of the ridge ecosystems, the large number of endemic plants, and
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
the alarming rate at which they were disappearing. Soon afterwards, a rapid and concerted effort of
land acquisition among federal and state agencies and non-profit organizations began. The area
conservation and land management partners formed the LWREWG in 1991, as a forum to share
information and coordinate management activities. Also in 1991, ridge sites were submitted to the
State’s Conservation and Recreation Lands acquisition program (CARL).
By November 1993, the Service developed the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Land
Protection Plan (LPP) that proposed establishment of the Lake Wales Ridge NWR. The original
acquisition boundary included over 12 separate units, encompassing approximately 19,630 acres
(7,944 ha) in Polk and Highlands Counties (Table 1 and Figure 2) to protect the remnants of this rare
ecosystem containing an unusually high number of endemic plants and animals (Service 1993). In
February 1994 the Service officially established the refuge and it became a satellite refuge under the
management authority of the Merritt Island NWR Complex due to its proximity to LWR interests and
its expertise in coastal scrub and fire management.
Concurrent with the establishment of the refuge, partner agencies and organizations also purchased
tracts within the approved refuge acquisition boundary and along the LWR, which helped fulfill many
of the land acquisition priorities originally described in the refuge’s LPP. The State of Florida through
the CARL (now called the Florida Forever Program), FWC, and FDOF started purchasing lands in this
area. Also, TNC increased its acquisition efforts on the LWR. This was later followed by Polk County
through a proactive approach to acquire environmentally sensitive lands through bond referendums.
Highlands County, SFWMD, and SWFWMD soon followed and became partners in protection of the
LWR. In a short period, there were more than a dozen entities buying lands on the LWR and WHR
for conservation.
Congress authorized funding for land acquisition by the Service in 1994. Working with the partners,
the Service developed an acquisition strategy for five units within the approved acquisition boundary
that remained unprotected: Flamingo Villas, Polk #52, Lake McLeod, Snell Creek, and Horse Creek
(see Table 1 for current management and ownership status of the refuge’s 12-Unit acquisition
boundary). Between 1994 and 1997, the Service purchased lands within the Flamingo Villas, Lake
McLeod, and Snell Creek acquisition boundaries. Working with the State of Florida and TNC, and as
a result of unexpected funding opportunities, the Service opportunistically purchased 627.5 acres
(253.9 ha) within the Carter Creek Unit acquisition boundary in 1998. Most of the Horse Creek Unit
was acquired by the State of Florida while the Polk #52 Unit is currently unprotected.
A further prioritization of the Service’s land acquisition commitments, which takes into consideration
the need to consolidate ownership and management efforts with partners of lands within the refuge’s
approved acquisition boundary, shifted land acquisition priorities from the five targeted units identified
above to the four units where Service acquisition efforts had historically taken place - Flamingo Villas,
Carter Creek, Lake McLeod, and Snell Creek. The acquisition of unprotected, private inholdings is
the Service’s highest acquisition priority. Over $3.48 million in federal funding has been used to
acquire lands from willing sellers within the refuge’s acquisition boundary, targeting the four refuge
management units for habitat protection and management benefiting rare, threatened, and
endangered species (Table 2).
14 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1. Management status of the Lake Wales Ridge NWR acquisition boundary
Unit
Name
1993 LPP
Acquisition
Boundary
(acres/
ha)
Service
Realty
Boundary
File
(acres/ha)
2009 Updated
Acquisition
Boundary*
(acres/ha)
Service
Owned
Lands
(acres/ha)
Partner
Protected
Lands
(acres/ha)
Other (i.e.
ROW
Common
Areas,
Easements)
(acres/ha)
Unprotected
Lands
(inholdings)
(acres/ha)
Carter
Creek
5,740a
2323h
5,563.4a
2,251.3h
5,506.1a
2,228.2h
627.5a
253.9h
2,376.5a
961.7h
338.1a
136.8h
2,164.0a
875.7h
Flaming
o Villas
1,600a
647h
1,429.0a
578.3h
1,436.2a
581.2h
1,039.1a
420.5h
1.0a
0.4h
151.3a
61.2h
244.8a
99.1h
Gould
Road
320a
129h
310.1a
125.5h
310.1a
125.5h 224.5a
90.9h
20.2a
8.2h
65.4a
26.5h
Holmes
Avenue
1,260a
510h
1,297.8a
525.2h
1,297.8a
525.2h 493.5a
199.7h
264.2a
106.9h
540.1a
218.6h
Lake
June
South
1,030a
417h
935.8a
378.7h
935.8a
378.7h 834.4a
337.7h
28.7a
11.6h
72.7a
29.4h
Placid
Lakes
2,560a
1,036h
2,179.3a
881.9h
2,179.3a
881.9h 1,858.9a
752.3h
26.9a
10.9h
293.5a
118.8h
Arbuckle 20a
8h
19.2a
7.8h
19.2a
7.8h 18.1a
7.3h
0.7a
0.3h
0.4a
0.2h
Flaming
Arrow
5,430a
2,197h
3,728.0a
1,508.7h
3,728.0a
1,508.7h 1,249.8a
505.8h
75.9a
30.7h
2,402.3a
972.2h
Horse
Creek
790a
320h
837.0a
338.7h
837.0a
338.7h 487.9a
197.4h
9.5a
3.8h
339.6a
137.4h
Lake
McLeod
50a
20h
62.0a
25.1h
46.8a
18.9h
38.0a
15.4h 1.0a
0.4h
7.8a
3.2h
Polk #
52
510a
206h
573.4a
232.0h
573.4a
232.0 232.8a
94.2h 340.6a
137.8h
Snell
Creek
320a
129h
484.2a
195.9h
483.4a
195.6
139.3a
56.4h
208.6a
84.4h
24.1a
9.8h
111.4a
45.1h
Total 19,630a
7,944h
17,417.6a
7,049.1h
17,353.1a
7,022.5h
1,843.9a
746.2h
7,986.0a
3,231.8h
940.6a
380.6h
6,582.6a
2,663.9h
* Acreages of the four refuge management units were updated using ArcGIS 9.3.1. The digital version of the acquisition
boundary of the four refuge management units (in bold) were updated using a created digital image representation of the
original, paper acquisition boundary from the 1993 LPP, 2007 Highlands and Polk County digital aerial imagery, the latest
Service Division of Realty refuge boundary image files (from http://www.fws.gov/data/r4gis/boundary?Meta/lkwbnd.html
2009c) and the most recent parcel data from Highlands and Polk Counties. The remaining eight units were not updated as
the refuge does not currently manage within these boundaries. Protected lands that are not the four refuge management
units were identified using updated County parcel information and Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) Conservation
Lands GIS coverage, (FNAI 2009a).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Table 2. Acquisition history of Lake Wales Ridge NWR CY 1994 through CY 2009
Date (CY)
Area* Cost
($1,000)
Cost/Area ($1,000)
Acres Hectares Acres Hectares
1994 65.3 26.4 $126.0 $1.9 $4.8
1995 311.9 126.2 $491.0 $1.6 $3.9
1996 282.8 114.4 $502.5 $1.8 $4.4
1997 27.6 11.2 $215.5 $7.8 $19.3
1998 629.1 254.6 $1,334.5 $2.1 $5.2
1999 518.2 209.7 $610.0 $1.2 $2.9
2000 5.5 2.2 $11.6 $2.1 $5.2
2001 0 0 N/A N/A N/A
2002 11.0 4.5 $22.0 $2.0 $4.7
2003 2.3 0.9 $4.5 $2.0 $5.0
2004 1.0 0.4 $5.5 $5.5 $6.0
2005 1.9 0.8 $22.5 $11.7 $28.9
2006 1.0 0.4 $12.4 $12.4 $31.0
2007 0.25 0.1 $8.0 $32.0 $79.1
2008 2.25 0.9 $72.0 $28.8 $71.2
2009 1.5 0.6 $46.0 $30.7 $75.8
TOTAL 1,861.9 753.5 $3,486.5 Average $1.9 Average $4.6
*Values based on Service's Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. GIS analysis
provided in this Plan determined 1,843.9 acres (746.2 ha) using a combination of current Polk and Highlands County parcel
data and 2007 aerial imagery. This discrepancy may be explained in part by spatial differences of parcels represented by
the Service as compared with current local parcel data. For instance, a difference of over 20 acres between the data sets
was identified for one of the larger parcels in the Flamingo Villas Unit. It is anticipated that mapping discrepancies may be
rectified through the implementation of refuge boundary updates currently being conducted by the Services Division of
Realty. However, these updates were not available for the development of this Plan. Therefore, staff utilized the most
current representation of parcel data represented by local governments and recent aerials to determine refuge acreages,
boundaries, and other spatial needs for the preparation of this Plan.
Today, the refuge is an important part of a network of conservation lands located throughout the
Central Florida ridge system, managed by a variety of land conservation partners including federal,
state, and local agencies, and non-governmental organizations among others (Figure 3).
16 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Area conservation lands
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
FLOIRDA NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY NATURAL COMMUNITIES RANKING
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI 1990) standard classification system of 81 natural
communities in Florida ranks many of the natural communities that occur on the refuge as imperiled
or rare on both a global and statewide basis, including sandhill (G3/S2), scrub (G2/S2), xeric
hammock (G3/S3), depression marsh (G4/S4), scrubby flatwoods (G3/S3), baygall/bayhead
(G4/S4), and mesic flatwoods (G4/S4). In addition, many of the rare, threatened and endangered
plants and animals that occur or are thought to occur on the refuge have elemental global and state
status as ranked by FNAI (see Table 6 for species of the upland habitats of the LWR and definitions
of rankings). As defined, a natural community is a distinct and recurring assemblage of populations
of plants, animals, fungi, and microorganisms naturally associated with each other and their
physical environment. Natural community types are hierarchically categorized by hydrology and
vegetation, landform, substrate, soil moisture condition, climate, fire, and characteristic vegetation.
FNAI uses several criteria to determine the relative rarity and threat to each community type which
are translated or summarized into a global and a state rank, the G and S ranks respectively. Most
G ranks are temporary pending comparison and coordination with other states using this
methodology to classify and rank vegetation types. One of the advantages of the FNAI
classification system is that it is flexible and dynamic, changing as additional data are accumulated
which benefit management, particularly addressing species and ecosystem response to restoration
management and as a result of climate change.
RIDGE SCEINIC HIGHWAY
In February 2005, the FDOT officially designated State Road 17 in eastern Polk County a State
Scenic Highway. Although the refuge units do not occur along the Highway 17 corridor now
considered a State Scenic Highway, historic small towns, important natural areas and valuable citrus
farms do, offering additional opportunities to promote awareness about the unique features of the
ridge to travelers. The Ridge Scenic Highway extends 38.7 miles along the LWR from its intersection
with U.S. 27 south of Frostproof to its intersection with U.S. 17/92 in Haines City. The scenic highway
corridor travels through the historic communities of Frostproof, Hillcrest, Babson Park, the Village of
Highland Park, Lake Wales, Lake of the Hills, Dundee, Lake Hamilton, and Haines City. The scenic
corridor introduces travelers to historic communities and rural agricultural central Florida, providing
access to historical sites and communities that help promote and preserve the local culture. Winding
along LWR, State Road 17 provides scenic vistas and access to lakes, natural areas, citrus
agricultural fields, and unique Florida attractions (Polk County 2009).
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
The refuge management units occur within the northernmost reaches of the Service’s South Florida
Ecosystem boundary (Figure 4), which encompasses approximately 26,000 square miles. Seventy-seven
percent of the South Florida Ecosystem is land and 23 percent is water. Including more than 10
major physiographic provinces, the ecosystem covers the Kissimmee River-Lake Okeechobee-
Everglades drainage and the Peace River drainage, separated by the Central (Lake Wales) Ridge – the
highest topographic feature of the Florida peninsula. In addition, the South Florida Ecosystem includes
over 20 areas managed by the Federal Government and the Brighton, Miccosukee, and Seminole
Indian reservations. Several of these areas have protective designations, including 16 national wildlife
refuges, Big Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne National Park, Dry Tortugas National Park,
Everglades National Park, and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Service 1998).
18 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Florida ecoregions
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
The South Florida Ecosystem represents a mixture of Caribbean-subtropical, southern temperate,
and local influences, resulting in a wide variety of habitats that support substantial ecological,
community, taxonomic, and genetic diversity, including the 8-mile-wide by 100-mile-long span of
the LWR. The LWR feature occurs in the Kissimmee River Subregion of the South Florida
Ecosystem and is characterized by the many diverse habitat types, including isolated patches of
scrub islands imbedded in pine communities occurring on well-drained, sandy soils. The
Kissimmee River Subregion extends for more than 100 miles from an area just south of Orlando to
Lake Okeechobee and includes numerous interconnected lakes and the Kissimmee River. The
drainage forms the headwaters of the Everglades and provides a critical water source for Lake
Okeechobee. The LWR rises sharply along the western edge of the Kissimmee River drainage
basin and is connected hydrologically through numerous sinkhole lakes scattered along the 100-
mile-long LWR. These surface lakes recharge the aquifer and provide an important water source
for the Kissimmee River system and Lake Okeechobee (Service 1998). The Lake Wales Ridge
NWR is a vital component of the South Florida Ecoregion, especially with regard to the
conservation of listed plants and the habitats they occupy.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
A variety of regional conservation plans and initiatives were reviewed in preparation of this Draft
CCP/EA, including recovery plans for federally listed species and the South Florida Ecosystem Plan,
as well as state and local plans, including plans and initiatives from the State of Florida, TNC, ABS,
Polk and Highlands Counties, and the Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
RECOVERY PLANS
The 1999 South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan is one of the first recovery strategies specifically
designed to meet the needs of multiple species that do not occupy similar habitats. The refuge plays
a role in the recovery of 17 federally listed plant species, including Florida ziziphus (Ziziphus celata),
Garrett’s mint (Dicerandra christmanii), and scrub lupine (Lupinus aridorum), six federally listed
animal species, including Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), sand skink (Neoseps
reynoldsi), and bluetail mole skink (Eumeces egregious lividus), and the Highlands tiger beetle
(Cicindela highlandensis), a federally listed candidate species.
The Service is required under section 4 (c) (2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,
to conduct reviews of each federally listed species. These 5-year reviews are conducted to
determine if a federally listed species should be delisted, reclassified from endangered to threatened
status or from threatened to endangered status, or status of the species should remain the same.
The purpose of the 5-year review is to ensure that listed species have the appropriate level of
protection under the Endangered Species Act. Many of the species identified in the plan have
undergone recent 5-year reviews enabling the most up-to-date information concerning status and
trends for many of the refuges listed species.
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM PLAN
The South Florida Ecosystem Plan seeks to better manage federal trust resources such as migratory
birds, threatened and endangered species, freshwater and freshwater wetlands, interjurisdictional
fisheries, mangrove forests, estuaries and estuarine wetlands, seagrasses, hardbottom, and coral
reefs. The South Florida Ecosystem encompasses the Kissimmee River basin, Lake Wales Ridge,
20 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, Peace River, Charlotte Harbor, Caloosahatchee River, Big
Cypress Basin, Florida Keys, and the upper and lower east coast of Florida. The seven goals of the
South Florida Ecosystem Plan are to:
 Protect and manage Refuge System units and other national interest lands;
 Protect migratory birds and protect, restore, and manage their habitats;
 Protect, restore, and manage candidate, threatened, and endangered species and their
habitats;
 Protect, restore, and manage wetlands and other freshwater habitats;
 Protect, manage, and restore fish and other aquatic species, and their habitats;
 Protect, restore, and enhance coastal and estuarine habitats; and
 Protect, restore, and manage for biodiversity.
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN
As a requirement for participating in the Federal State Wildlife Grants Program, each state and
territory created a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for conservation of a broad array of
fish and wildlife. Throughout the development process, the objectives were to identify species of
greatest conservation need and their habitats and to develop high-priority conservation actions to
abate problems for those species and habitats. These objectives have been developed in a prudent
effort to prevent declines before species become imperiled, thereby saving millions of tax dollars. In
addition, the matching requirement has encouraged partnerships and cooperation among
conservation partners. To meet the intent of the Service’s State Wildlife Grants Program, the FWC
created Florida’s Wildlife Legacy Initiative (Initiative).
The goal of the Initiative was to develop a strategic vision for conserving all of Florida’s wildlife.
Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (FCWCS) was completed and approved in
2005. The FCWCS emphasizes the building of partnerships with other agencies and the private
sector, uses a habitat-based conservation approach, incorporates a broad definition of wildlife (to
include invertebrates, aquatic species, and other species), and favors non-regulatory methods in its
effort to reach conservation goals and objectives, many of which provided useful guidance in
developing CCP benchmarks. The FCWCS identifies 118 state endangered, threatened, and species
of special concern. Twenty-four projects have been identified in the FCWCS specific to interior scrub
and sandhill taxa that utilize the refuge, including sand swimming reptiles and the Florida scrub-jay
(FWC 2005). The refuge manages important scrub habitat which is specifically identified as one of
eight habitats having the highest relative threat status of the 45 habitats identified.
FLORIDA’S ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES MANAGEMENT CONSERVATION
PLAN
Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species Management and Conservation Plan and annual
Progress Report provide management and conservation guidance as required under Section 5 of the
Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act of 1977 [372.072, Florida Statures (F.S.)]. The Act
requires the preparation of an initial plan, and any subsequent revisions regarding the management
and conservation of endangered and threatened species to be submitted annually. It addresses
research and management priorities and FWC’s citizen’s awareness program, and it includes a
progress report on agency actions for listed species. Many state-listed species are known to occur
on the refuge, including Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus), Florida gopher frog (Rana capito)
gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Florida scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodi), black bear (Ursus
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
americana), cutthroat grass (Panicum abscissum), scrub stylisma (Stylisma abdita), nodding pinweed
(Lechea cernua), scrub bay (Persea humilis), and Curtiss’ milkweed (Asclepias curtissii).
FLORIDA NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) is a non-profit organization dedicated to gathering,
interpreting, and disseminating information critical to the conservation of Florida's biological diversity.
FNAI is the primary source for information on Florida’s conservation lands with an interactive
inventory database that includes boundaries and statistics for more than 1,600 federal, state, local,
and private managed areas, provided directly by the managing agencies. FNAI was founded in 1981
as a member of TNC's international network of natural heritage programs. The databases and
expertise of FNAI facilitate environmentally sound planning and natural resource management to
protect the plants, animals, and communities that represent Florida's natural heritage. All refuge
management units are included in the FNAI database.
FLORIDA FOREVER PROGRAM
The Florida Forever Program, created by the Florida Legislature in 1999, follows in the footsteps of
earlier successful land acquisition programs in the State of Florida by continuing to focus land
acquisition efforts in several resource categories including natural communities, forest resources,
plants, fish and wildlife, fresh water supplies, coastal resources, geologic features, historical
resources, and outdoor recreational resources. All refuge management units lie within the
boundaries of the Board of Trustees Land Acquisition Projects. Lands have been proposed for
acquisition in the Florida Forever Program because of outstanding natural resources, opportunity for
natural resources-based recreation, or historic and archaeological resources.
GREEN HORIZONS LAND TRUST
The Green Horizons Land Trust was created to preserve environmentally valuable or sensitive lands
and open space in and around the central Florida ridge systems for the benefit of the general public,
and to educate the public as to the importance of such lands and their preservation. Green Horizons
is a local, nonprofit, 501(C)(3) Florida corporation incorporated in 1991 and governed by a Board of
Directors consisting of local individuals from such diverse fields as business, law, banking, real
estate, land planning, and conservation. Green Horizon uses a variety of creative methods to
achieve its land conservation goals and to financially benefit donors. Conservation may be
accomplished through outright purchases, bargain sales, donations, conservation easements, limited
development agreements or similar techniques as landowners may be able to take advantage of
income, estate, or property tax benefits that can help make land conservation affordable. The trust
has acquired thousands of acres, mostly in Polk, Osceola, and Citrus Counties, and placed them in
preservation for protection of habitat and for the enjoyment of the public in perpetuity. Some lands
are managed directly by Green Horizon, but many have been acquired by donation or purchase then
placed in the stewardship of cities, counties or Florida water management districts for the benefit of
the public. With the exception of properties that are inaccessible by roads, all are planned to be or
are currently open to the public for low impact recreation such as hiking, biking, canoeing, bird
watching, or environmental education (Green Horizon Land Trust 2009).
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRTICT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLANS
Lake Marion Creek/Reedy Creek Management Area Five-Year General Management Plan (2005-
2010) identifies the Snell Creek Unit within the influence of its program. The Lake Marion/Reedy
Creek Management Area is a Save Our Rivers project that lists management goals and objectives,
22 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
provides historic and current site information, and describes specific management issues and
activities relating to natural resources, public use, and project administration from 2005 through 2010.
Natural resource management of Lake Marion/Reedy Creek Management Area includes
maintenance of natural vegetative communities, wildlife management, and the protection of
threatened and endangered species. Current natural resource management activities focus on
prescribed fire, vegetation management, and forest management, including exotic plant control,
prescribed burning, and environmental restoration of these scrub sites (SFWMD 2005).
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN FOR LAKE WALES RIDGE
The Nature Conservancy plays a vital role in conservation of the central Florida ridge system. The
TNC’s Lake Wales Ridge program, utilizing standards developed by the Conservation Measures
Partnership – a partnership of 10 different biodiversity non-governmental organizations – developed a
Conservation Action Plan (CAP) and associated Conservation Project Management Workbook,
providing a straightforward and proven process for developing conservation strategies and measuring
the effects of those strategies based on biodiversity interests, threats, stakeholder input, and habitat
and species response outcomes. The interactive model identifies project scopes and targets; assesses
the viability of conservation strategies; identifies stresses and sources of stress to the ecosystem;
develops objectives, strategic actions, and action steps to take; and describes a monitoring plan to
measure success of management practices – specifically for ridge species and habitats, including
Florida scrub-jay, sand dwelling organisms, rare upland plants of concern, cutthroat grass communities,
xeric uplands matrix, and Florida ziziphus populations. Identifying the viability and success of regional
conservation projects is a key to the successful implementation of refuge management projects,
especially in this setting of scattered naturally managed areas (TNC 2009a).
STATE OF THE SCRUB
Produced by ABS, written in 2006 by Will Turner, David Wilcove, and Hillary Swain, this document
represents the most current information on conservation progress, management responsibilities, and
land acquisition priorities for imperiled species of Florida’s LWR (Turner et al. 2006). The report
collates and synthesizes data on 36 of the ecosystem’s rare and endemic species (Turner et al.
2006) and evaluates the success of land acquisition efforts in reducing threats to imperiled species
using a new quantitative approach (Turner et al. 2006). In addition, the report estimates the
effectiveness of the reserve network that is likely to result from planned and future acquisitions
(Turner et al. 2006). The State of the Scrub identifies several species on the LWR that merit special
attention from land managers, and quantification of the importance of each site to each of the rare
species is provided, thereby highlighting those sites that are likely to the survival of particular species
(Turner et al. 2006). Finally, high-priority sites are determined for future acquisition based on their
biological value and cost-effectiveness (Turner et al. 2006). Based on the known occurrence data
and as synthesized by Turner et al. (2006), the Lake Wales Ridge NWR management units contain
21 of the 36 reported species.
HEARTLAND 2060 INITIATIVE
Heartland 2060 is a collaborative, creative planning process sponsored by the Central Florida
Regional Planning Council (CFRPC) designed to craft a shared regional vision and growth strategy
for the future of the 7-county CFRPC region, which includes Highlands and Polk Counties. The
CFRPC is a planning and public policy agency which works with public and private leadership in the
central Florida region to achieve a healthy and sustainable future (CFRPC 2009). Through a
participatory process, Heartland 2060 will develop a regional blueprint to guide growth and
development over the next 50 years (CFRPC 2009). The process will establish priorities for
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
protecting and enhancing conservation areas, natural resources, recreational areas, and open
spaces and develop a host of social and economic initiatives, including guiding transportation
corridors and planning future land-use within the 7-county central Florida region. The Service and
refuge have participated in visioning sessions and regional conservation task force initiatives to
participate in and foster partnerships with Heartland 2060 regional members.
HIGHLANDS COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Highlands County is a major contributor of natural area acquisition and protection in Highlands
County, primarily through the vision and implementation of the Highlands County Comprehensive
Plan. The Highlands County Comprehensive Plan identifies acquisition of natural resources including
scrub and sandhill habitats (xeric habitats); endemic populations of threatened or endangered
species, including species of special concern; wetlands and cutthroat seeps, and un-canalized
freshwater estuaries feeding the lakes; important aquifer recharge functions; and unique scenic or
natural resources through the plan’s Natural Resources Element utilizing the Conservation Trust
Fund account. Acquisition can be in the form of fee purchase, easements, donations, and other less
than fee mechanisms) of natural resources listed above for the enhancement, required maintenance,
and/or management of publicly owned conservation-valued lands, as determined by the Highlands
County Board of County Commissioners (Board). The Conservation Trust Fund is funded through
voluntary contributions, mitigation or impact fees, matching grants, and referendum while other
sources of funding as recommended by the Highlands County Natural Resources Advisory
Commission (NRAC) are considered by the Board. NRAC was established in 1991 by the Board
whose members include 11 full-time residents of Highlands County, including environmental,
developmental, agricultural, professional, and at-large representatives, who function as an advisory
body to the Board on matters of natural resource protection, environmental clearance, and the
stewardship of conservation efforts by, in, and for Highlands County (Highlands County 2009).
POLK COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS PROGRAM
Polk County is a major contributor of natural area protection, acquiring more than 12,000 acres of
diverse lands in the county through the Polk County Environmental Lands Program (Program). The
Program accepts site nominations and then gathers pertinent information for each nomination. The
Environmental Lands Criteria are used by the County’s Technical Advisory Group and Conservation
Land Acquisition Selection Advisory Committee (CLASAC) to rank sites and recommendations for or
against acquisition of sites are forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) for
consideration and approval. Costs for acquisition are shared with partners whenever possible. Once
acquired, interim management begins and may include site security, debris removal, exotic species
removal, and creation of visitor service amenities. A final management plan for each site is finalized
and adopted by the BoCC based on evaluations of nature-based recreation opportunities and
resource inventories to ensure compatibility with the site, and through input received via public
review, CLASAC, and Polk County staff. Acquisition, management, and restoration of
environmentally sensitive lands, water resources, and important wildlife habitat in Polk County are
funded through a 1994 bond referendum utilizing ad valorem taxes (0.2 mil) administered over a 20-
year life span (Polk County 2009).
CRITICAL LANDS AND WATERS IDENTIFICATION PROJECT
The Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP) is the Florida Century Commission’s
flagship project led by Thomas Hoctor, Ph.D., of the GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida and
Jonathan Oetting of the FNAI of Florida State University. CLIP uses science and the best available
statewide spatial data to depict Florida's critical environmental resources in a database that can be
24 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
used as a decision-support tool for collaborative statewide and regional conservation and land use
planning to envision and ensure the sustainability of Florida’s green infrastructure and vital
ecosystem services (Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida 2009).
CLIP science recommendations will be vetted with rural landowners, state agencies, regional
planning councils, and other stakeholders through the Cooperative Conservation Blueprint Initiative,
led by FWC in partnership with the Century Commission and the Cooperative Conservation Blueprint
steering committee. The goal is to develop a strategic plan for land and water conservation in Florida,
using a new and broader range of conservation incentives with a shared view of the priorities.
CLIP priorities, depicting areas of opportunity for protecting biodiversity, landscapes, and water
resources across the state, identified the Lake Wales Ridge NWR management units in a class of P1
lands – its highest priority as a result of high suitability for any G1S1 species (FNAI global rank) and
multiple-less rare species. The Global (G) element rank is based on a species' worldwide status; the
State (S) rank is based on the species' status in Florida (FNAI 2009); the 1 rank denotes species
which are critically imperiled/extremely rare (five or fewer occurrences or less than 1,000 individuals)
or extremely vulnerable to extinction.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
Lake Wales Ridge NWR faces major threats and various challenges resulting from the direct and
indirect impacts of population growth and land development, including habitat loss and fragmentation,
the spread of exotic plants and feral animals, illicit use of refuge resources, and added constraints on
the ability to manage resources. Issues relating to a growing population are likely to increase in
Highlands and Polk Counties as population growth is expected to increase by 126 and 75 percent
respectively by 2060 (Zwick and Carr 2006).
Florida scrub habitat is ranked as the 15th most endangered ecosystem nationally (Noss and Peters
1995) and is identified as an “extreme risk” endangered ecosystem in the southeastern United States
(FWC 2005). To date, roughly 85 percent of LWR scrub and sandhill habitats have been lost to
development and agriculture (Turner et al. 2006). Since 1945, land-use changes on the ridge have
greatly reduced the native upland habitats of oaks and pines and the populations of plants and
animals dependent on them (Menges et al. 1998).
The xeric upland habitats of Florida’s LWR harbor many rare and endemic species (Dobson et al.
1997, Chaplin et al. 2000 in Turner et al. 2006). Turner et al. (2006) reports that the LWR harbors
one of the highest concentrations of imperiled species in the United States, including 29 species
federally classified as endangered or threatened. Public and private institutions have invested
substantial money and expertise over the past two decades to protect the remaining undeveloped
areas on the LWR, resulting in the acquisition of over 87 km2 of scrub and sandhill habitat (Turner et
al. 2006). These protected fragments are surrounded and impacted by residential neighborhoods,
citrus groves, and other anthropogenic habitats, and they are managed by a variety of state and
federal agencies and private organizations, representing additional management challenges (Turner
et al. 2006). Regionally, development of the remaining LWR natural areas severely limits the ability
of species to successfully migrate from one natural area to another – a life need central to species
persistence and success. Throughout LWR, this notion is severely challenged as a result of land
development and consequential habitat destruction. Specific to the Lake Wales Ridge NWR,
conversion from proximal agriculture lands to residential uses challenges management options,
including the ability to provide for a prescribed burning plan. Virtually all species investigated in the
2006 State of the Scrub depend upon some form of active management (most often prescribed fire)
for their long-term persistence (Turner et al. 2006).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Fire management is essential for the recovery of the suit of endangered and threatened species
found on the refuge. Increased development of lands proximal to refuge interests threatens the
ability to provide necessary fire management activities. In addition, habitat fragmentation resulting
from land development has degraded remaining undeveloped and unmanaged natural areas due to
the reduction in the frequency and extent of wildfires (Turner et al. 2006). Mimicking natural
frequencies to take the place of the loss of wildfire is therefore essential to the health and integrity of
scrub/sandhill and ridge habitats (Turner et al. 2006).
The Heartland Coast to Coast Corridor and the Heartland Parkway are major, transportation
expressway systems proposed though the central Florida region. The path of the north-south and
east-west expressways connect the central east coast of Florida (Fort Pierce) with the central west
coast (Tampa area) and the southwest coast (Ft. Myers area) to central Florida’s I-4 corridor
(Lakeland) by way of new, multi-lane roads. The refuge and other natural areas throughout central
Florida and the LWR may be directly impacted by expressway construction and indirectly impacted by
future development made possible by access to undeveloped lands provided by the expressway.
Most inholdings within the acquisition boundaries of the four refuge units are currently undeveloped.
Flamingo Villas’ inholdings are particularly susceptible to potential development with roughly 30
percent of the lots (316 lots) within the platted and approved Flamingo Villas subdivision currently
undeveloped and privately owned (Figure 5.3.2). In 2005 and 2006, Highlands County sold tax
deeds on approximately 125 lots within the Flamingo Villas Unit of the refuge. While none of the tax
sale lots have been developed at this time, the sale has increased the potential for development.
Due to underwriting requirements of title insurers, the Service has not been able to acquire any of the
tax sale lots; however, the Service may purchase lots free of the tax deed title starting in the summer
of 2010, and is in the process of preparing interest letters and purchase agreements for some of
these parcels. Development of inholdings at Flamingo Villas would reduce the ability to manage the
refuge for threatened and endangered species, specifically for prescribed fire planning and
administration, the principle management action needed to recover listed species and maintain
habitat structure and function.
Major utility and rail rights-of way exist or are proposed on or adjacent to the refuge. A railroad right-of-
way exists through the Flamingo Villas Unit and major natural gas lines are proposed along the
western border of the Carter Creek Unit. Florida Power and Light powerline easements exist on both
the Carter Creek and Flamingo Villas Units. Further, roadway rights-of-way and undeveloped
common areas exist on the eastern portion of Flamingo Villas. While all units are, or could be,
adversely impacted by the consequences of urbanization, management of Lake McLeod is
particularly challenged by the existence of residential development within its acquisition boundary and
its adjacency to the surrounding urban interface.
The proliferation and impact of invasive plants on natural communities in Florida has been well
documented (Simberloff et al. 1997). The most direct effect of invasive plants is the alteration of
natural communities, either by changes in community structure or composition (Hutchinson et al.
2003). It appears that the xeric communities of the LWR are not as susceptible to invasive plants as
the more mesic communities are that lie to the east and west of the ridge (Hutchinson et al. 2003).
However, refuge units provide a mix of habitat types, including pine flatwoods, cutthroat seeps,
bayhead swamps, hammocks, and seasonal ponds which are all highly susceptible to invasive plants
such as Old World climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum), melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia),
downy rosemyrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa), air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera), Brazilian pepper
(Schinus terebenthifolius), Indian rosewood (Dalbergia sissoo), strawberry guava (Psidium
cattleianum), para grass (Urochloa mutica), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), and other plants
(Hutchinson et al. 2003). The refuge continues to treat non-native, invasive plants, but continued
26 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
invasions are an on-going threat due to proximity to seed and spore sources. Maintenance of exotic
invasive and feral species, including the feral hog (Sus scrofa), is necessary to conserve and manage
for listed species and habitats.
Federally listed plants are provided some protection through the take and trade provisions of the
Endangered Species Act and the preservation of native Flora of Florida Act. Protection from take
(i.e., removal and reduce to possession) refers to species occurring on federal lands. Take on private
lands is prohibited only in violation of state criminal trespass laws. Thus, neither act fully protects
federally listed plants from destruction by private landowners (Service 1991). As the landscape
continues to develop, these rare plants may become even rarer.
Other threats to the remaining scrub include off-road vehicle use and trash dumping. Off-road vehicle
use may destroy the roots and underground stems of scrub vegetation and facilitate invasion of
nonnative species. Dumping of domestic garbage in scrub areas is more of a nuisance, but may
further degrade some sites (Service 1991).
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The climate for the central ridge of Florida is characterized by hot, humid summers and mild, dry
winters. Average summer temperatures range from an average high of 92oF (33.3 oC) to an average
minimum of 68°F (20oC). The highest temperature recorded at nearby Ona, Florida, was 103°F
(39.4oC) (Kalmbacher and Linda 1992). Winter maximum temperatures are likely to be in the 70soF
(21oC), while the average minimum temperature is 48°F (8.9oC). Several freezes can be expected
during the winter, with the coldest temperature recorded at ABS being 13°F (-10.6oC).
Average annual rainfall in the LWR area is between 53 [134.6 centimeters (cm)] and 54 inches
(137.2 cm). This rainfall tends to be seasonally distributed, with 60 percent occurring in the
summer in the form of thunderstorms. Fall, winter, and spring precipitation are associated with cold
fronts. These rains tend to be more widespread than the localized summer showers. The month
with the highest rainfall at Ona, Florida, is July, while the lowest average precipitation was in
November and December. Tropical cyclones also contribute to rainfall totals in some years. The
2004 hurricane season was very active, and the area between Lake Wales and Sebring received
direct hits from three named storms, which did a great deal of damage to the area and to several of
the refuge’s management units.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Refuge lands in Polk and Highlands Counties are found on the LWR and WHR ecosystems
characterized by hills and lakes. The highest elevation is over 300 feet [91.4 meters (m)], while the
lowest elevation in the region is 40 feet (12.2 m) (Soil Survey Staff 1989). Slopes range from nearly
level in the bayheads and flatwoods to 12 to 15 percent in the sandhills and sand ridges. Lakes in
the region are generally sinkholes, formed by the dissolution and collapse of underlying limestone.
The Lake McLeod Unit in Polk County is the western-most property of the refuge and is located on
the WHR (Soil Survey Staff 1989). This area also has sinkhole lakes and rolling hills. The refuge
property itself drops in elevation from east to west, eventually reaching Lake McLeod. Slopes on this
unit are 0 to 5 percent. The Snell Creek Unit lies in Polk County as well and portions of it lie on the
LWR. The two other refuge management units, Flamingo Villas and Carter Creek, are located along
the southern portion of the LWR in Highlands County, which is underlain by the Avon Park Limestone
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
formation from the Middle Eocene era. This is overlain by the Late Eocene Ocala Limestone
formation and the Hawthorn Group from the Miocene period. This layer contains phosphate and is
mined in many areas of central Florida. In the ridge section of the county, the Cypresshead
Formation overlies the Hawthorne Group. It consists of sand, clay, and gravel that are generally red
to orange in color. The top of this group is commonly exposed in clay pits along the ridge. Over most
of the county, Pleistocene and Holocene sand and peat are found at the surface. These vary in
thickness from 1 to 100 feet (30.5 m).
SOILS
The soils on the refuge can be grouped into uplands, flatwoods, and hydric classifications (Table 3).
Upland soils are typically entisols, which are soils with very little profile development. These soils,
which support sandhill and scrub vegetation, are well-drained to excessively well-drained. Usually,
the watertable is 4 to 6 feet below the surface. These soils are very rarely flooded. Scrubby
flatwoods are a type of scrub found on less xeric soils than sandhill or other types of scrub, but have
drier soils than flatwoods soils.
Flatwoods soils are generally spodosols. These soils have a well-defined internal profile with a
spodic horizon (a zone of accumulated organic matter, clay, and aluminum - a hardpan). The
watertable is within a foot of the surface during the rainy season, and can be as deep as 40 inches
(101.6 cm) during dry periods. Since the spodic horizon is relatively impermeable, perched
watertables can occur. The native vegetation is slash and longleaf pine with gallberry, palmetto, and
Lyonia spp. in the understory. The soils of the Basinger, St. Johns Placid soil complex are often
associated with cutthroat seeps.
Hydric soils are found around lake edges, in bayheads, and in the depression marshes. Most of
these soils have either a mollic epipedon (Mollisols) or are organic soils (Histosols). These soils
remain flooded for most of the year. Native vegetation varies. In the bayheads, one can find bay
trees, maples, and other hydric trees, while in the depression marshes the primary vegetation is
grasses and forbs.
Menges et al. (2007) determined soil preferences for federally listed plants on the LWR species by
overlaying Global Positioning System (GPS) points on soil polygons in nine major protected areas on
the LWR in Highlands County. This effort identified 1,173 GPS points representing 2,577
occurrences of 18 species of vascular plants and one terrestrial lichen (Menges et al. 2007). Menges
et al. (2007) identified a continuous variation among species in degree and type of specialization for
soil groups. Six species were specialized for xeric yellow sands, two species were specialists for
xeric white sands, and one species specialized in xeric scrubby flatwoods (Menges et al. 2007). Ten
species were soil generalists (Menges et al. 2007). Xeric white sands (especially St. Lucie)
supported the greatest number of occurrences of these listed species, but xeric yellow sands and
satellite soils (supporting xeric scrubby flatwoods) were also important (Menges et al. 2007). Other
scrubby flatwoods soils, flatwoods soils, and depressional soils were not important for these plants
(Menges et al. 2007). Among the Highlands County locations surveyed, soil specialists (as compared
to soil generalists) were less likely to be post-fire resprouters and had fewer occurrences, but had
higher population sizes (Menges et al. 2007). Many locations of suitable soils are unoccupied by
these species, most likely because of fire suppression and dispersal limitations (Menges et al. 2007).
28 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Soils of Lake Wales Ridge NWR
Soil Series Order Vegetation
Types
Flamingo
Villas
Carter
Creek
Lake
McLeod
Snell
Creek
Adamsville Fine
Sand Entisol Scrub land X
Anclote Muck Mollisol Lake shore X
Astatula Sand Entisol Sandhills &
scrub land X X
Basinger Fine
Sand
(Depressional)
Entisol Depression
marsh
X X
Basinger, St
Johns Placid Soils
Entisol &
Spodosols
Bayheads,
flatwoods X
Brighton Muck Histosol Bayheads X
Duette Fine Sand Spodosol Scrub land X
Immokalee Sand Spodosol Flatwoods X X X
Placid Fine Sand
(Depressional) Inceptisol Flatwoods X X
Pomello Sand Spodosol
Flatwoods &
scrubby
flatwoods
X X
Samsula Muck Histosol Bayheads X X X
St. Lucie Fine
Sand Entisol Scrub land X
Tavares Fine Sand Entisol Sandhills X X
Tavares,
Basinger, Sanibel
Complex
Entisol Sandhills X
(United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey 2009)
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
HYDROLOGY, WATER QUALITY, AND WATER QUANTITY
Surface Water Hydrology
All of the four units that make up Lake Wales Ridge NWR are within the Kissimmee River basin.
While there are several streams and creeks that are near refuge lands, no significant water
courses traverse refuge property. However, during wet periods, water from bayheads and
seasonally flooded areas can flow into to these nearby waterways. Runoff from the Snell Creek
Unit courses to Snell Creek itself. Water from the Lake McLeod Unit flows through the bayhead
at the west end and then into Lake McLeod. Arbuckle Creek accepts outflow from the Carter
Creek Unit which empties into Lake Istokpoga. Urbanization has altered the sheet flow from the
northern part of the Flamingo Villas Unit, but it is likely that it still goes into Arbuckle Creek. The
part of the Flamingo Villas Unit south of the railroad easement flows into Red Beach Lake and
Yellow Bluff Creek to Lake Istokpoga. As is the case with the entire Kissimmee River Basin,
water coming off the refuge ends up in Lake Okeechobee.
The LWR has numerous lakes, many of which are the result of sinkhole formation (Carter et. al.
1989). Only two of these are associated with refuge property. The Lake McLeod Unit is located on
the eastern side of Lake McLeod, and Red Beach Lake is adjacent to the Flamingo Villas Unit.
An important surface water feature in the Carter Creek and Flamingo Villas Units is depression marshes.
Both of these units have numerous low areas which are seasonally flooded. While overland flow can
occur between these ponds during very wet times, these areas are usually isolated from one another. In
the past few years, extended drought conditions have caused many of these to dry up.
Surface Water Quality
Much of the area surrounding refuge lands is either urbanized or in agriculture. This would raise
the possibility of contamination of the water from both point and non-point sources. While there
has been no sampling of water quality on the refuge itself, there has been monitoring done in
some of the nearby water bodies. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report on water quality in
Florida (Kane and Dickman 2005) shows data from three sites near the Cater Creek and
Flamingo Villas Units of the refuge (Table 4).
Table 4. Selected USGS water quality data from three sites near the Carter Creek and
Flamingo Villas Units
Site
Location
Ammonia
mg/L
Nitrite &
Nitrate
mg/L
Total N
mg/L
Ortho
Phosphate
mg/L
Total P
mg/l
Carter Creek .02-.04 .20-.77 .87-.95 <.02 .02-.05
Josephine Creek near
De Soto City .03-.18 .07-.47 .81-1.30 .01-.03 .04-.06
Livingston Creek near
Lake Arbuckle .10-.06 .13-.41 1.33-1.66 .01-.04 .11-.14
30 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Water quality information is also available for Red Beach Lake near the Flamingo Villas Unit. Lakewatch
data from the Highlands County Soil and Water Conservation District (1999) report that phosphorus levels
are low averaging 15 parts per billion (ppb). Nitrogen is also low averaging 754 ppb. Water clarity is good
due to the low levels of nutrients. Secchi depths in the lake average 3.8 feet (1.2 m).
Ground Water Resources
The ground water resources for the refuge include a sequence of aquifers and confining units. The
uppermost of these is the surficial aquifer system. This system is unconfined. Most of the water
contained in this aquifer comes from precipitation although there is some leakage from underlying
aquifer in places (Bishop 1956). Most of the water in the surficial aquifer flows downward to recharge
the Upper Floridan aquifer. However some flows laterally and is directed by the topography.
The thickness of this aquifer varies with the base of the system being defined by the first persistent beds
of Miocene or Pliocene age sediments that contain a substantial amount of clay and silt (Spechler and
Kroening 2007). The upper limit of the surficial aquifer varies from one physiographic region to another.
In low poorly drained areas, such as the bayheads on the refuge, the top of the water table is at or near
the surface for much of the year. On the other hand, in some of the higher sand hills and scrub areas of
the refuge the water table may be as much as 100 feet (30.5 m) below the surface.
An intermediate aquifer can occasionally be found between the surficial aquifer and the upper Floridan
aquifer. This aquifer is present in much of the northern and eastern parts of Polk County (Spechler and
Kroening 2007). This would include the Snell Creek Unit and possibly The Lake McLeod Unit. This
system may not be present in the vicinity of the Carter Creek and Flamingo Villas Units.
The Floridan aquifer is the principle ground water source for both Polk and Highlands Counties. It
can be divided into two sub systems—the upper Floridan and lower Floridan aquifers. In between
these two is a less permeable area. The upper Floridan aquifer is the primary source of drinking
water in many places including Polk and Highlands Counties. The lower Floridan aquifer is more
mineralized and is rarely used as a water source.
Ground Water Quality
The surficial aquifer system is primarily insoluble quartz sand the water generally has low mineral
content and hardness. However, when considering other water quality factors, one must remember
that the surfical aquifer is open to the surface and contaminants can easily enter the system. Even if
no contaminants entered through the refuge’s soils, the lateral movement of the aquifer could bring
material in. Iron is one element that is most assuredly present. Other chemicals that could be
present would include chlorides, sulfur, and nitrates. These all would occur in some amount even if
there were no urbanization or agriculture in the area. The presence of human activity would increase
the chances of these appearing in higher concentrations. Human activity also increases the risk of
pesticide contamination. Since there has been little sampling activity on refuge lands, a definite
answer to what is really there cannot be answered.
The upper Floridan aquifer is primarily freshwater (Spechler and Kroening 2007). The water here is
hard due to the presence of calcium and magnesium. There are some nitrates in the upper Floridan
aquifer. These enter the system through breaches in the intermediate confining layer caused by
sinkholes and other gaps in the confining unit. Sampling from wells has also detected small amounts
of chlorides and sulfur. There are few wells that reach into the lower Floridan aquifer. Since wells
are the primary source of sampling data, there is little known of the actual chemical makeup other
than that it is heavily mineralized.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
AIR QUALITY
The Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended in 1990 and 1997), required the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to implement air quality standards to protect public health and welfare. National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established based on protecting health (primary standards) and
preventing environmental and property damage (secondary) for six pollutants commonly found throughout
the United States: lead, ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5).
Criteria air pollutants in Florida include carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone O3,
particulate pollution (2.5 and 10 ug/m3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) (FDEP 2006). These pollutants are
monitored by a network of monitoring stations throughout Florida and analyzed in order to better
understand general air quality trends and to locate exceedances. Primary sources of pollutants in
Florida are vehicle emissions, power plants, and industrial activities. In 2006, there were 216 ambient
monitors in the statewide air monitoring network and the EPA designated Florida an attainment area
for all criteria pollutants, based on data collected in the previous three years (FDEP 2006).
The Florida Division of Air Resource Management operates National Ambient Monitoring Stations
(NAMS) and State and Local Ambient Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) to measure ambient
concentrations of these pollutants. In 2005, ambient air quality data were collected by 220 monitors
(in 34 counties) strategically placed throughout the state (FDEP 2006). Areas that meet the NAAQS
standards are designated “attainment areas,” while areas not meeting the standards are termed “non-attainment”
areas. While no pollutant monitoring data are being collected on the Lake Wales Ridge
NWR per se, air quality is monitored on a regular basis by six monitors in Polk (5) and Highlands (1)
Counties. The Highlands County monitoring station is located at ABS. Table 5 provides air quality
data collected for Polk, Highlands, nearby counties, and national level standards. Florida's 2006
monitoring results indicate that both Polk and Highlands Counties qualify as an attainment area for all
monitored pollutants (FDEP 2006).
32 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Table 5. Air quality statistics by county, 2007
County 2000
Population
CO
8-hr
(ppm)
Pb
Qmax
(μg/m3)
NO2
AM
(ppm)
O3
1-hr
(ppm)
O3
8-hr
(ppm)
PM10
Wtd AM
(μg/m3)
PM10
24-hr
(μg/m3)
PM2.5
Wtd AM
(μg/m3)
PM2.5
24-hr
(μg/m3)
SO2
AM
(ppm)
SO2
24-hr
(ppm)
Home Counties of the Refuge
Polk County 483,924 ND ND ND ND 0.077 66 9.3 19 ND ND ND
Highlands County 87,366 ND ND ND 0.079 0.071 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Nearby Counties
Osceola County 172,493 ND ND ND ND 0.073 ND ND ND ND ND ND
Hillsborough
County 998,948 2 1.65 0.007 ND 0.083 ND 86 10.1 27 0.004 0.031
Lake County 210,528 ND ND ND ND O.O78 ND ND ND ND ND ND
United States
National Ambient
Air Quality
Standards
9 1.5 0.053 0.125 0.085 50 150 15 65 0.03 0.14
CO - Highest second maximum non-overlapping 8-hour concentration (applicable NAAQS is 9 ppm)
Pb - Highest quarterly maximum concentration (applicable NAAQS is 1.5 μg/m3)
NO2 - Highest arithmetic mean concentration (applicable NAAQS is 0.053 ppm)
O3 (1-hour) - Highest second daily maximum 1-hour concentration (applicable NAAQS is 0.125 ppm)
O3 (8-hour) - Highest fourth daily maximum 8-hour concentration (applicable NAAQS is 0.085 ppm)
PM10 - Highest weighted annual mean concentration (applicable NAAQS is 50 μg/m3)
- Highest second maximum 24-hour concentration (applicable NAAQS is 150 μg/m3)
PM2.5 - Highest weighted annual mean concentration (applicable NAAQS is 15 μg/m3)
- Highest 98th percentile 24-hour concentration (applicable NAAQS is 65 μg/m3)
SO2 - Highest annual mean concentration (applicable NAAQS is 0.03 ppm)
- Highest second maximum 24-hour concentration (applicable NAAQS is 0.14 ppm)
ND - Indicates data not available IN – indicates insufficient data to calculate summary statistic
AM - Annual mean
μg/m3 - units are micrograms per cubic meter
Qmax - Quarterly maximum
Ppm - units are parts per million
Notes: Data from exceptional events are not included. The monitoring data represent the quality of air in the vicinity of the monitoring site and, for some pollutants,
may not necessarily represent urban-wide or parish/county-wide air quality.
Source: U.S. EPA 2009
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a summary index developed by EPA for reporting daily air quality. It
indicates how clean or polluted the air is, and what associated health effects might be of concern.
The AQI focuses on health effects that may be experienced within a few hours or days after breathing
polluted air. EPA calculates the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act:
ground-level ozone, particle pollution (also known as particulate matter), carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. Lead is also considered a major air pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
However, because all areas of the United States are currently attaining the NAAQS for lead, the AQI
does not specifically address lead. For each of these pollutants, EPA has established national air
quality standards to protect public health (AIRNow 2009).
Highlands County AQI is derived from ozone concentrations recorded at one stations. From 2002
through 2006, ozone AQI was in the “good” range (0-50 AQI) from 326 (2004) to 355 (2002) days. The
county experienced a low of 3 days in the moderate (51-100 AQI) range in 2002 to a high of 19 days in
2006. Data suggest increasing trends of moderate days in Highlands County with no days in the
reporting period reported as “unhealthy.” Polk County AQI over the same reporting period is based on
Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 inputs over five reporting stations. Polk County AQI is in the “good” range a
minimum of 326 days (2006 levels) from which 38 days are reported in the moderate range during the
same year (2006). Polk County AQI trends indicate an apparent decreasing air quality based on
increasing moderate days and decreasing good days over the reporting period (FDEP 2006).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Lake Wales Ridge NWR is located along prehistoric ridges between Orlando and Lake
Okeechobee. Ancient scrubs are largely restricted to three interior ridges: Lake Wales, Winter
Haven, and Lake Henry. The LWR is by far the largest and longest of the three. The ridges were
formed as the slender southern tip of a much smaller Florida peninsula. McCartan (1992) dates the
beach and dune complex of the LWR at 2.5 million years old. Over this period there have been
several warm wet periods and cool dry periods where the vegetation communities underwent some
change. Nonetheless, Florida scrub has been present for tens of thousands of years with flora and
fauna possibly going back millions of years. Scrub habitats on the Lake Wales and other central
Florida ridges are ancient compared with vegetation elsewhere in eastern North America. The ebb
and flow of scrub, resulting from the changing climate, may have created the opportunity for
speciation in isolated patches of scrub, resulting in the patterns of endemism seen today, particularly
among short-lived plants and those related to disturbance (Menges et. al 2006).
LAKE WALES RIDGE OVERVIEW
The LWR supports a wide diversity of species including at least 30 federally listed species and one
candidate species, some of which are found nowhere else on earth. Table 6 lists endangered,
threatened, and rare species of the upland habitats of the LWR (Swain et al. 2000, Turner et al. 2006,
supplemented with species occurrence information specific to the Lake Wales Ridge NWR from staff,
researchers, and volunteers).
34 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Table 6. Rare, threatened, and endangered species of the upland habitats of the LWR
Scientific Name Common Name
Legal Status FNAI
Federal State Designation
Plants
Asclepias curtissii Curtiss’ milkweed N E G3/S3
Bonamia grandiflora Florida bonamia T E G3/S3
Calamintha ashei Ashe’s savory N T G3/S3
Chionanthus pygmaeus Pygmy fringe-tree E E G3/S3
Cladonia perforata Florida perforate cladonia E E G1/G1
Clitoria fragrans Scrub pigeon-wing T E G3/G3
Conrandina brevifolia Short-leaved rosemary E E G1/S1
Crotalaria avonensis Avon park harebells E E G1/S1
Dicerandra christmanii Garrett’s mint E E G1/S1
Dicerandra frutescens Scrub mint E E G4T/S3
Eriogonum longifolium var.
gnaphalifolium Scrub buckwheat T E G1/S1
Eryngium cuneifolium Wedge-leaved button
snakeroot E E G1/S1
Gymnopogon chapman
ianus Chapman’s skeletongrass N N G3/S3
Hypericum cumulicola Highlands scrub hypericum E E G2/S2
Hypericum edsonianum Edison’s St. John’s-wort N E G2/S2
Ilex opaca var. arenicola Scrub holly N N G5T3/S3
Illicium parviflorum Yellow star anise N E G2/S2
Lechea cernua Nodding pinweed N T G3/S3
Lechea divaricata Pine pinweed N E G2/S2
Liatris ohlingerae Scrub blazing star E E G2T1/S1
Lupinus aridorum Scrub lupine E E G2/S2
Nolina brittoniana Britton’s beargrass E E G2/S2
Panicum abscissum Cutthroat grass N E G3/S3
Paronychia chartacea ssp.
chartacea Papery whitlow-wort T E G3/S3
Persea humilis Scrub bay N N G3/S3
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Scientific Name Common Name
Legal Status FNAI
Federal State Designation
Polygala lewtonii Lewton’s polygala E E G3/S3
Polygonella basiramia Wireweed E E G3/S3
Polygonella myriophylla Sandlace E E G3/S3
Prunus geniculata Scrub plum E E S2/S3
Salix floridana Scrub willow N E G2/S2
Schizachyrium niveum Scrub bluestem N E G1/S1
Stylisma abdita Scrub stylisma N E S2/S3
Warea amplexifolia Clasping warea E E G1/S1
Warea carteri Carter’s warea E E G1/S1/S2
Ziziphus celata Florida ziziphus E E G1/S1
Amphibians and Reptiles
Rana capito Gopher frog N SSC G3/S3
Eumeces egregious lividus Bluetail mole skink T T G4T2/S2
Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise N SSC G3/S3
Neoseps reynoldsi Sand skink T T G2/S2
Pituophis melanoleucas
mugitus Florida pine snake N SSC G5T3/S3
Sceloporus woodi Scrub lizard N N G3/S3
Stilosoma extenuatum Short-tailed snake N T G3/S3
Invertebrates
Cicindela highlandensis Highlands tiger beetle C N G2/S2
Birds
Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub-jay T T S3
Falco spaverius paulus Southeastern American
kestrel N T G5T3T4/S3
Grus Canadensis pratensis Florida sandhill crane N T G5T2T3/S2S3
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle N T G4/S3
Mycteria americana Wood stork E E G4/S2
Polyborus plancus
audubonii Crested caracara T T G5/S2
Ammodramus savannarum
floridanus Grasshopper sparrow E E G5T1/S1
36 Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Scientific Name Common Name
Legal Status FNAI
Federal State Designation
Grus canadensis pratensis Sandhill crane N T G5T2T3/S2S3
Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon N E N
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E T G3/S2
Mammals
Podomys floridanus Florida mouse N SSC G3/S3
Sciurus niger shermani Sherman’s fox squirrel N SSC G5T2/S2
Ursus americanus floridanus Florida black bear N SSC G5T2/S2
Puma concolor coryi Florida panther E E G5T1/S1
Eumops floridanus Florida bonneted bat C E G1/S1
Key:
Federal and State Listings: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate for Listing, N = Not Listed, SSC = Species of
Special Concern
FNAI -Status Rank: The Global (G) element rank is based on a species' worldwide status; the State (S) rank is based on
the species' status in Florida; N = not ranked.
1: Critically imperiled. Extremely rare (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 individuals) or extremely vulnerable to
extinction.
2: Imperiled. Very rare (6 to 20 occurrences or less than 3000 individuals) or vulnerable to extinction.
3: Either very rare or local throughout its range (21-100 occurrences or less than 10,000 individuals) or found locally in a
restricted range or vulnerable to extinction.
4: Apparently secure globally (may be rare in part of its range).
5: Demonstrable secure globally.
T: Rank of a taxonomic subgroup; the G portion of the rank refers to the entire species and the T portion refers to the
specific subgroup.
According to Weekley et al. (2008), the LWR includes 209,345 ha (808.1 square miles) of xeric
uplands, flatwoods, wetlands, and lakes stretching 186.3 km (115.7 miles) from just south of Lake
Harris in Lake County, Florida, to near the Highlands/Glades County line and averages 11.7 km
(7.3 miles) in width. The LWR was never blanketed by scrub vegetation, but rather has “over 200
isolated, recognizable scrub islands imbedded in high pine, turkey oak, flatwood, and bayhead
habitats” (Christman 1988). Few ex